Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Sheriff: Guthrie Family, Siblings & Spouses, Cleared As Suspects; DOJ Letter To Congress Lists Hundreds Of Prominent People Named In Epstein Files; Axios: Hegseth Close To Cutting Business Ties With Anthropic. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 16, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: 09:00 p.m. here in New York for this extended edition of 360, and we are continuing to follow the breaking news in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. The major one, and it is a first in this case, coming today from the Pima County Sheriff, a statement.
To be clear, he says, the Guthrie family - to include all siblings and spouses - has been cleared as possible suspects in this case. The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel. The Guthrie family, he adds, are victims plain and simple.
Now, the Sheriff, you will recall, said at the outset that everyone was a suspect. Not anymore, which is notable.
So is what a source today told CNN that investigators have still not identified a leading motive for the crime. What they have done, though, is determined that a glove found near the home appears to match one that he is wearing in this video here. That is what the FBI tells us. DNA from it is being analyzed as we speak.
And in a new video, last night, daughter Savannah appealed one more time for her mother's return.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NANCY GUTHRIE'S DAUGHTER: I wanted to come on, and it's been two weeks since our mom was taken, and I just wanted to come on and say that we still have hope, and we still believe. And I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is, that it's never too late, and you're not lost or alone, and it is never too late to do the right thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: CNN's Ed Lavandera is in Tucson tonight.
Ed, so what did prompt the Sheriff to go publicly with this and clear the Guthrie family today? ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, for several weeks -- it's been 16 days since Nancy Guthrie was abducted from her home here in Tucson. And from the onset, if you remember -- excuse me -- investigators said it was a family member that dropped her off at the home here, on that Saturday night before she was abducted. And ever since then, the family members, several family members, have been the subject of just online attacks and accusations, essentially.
And there's not been enough time that's gone by, where investigators must feel some level of confidence in being able to say that they are cleared. Because up until now, investigators have been very clear in saying that, No one has been cleared. everybody is a suspect, because we just don't know who the man is in that video. So because of that, they haven't been able to do that, to clear anybody.
So, it is significant that at this stage in the investigation that the Sheriff comes out and says that. But I think a lot of it has to do with just the amount of online accusations that, and social media accusations that, several family members have endured for 16 days now.
BERMAN: Yes, wanted to draw a line basically just saying, Enough.
Ed Lavandera, terrific reporting from Tucson. We'll let you get a drink of water. Thank you very much.
We're joined now by our law enforcement panel.
Former NYPD detective, David Sarni.
CNN Law Enforcement Analyst, Jonathan Wackrow.
And CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst, John Miller.
John, to the point that Ed was making there, clearing the Guthrie family, wanting to make clear to any online sleuths that they're not suspects anymore. The law enforcement had been operating under the umbrella that, Everyone is still a suspect, we're not clearing anything. So what does that change?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, FORMER NYPD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INTELLIGENCE & COUNTERTERRORISM, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What it changes? And I mean, everyone is a suspect is a good footing to start off on, because when you don't have a suspect, you have to have that open mind.
But I also think you also have to have that close working relationship with the family. They're always going to have the answers to questions you're going to need to know. And you get two weeks into this, and people are still speculating about it.
For the Sheriff to come out and take that affirmative step and say, They have all been cleared, is going to lower any of those tension levels. And frankly, it's just the right thing to do.
[21:05:00] BERMAN: Yes, it's just a human thing to do with the family you've been working very closely with and is going through an awful lot.
Jonathan Wackrow, this glove that they're testing for DNA. As far as we know right now, still testing. We haven't seen the results. Not sure if we will get the results when they're all finished.
But it does beg the question, you know, someone tossing a glove after they kidnap someone, a mile and a half, two miles from the crime scene. Why would they do that? Do investigators think along these lines, why won't that person burn it, throw it in a dumpster somewhere 10 miles away?
JONATHAN WACKROW, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes. I mean, I think that we have to look at the glove right now is that it's not evidence. It's not really evidence until we have some sort of DNA link to the crime.
And again, we want to -- we just don't know where this glove was found, why do they think that this glove, this particular one, is the one that is linked to the crime. So, until we get that DNA evidence that either points to making direct attribution or starts leading us to a person of interest, it is just a glove, not evidence yet.
But if we do come back with DNA evidence, and it is, you know, it gives us the investigative leads? This could be the breakthrough that we are looking for. Why? Because we could make direct attribution, but it also could really align proximity of movement. As you said, about a mile and a half away, why were they at that moment, at that time, what were they doing? Was Ms. Guthrie there with them? So, again, proximity to movement pathways. Very key aspect for investigators at this point.
BERMAN: You have to run it down, you have to check it because it just could be so useful.
David, they're comparing it. They put it into the CODIS system, this DNA system. And one of the things it does is it compares to, if they've ever had anyone in custody, in any files, anywhere, that has committed a crime, that's a DNA match.
In your experience, if this person went in there and kidnapped Nancy Guthrie, for ransom or for otherwise, how likely would it be that it is the person's first crime, that there actually would be some record of that person on file?
DAVID SARNI, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE: Well, that's the issue you're having right now, especially with DNA.
And when you talk about DNA being in the CODIS systems. People have been arrested. People have been convicted. So, it's in there. Is this person who has ever been arrested in the United States, has their DNA would be on file? That would be an issue.
Now, here's the other thing about DNA. That substrate, or that sample that's there, will it consist of a fully of a -- instead of a mixed result, is it going to be a match? Because you have to deal with -- if you don't have -- at the crime scene. That glove's a mile and a half away. Does that match to the crime scene? In other words, they have DNA, apparently, from the location. Does the DNA they have there, match that glove? Then you have a better lead.
What happens, what we're concerned about is you get a person, a suspect, based on that glove. The pitchforks and the torches come out, saying, That's the guy. We don't have anything to say, That's the guy. Because we have -- we have notes. We don't know who that is. We have a crime scene where we don't know where the DNA is coming from, or where it was located. We don't know what was missing from the location, or what was left at that location, other than DNA.
So, when you talk about all those things, they have to link up. We don't make them link up. It has to be based on the evidence and availability of that evidence to then say, We have A, B and C that links the person from that glove at the video to the crime.
BERMAN: Speaking of links, John Miller. You got this backpack that presumably is on sale at Walmart. You also have a ski mask, which you pointed out during a break, How common are ski masks in Arizona? It is something -- you know, maybe it's unusual to buy something like that in Arizona. You also have the windbreaker there.
What do you do with that? How do you cross reference those on each other to try to get some kind of lead?
MILLER: Well, you look for anyone who bought, anyone -- any of those items. But you start with the easy -- the easy out, which is, Do you and your sales records have anybody buying all three of these items, all three of which happen to be available at Walmart. One's an exclusive. One is not -- one is not exclusive, but sold there. And the ski masks are fairly generic.
But if you have someone within any radius of Tucson, Arizona, prior to this kidnapping, going into a Walmart or another store and buying all three of these items? That's also not evidence, but it's a great lead to start on.
BERMAN: Jonathan Wackrow--
MILLER: And just to get back to your earlier question.
BERMAN: Yes.
MILLER: And if you commit a kidnapping, and you have somebody in the vehicle, or you've split up in two different vehicles, and you're driving down the street with a gun, a holster, a ski mask, a pair of gloves on a 55-degree night evening? You might well be tossing those out the window--
BERMAN: Yes.
MILLER: --at different intervals to get them out in case you're pulled over, so you don't have to explain them.
BERMAN: And look, nothing ever goes according to plan, either. And there's nothing to say that whoever did this is a genius. We saw in the video. The person going to get the flowers and the plants to cover up a camera, which you would have think would have been part of the plan to begin with.
[21:10:00]
And I keep saying, this person. This guy, Jonathan. Unless this person, this guy is the Unabomber, and some kind of loner, which seems so rare. He's spoken to someone. Someone knows him. He's had some contact with another human being, either before, during or after the abduction. How are the messages maybe trying to reach those people?
WACKROW: Well, exactly, like, this crime wasn't done in isolation, right? You're not going to go out and take an 84-year-old woman with serious medical conditions and try to kidnap them by yourself. There was most likely a level of support to that.
And that's what Savannah's message is making the outreach to. It may not be the individual themselves. It's the people that are supporting that, or may have supported that. And it's this -- it essentially is this moral messaging, saying, Do the right thing. Try to change the course of action now before it gets too late. And that message is, really, for those, that supporting cast of characters that may have a conscious right now, that may pick up the phone and lead that -- to that tip.
BERMAN: David, you've been out there on the front lines. What happens when you do a search like the one they did, Friday night? And we actually don't know what they found there or didn't find there. But if it yielded nothing, what do you then do next? If this glove comes back and there's no DNA match, what do you then do next? What happens after each mini setback?
SARNI: Well, then you're going to start looking at your other leads.
Here's what it comes down to. You kind of package your leads. Your lead was the crime scene. Your next lead is the video. Your next lead is some evidence from that video, which is a glove. They find a mile and a half away, a glove. Does that match up? And this is what it comes down to.
And if it doesn't, and this is what happens, it doesn't have to. That means the 4,000 leads that have come in still have to be investigated. And that's the thing. And you have to realize this. It's not over. Just because -- let's say you do get that glove and it becomes all of this? It's still a matter of, Can I prosecute this case? If I can find -- first of all, the reality is we have to find Nancy. That's the end result.
BERMAN: Yes.
SARNI: We know it's an abduction. We know it's a -- it seems to be a violent abduction because of the injuries she might have sustained from that. That's the main thing. And as an investigator, that's our goal. That's our main goal. I'm not concerned about the -- all the things that are going outside. That's what you're concerned about getting.
BERMAN: Stick around. All of you are going to come back in just a second.
Next, more on what criminal profilers see in the video, we have all been so focused on.
And later, one factor that may have motivated the Sheriff's statement today, clearing the Guthries, namely, a backlash against true crime influencers who have flocked to this case.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: More now on the breaking news in the search for Nancy Guthrie. While this person has not yet been identified, criminal profilers say the video speaks volumes about who they are.
More on that now from CNN's Brian Todd.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The man seen in this doorbell footage, described by the FBI as 5'19" or 5'10" tall with an average build, wearing dark clothing, black gloves, sneakers and a black Ozark Trail Hiker Backpack. Not a lot to go on for members of the public to identify him.
But former FBI profilers tell CNN, his movements on that front porch give other possible clues about him.
MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER FBI PROFILER: I saw someone who seemed relatively relaxed. I saw someone that had a certain amount of confidence. I saw someone that did not seem to be nervous or agitated. And so, this suggested to me that this is someone who is really willing to take a great deal of risk.
TODD (voice-over): To be clear, investigators have not yet publicly named a suspect in Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. But based on the physical movements in this video, the nature of the crime itself and other aspects of the case, former FBI agents are describing possible personality traits.
Former profiler Candice DeLong also believes this body language indicates a level of confidence, which tells her.
CANDICE DELONG, FORMER FBI PROFILER: The term, narcissistic psychopath, comes to mind. Someone that has no empathy for others, no guilt for what they do to other people. And the narcissism, the, I am great, whatever I say will be believed, whatever I do will work the way I want it to.
TODD (voice-over): But experts say that's if this was a kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie for ransom.
Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary says there's another possibility. That this could be a celebrity stalking type of kidnapping.
GREGG MCCRARY, FORMER FBI PROFILER: You're dealing with a more delusional individual, someone that has what psychologists call a parasocial relationship with the people they see on TV. They, in their mind, they have a relationship with these people, and which is not based in reality at all.
TODD (voice-over): Whichever personality traits fit the alleged offender, one former FBI hostage negotiator says their behavior could now be altered with the discoveries of the doorbell footage, and DNA at Nancy Guthrie's property, which doesn't belong to her or those close to her.
CHIP MASSEY, FORMER FBI HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR: Now that we have these, there is nobody that's more afraid right now than the captor. This world has gotten very, very small, and he's operating under fear, under huge stress. So every movement that he makes, every time he's out in public perhaps, he's got to be looking over his shoulder.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: What's not a good sign, according to our Chief Law Enforcement Analyst, John Miller, the apparent lack of communication between the possible kidnapper on one side, and law enforcement and the Guthrie family on the other.
As John Miller points out, no proof of life has been offered to our knowledge. And aside from two ransom notes sent to media outlets, shortly after Nancy Guthrie was reported missing, that apparent one- way communication has gone silent.
John.
BERMAN: All right. Brian Todd, thank you so much for that report.
We happen to have John Miller right here, along with David Sarni and Jonathan Wackrow.
So, to Brian's point. He keeps on quoting you there. If this isn't ransom, if this isn't a kidnapping, what is it?
[21:20:00]
MILLER: It certainly starts off with a ransom note that has details that in theory, only the abductor would have known about the interior of the house and the placement of things.
What you glean from looking at it, from the distance we're looking at it, we're not inside the investigation, is something fell apart in the ransom negotiations. The first piece is that they wouldn't or couldn't offer that proof of life. But then the break of communications. Something went wrong inside this kidnapping. And if law enforcement knows what that was, which they probably do, they're not saying yet.
BERMAN: Jonathan, how hard is it to find a person when you're not sure of the motive here? WACKROW: Well, I think we're witnessing that real-time. We're in week number three. We still don't have a person of interest or a suspect.
So, what is law enforcement doing, right? They're not just sitting back twiddling their thumbs and waiting for something to come. They're going back out, and they are reinforcing their evidence matrix that they've been working off of. They're reinterviewing different neighbors. They're recanvassing a broader area. They're looking and we -- we've seen that. We've seen them making outreach to the public for additional video.
And what we do know is that in the aftermath of these videos that are released, both from the family and from law enforcement, we have this groundswell of new tips that come in. And the benefit there is we now have a new set of things that we can potentially action off of.
The challenges for law enforcement is processing, it's the intake of all those tips, and now cross-matching it what they already have. So, it can be done. It takes time. There's no breakthrough moment that we have seen to date. So, this is really traditional investigative processes working out.
BERMAN: David, based on what you've seen here. And you saw the video the profilers were looking at. What's your opinion of the competence of the person who is doing this or is behind it? I mean, obviously they haven't been caught in two weeks-plus. That says something. But then there's the covering up of the camera. There's wearing the gun in a strange way, maybe discarding a glove in an inopportune location.
SARNI: Well, my experience with burglars, and I always say this, nighttime burglars are the most dangerous ones to deal with, because they're the ones who are going to have a con -- they're going to have a conflict with somebody in the house. There's a chance a person could be in the house. Hence the gun, hence whatever he has in the holster. Is that a firearm? We still haven't determined what type of gun it is, regardless of that. That's something we were concerned -- I'm concerned about, because that's confidence.
Because when you do these night burgs, and people are creatures of habit, that's the thing I can see with burglars. You have guys who pry doors. They have pry guys. You have guys who go through windows. It's the only two ways to go through it. We know -- we've heard this forced entry. We don't know what type of forced entry that happened.
So, I'm hoping that during this investigation, they looked at everybody who's been released, everybody who's been on parole for these type of burgs, because they haven't told you what type of burglary, what -- and because you have to get in the house, that's a burglary in itself. It's not where -- and an abduction. So kidnapping, whatever. But you're going to do all those things.
Did you put this through ViCAP to find out if there were anything like that similar, where you have nighttime burglars coming in and doing abduction? So, you're looking at all of these things. This is back -- going back to -- again, like we said, good old-fashioned police work. That's what it comes down to. Technology is great. We see technology is not working well enough for us. So, we have to wait and do the work that we have to do and we've always done.
BERMAN: John Miller, just circling back to the latest update we got from the Sheriff's office, clearing the Guthrie family. And to be clear, it's not like they didn't investigate everyone within that very tight circle, I'm sure, probably first.
MILLER: And they did, but that is -- that's by rote. I mean, when you have -- generally, when you have a homicide or a crime, the first place you start is in the home. Who is the last person to see her? What are the family dynamics? Does anyone have a motive? Basically, it's to get that out of the way, and it may pan out, but then you have to move on to other things.
BERMAN: Jonathan, we were listening to these profilers, in Brian Todd's piece. How often it is, it's something like that, maybe not the hard DNA match or a witness, but looking at behavior that leads to a break in the case.
WACKROW: It could be everything, right? It could be someone looking at the way the suspect turned, or the way that they presented themselves. There's all these little things.
I mean, something as minute as that position of the gun in the holster in the front. To me, that's an intimidation factor, right? You're telegraphing that you are armed.
We've talked about the gun in the holster. It's not tactical. It's not the right thing. But we're not the audience. Nancy Guthrie was the audience there.
[21:25:00]
So, a lot of those things are going to telegraph, potentially, to others that are looking at this, and hopefully come back to the investigators with a lead.
BERMAN: Right.
John Miller. Jonathan Wackrow. David Sarni. Thank you so much for helping us tonight. Really appreciate it.
Up next. An Arizona lawmaker who is calling on the so-called internet sleuths to get out of the way in this investigation.
And later, one of the last surviving members of the Little Rock Nine, weighs in on President Trump's threat to use the Insurrection Act, which protected black students to integrate at Arkansas schools in 1957.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:30:00] BERMAN: With the search for Nancy Guthrie, now in its third week, Pima County Sheriff, Chris Nanos, as we reported at the top of the program, has released a statement, clearing all family members of -- in connection with her disappearance.
He says, To be clear...the Guthrie family - to include all siblings and spouses - has been cleared as possible suspects in this case. The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel. The Guthrie family are victims plain and simple.
He also asked members of the media to honor your profession and report with compassion and professionalism.
This comes as an Arizona State Rep. from Pima County implores live streamers, podcasters and people she calls, want-to-be journalists who have descended on the area, to go home and let law enforcement professionals do their job.
And State Representative Alma Hernandez joins us now.
Representative, thank you so much for being with us.
Obviously, there is this statement today, from the Sheriff, clearing the Guthrie family. What do you think of that? How do you feel about that, given how strongly you've been speaking out against people speculating?
ALMA HERNANDEZ, (D) ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Yes. So first, thank you for having me on. I appreciate it.
It's really frustrating. I believe that, as elected officials, it's our duty to speak out when we see these type of issues in our community. When we see people taking advantage and using such a vulnerable situation for this family, to then turn around and monetize off of it is extremely outrageous.
I mean, the Sheriff clearly put out a statement calling on the media. But I believe what he really meant was those individuals who are not the professionals that are actually out there trying to report the facts that are coming out as we hear them. These are individuals who are truly just out there, to create havoc and who are spreading misinformation in our community.
BERMAN: So, you're glad the Sheriff went out and did this with such a declarative statement?
HERNANDEZ: I am. But I would also like to see other elected officials. I'm the only one that has told people to stop doing what they're doing. I've heard from many who keep telling me, behind the scenes, I agree with you, thank you for speaking up. I'm hearing from many people in the community who are saying, You're saying what a lot of people aren't willing to say out loud. And at the end of the day, that's what we have to do.
BERMAN: CNN's Leigh Waldman, a reporter who's been on the ground there, actually spoke to a streamer, over the weekend, and went from Tucson to Florida, and this is how he defended what the so-called online detectives are doing. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY SIGNORE, CREATOR, POPCORNED PLANET: We want transparency. We want to make sure nothing -- no stone has been left unturned. You want to make sure you find the right streamer. But there's a lot of really good people, and I think the audience can figure that out. And yes, they're out there doing a lot of work. They're invested in it fully, because they want justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: What do you think of that defense? That these are people just trying to help, they want justice?
HERNANDEZ: I mean, just look at what we saw the other day. We had one of these streamers ask one of their followers to send them pizza delivery. Who does that?
A person who is serious about their job, who is actually a reporter or working for someone and checks their facts, goes and makes sure that they're giving us accurate information, is not going to go and sit on a lawn chair, posted in front of the home for days without moving, to try to get any story that they can, right?
So, at the end of the day, people are allowed to do what they want, what they wish. However, I find it extremely unhelpful. I don't believe that a YouTuber and a streamer following the SWAT team who go and serve a warrant in another part of a city, in a different town, is important or helpful in any way. No one is asking these individuals to come in and do that.
At the end of the day, the Sheriff has been very clear. He's asking for people to share tips. We're not asking people to send random videos and pictures of just anyone in our community and blaming them for what's going on. It's, you know, they're going to do what they're going to do, but at the end of the day, I find it wrong and just irresponsible.
A lot of them, I don't know if folks have seen, but some of them are even accepting donations for the coffee. You can send them coffee donations. Again, someone who's serious and is doing this job, because they are following the ethics of media? They're not going to go and do that type of thing. The little -- those little stunts that they're playing, we shouldn't be allowing them. And quite frankly, they're just not helpful.
BERMAN: Representative Alma Hernandez, we know you care deeply about your constituents and your community. Thank you for being with us tonight. Appreciate it.
Up next. Hillary Clinton accusing the Trump administration of a cover- up with the Epstein files in a BBC interview. And the President's reply. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: The Justice Department is naming names, and lawmakers are demanding answers.
The DOJ sent a letter to Congress, over the weekend, listing hundreds of prominent people named in the Epstein files. Now, the list includes presidents, business leaders, government officials. But also, cultural icons, in some cases, who have been dead for decades, including Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin, Marilyn Monroe. And all of this is raising questions on Capitol Hill.
[21:40:00]
Congressman Ro Khanna, who co-authored the law that forced the files' release, said, the DOJ is purposefully muddying the waters on who was a predator and who was just mentioned in an email by releasing the list of more than 300 people.
And this is what Congressman Thomas Massie, Khanna's Republican co- author of that bill, told ABC, when asked if he still has confidence in Attorney General, Pam Bondi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I don't think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn't confident enough to engage in anything but name- calling in a hearing. And so, no, I don't have confidence in her. She hasn't got any sort of accountability there at the DOJ.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, we should note that no one on the list from the Justice Department other than Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, have ever been charged in connection with Epstein's crimes.
With us now is Congressman James Walkinshaw, a Democrat from Virginia, who sits on the House Oversight Committee.
Congressman, this list, meant to provide information about everyone who was named in the Epstein files, named at all, but it includes people who may be connected to some of the things that went on. But it also includes Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley? What do you think the Department of Justice is up to here, and what are we supposed to take from it?
REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): I think the release of this list was an attempt to just muddy the waters, I guess.
And look, I wish what they had done on that list is next to each of the 300 names, add how many times each name was mentioned in the files and rank-order them. And if they had done that, Donald Trump would be at or very near the top, because he's mentioned thousands and thousands of times, far more than Janis Joplin or Elvis Presley.
BERMAN: Yes. Janis Joplin died in 1970. Elvis died in 1977. Marilyn Monroe, I think, in 1962. So, they've been gone a long time, and being mentioned in email here puts them in a very different place than potentially other people listed in these files.
Secretary Clinton just did an interview with the BBC, where she accused the Trump administration of a cover-up with the Epstein files. She said she and her husband were being used to divert attention away from President Trump.
The President was just asked about this on Air Force One, and this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. They went in hoping that they'd find it, and found just the opposite. I've been totally exonerated. In fact, Jeffrey Epstein was fighting that I don't get elected with some author, a sleazebag, by the way. And I've been totally exonerated. No, no, they're getting pulled in, and that's their problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So, what's your reaction to that?
WALKINSHAW: Well, it's a lie. I mean, he hasn't been exonerated. For him to say he had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein is flat-out absurd. I mean, one of the things we have learned through these files, through the subpoena of the Oversight Committee, is that Trump's relationship with Epstein was much longer and much deeper than he has revealed publicly, and he has been lying about it for decades.
I reviewed a redacted, an illegally-redacted, file of the Department of Justice, where Epstein's lawyers were recounting a conversation they had with Donald Trump, where he denied, essentially denied, that he had ever been on Epstein's plane, where he admitted that he didn't remove Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, as he had claimed and continued to claim, until relatively recently.
He had a very long, deep relationship with Epstein. He lied about it, continues to lie about it. And he did everything he could to prevent the release of these files, and his Department of Justice continues to cover them up by not fully releasing them and over-redacting them.
BERMAN: You know, he's never been charged with a crime and never been accused by law enforcement of any crime or connection to Jeffrey Epstein like that. But Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary. We have reporting tonight from Kristen Holmes, our CNN reporter, that Howard Lutnick was on Air Force One with President Trump, flying back from Palm Beach. That's notable because Howard Lutnick is mentioned in the Epstein files, and we learned from reading them that he had lunch with Epstein more than a decade after he said he cut ties.
So, what do you think about them sharing a flight tonight?
WALKINSHAW: When we first learned about Lutnick's deep relationship with Epstein, I said to myself, Maybe Trump will cut him loose, make him the fall guy for this, because Lutnick lied to the American people, including his boss, Donald Trump.
But then I realized, if Lutnick were to resign or be forced out because of his deep ties to Jeffrey Epstein that he lied about, what would that say about Donald Trump, who's also lied about his deep ties to Jeffrey Epstein? So, I think Trump is going to keep Lutnick closer than ever, because they are so connected in this Epstein saga.
BERMAN: Representative Walkinshaw, thanks so much for being with us tonight.
WALKINSHAW: Thank you.
[21:45:00]
BERMAN: A new report out today from Axios hint a potential break between the Pentagon and leading AI company, Anthropic. At issue, Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei reportedly has concerns about the U.S. government's use of its systems and at potential for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. Also, weapons that fire without human involvement.
This reportedly has Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, contemplating cutting business ties with Anthropic. He could even designate the AI tech firm as a, quote, "Supply chain risk," which would mean that any company that wants to do business with the U.S. military would also have to cut ties with Anthropic. That is, according to a senior Pentagon official.
With us now, Senior Contributor at CNN, and host of the "On with Kara Swisher" and "Pivot" podcast, the aforementioned Kara Swisher.
Great to see you tonight.
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, HOST, "ON WITH KARA SWISHER" PODCAST, CO-HOST, "PIVOT" PODCAST, AUTHOR, "BURN BOOK: A TECH LOVE STORY": Hi. Good to see you.
BERMAN: So Kara, if this reporting is correct--
SWISHER: Yes.
BERMAN: --does it look like the Trump administration wants to make an example out of Anthropic? And how do you think other AI companies will react? SWISHER: Well, all the others have agreed, Google, xAI, I think -- I think all of them have agreed to -- OpenAI, have all agreed to the Defense Department's rules.
I mean, it's the cost of doing business with this particular government. And Anthropic has decided it doesn't want to change some of its rules, which are more around safety. It's known as the safety AI company, compared to the others, which tend to be more loose. Whether it's xAI and non-consensual images, or OpenAI and various things they do. But Anthropic is a different company.
BERMAN: Why would the safeguards that Anthropic wants to put in place, if this reporting is correct, why would that be some kind of a threat to the way the Pentagon does business?
SWISHER: Well, I think it's just Pete Hegseth trying to show he has weight for as long as he has weight, to do what he wants. And he wants to sort of force businesses, as the Trump administration tends to do with many companies, to do it to their own tune, rather than their own rules.
And so, obviously it's important to Anthropic. Maybe it will give in. Maybe it's part of negotiations. I just think Pete Hegseth sort of operates, I'll do what I want to do, and I'll do what I want to do, no matter what. You know? I'm not sure he particularly understands what's happening here.
BERMAN: And considering so many of the Pentagon systems are classified. How big of a job do you think it would be to remove Anthropic's Claude and start over with a whole new AI model?
SWISHER: Well, they have to try lots of them. Like, they're using a lot of them, just the way they have a lot of defense contractors, I don't think that's unusual. I think it was very important in the Venezuela attack or the grabbing of Maduro. It was through Palantir, one of their other partners.
And so, what they're trying to do is put pressure on all the companies to do what they want to do, no matter what. And Anthropic is obviously worried about mass surveillance. The others not as much.
BERMAN: When you read the -- Axios was first to report this, that one of Anthropic's concerns is weapons that fire without risk.
SWISHER: Yes.
BERMAN: You read that, and I think a lot of people can understand, weapons that fire without human involvement.
SWISHER: Without human interaction.
BERMAN: Yes, weapons that fire without human involvement
SWISHER: Human, yes not--
(CROSSTALK) BERMAN: I mean, gosh.
SWISHER: Yes.
BERMAN: Doesn't really seem unreasonable, you want some human involvement before a weapons fire, right?
SWISHER: Right, exactly. And so, they don't want to be either responsible for doing it or, you know, it is the Defense Department's fault if they make a mistake. But at the same time, if you're making products like this, you may not want them to be used in this way.
I mean, that's the way war is going, by the way. It's all going to be a video game. It already is in many ways, through drone warfare, et cetera. But people are -- tend to be involved. These would be computers making decisions for war systems, which sometimes they get it right, and they're often probably better than humans. But at the same time, it should have human involvement. And that's one of the way Anthropic is different from other AI companies in general.
And you've heard him sending warning signs out a lot. He gives a lot of speeches where he says, Things are problematic with -- and other companies don't do that. But Dario does that, compared to other CEOs.
BERMAN: You keep talking about that as Anthropic's thing, and Dario Amodei's message.
SWISHER: It does.
BERMAN: How sustainable is that, with the way AI is going?
SWISHER: Well, I think what's interesting is they're really focusing on the enterprise, and that's where they're doing really well. And so, companies really value that, someone who's going to -- I mean, it's sort of a little like Apple focusing on privacy when Google didn't, right? I think it was an advantage. It was a brand advantage.
And for those who want to do business with it, it may not get them a Defense Department contract, but maybe they don't need that, if they're doing it with companies or others, and the question is who they're doing business with. So, they just are deciding to sell the way they want to sell the way Apple did and others, and that's their business.
And Pete Hegseth can fume all around. He's got plenty of choices for people who are willing to bend to his will. So, I guess he'll do that.
BERMAN: Yes, look, I'm not so sure I want my weapons firing without human involvement.
SWISHER: No, I don't need that.
BERMAN: Kara Swisher, great to see you. Thank you very much.
SWISHER: Thank you.
BERMAN: Next, one of the last surviving members of Little Rock Nine and her reaction to Trump's threats to invoke the Insurrection Act.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: As part of President Trump's immigration crackdown, he has regularly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and send active- duty military troops into U.S. cities to carry out his agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I'd do that.
I'm allowed to use the Insurrection Act.
Don't forget, I can use the Insurrection Act. And that's unquestioned power.
[21:55:00]
We're trying to do it in a nicer manner, but we can always use the Insurrection Act if we want. It's the strongest power a president has, and you have the absolute right to do it.
And if we need more than the National Guard, we'll send more than the National Guard.
NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS NEWS' SENIOR CORRESPONDENT & "60 MINUTES" CONTRIBUTING CORRESPONDENT: So you're going to send the military into American cities?
TRUMP: Well, if I wanted to I could, if I want to use the Insurrection Act.
Do you know that I could use that immediately and no judge can even challenge you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, it is a power that has historically been reserved for extreme situations. Back in 1957, then-President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to send troops into Little Rock when their governor refused to integrate the schools. That first group of black students came to be known as the Little Rock Nine.
CNN's Elie Honig sat down with one of the last living members.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): When Melba Pattillo Beals and her black classmates first tried to enter Little Rock Central High School, they were blocked by an angry mob.
MELBA PATTILLO BEALS, MEMBER OF THE LITTLE ROCK NINE: You're dead, you know, you're not going to live. You might as well put your books down. You're not going to live to study.
HONIG (voice-over): In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling. Brown versus Board of Education. In a unanimous nine-to-zero decision, the court prohibited racial segregation in public schools, and declared an end to so-called Jim Crow separate but equal laws.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, it would be three years until Arkansas high schools would integrate.
Melba Beals, then just 15-years-old, would be part of the first group of black students at Little Rock Central High School.
PATTILLO BEALS: Now, originally, there were 116 African American children set to go to Central High School.
A man, a white man, came to our house and knocked on the door, This is not going to be good for you. We're going to kill you and your relatives.
HONIG (on camera): And there was physical violence directed at you and your family as well?
PATTILLO BEALS: Physical doesn't begin to explain it. Shooting in the wind up.
HONIG (voice-over): The intimidation did deter some students. Only Melba and eight others ended up attending. Together, they would become known as the Little Rock Nine.
PATTILLO BEALS: My grandmother said, Look, you're born on this earth to do certain things, and if that's what you're here for, then you have no choice.
HONIG (voice-over): The first time they tried to enter the school, Melba and her black classmates were met by an angry mob. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had activated the Arkansas National Guard to block the black students from entering the school.
Later that month, President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy the military, the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army, to escort the students into Little Rock Central High School.
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, 34TH U.S. PRESIDENT: I have today issued an Executive Order directing the use of troops under Federal authority to aid in the execution of Federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas.
HONIG (on camera): What would have happened if President Eisenhower never utilized the 101st to protect you?
PATTILLO BEALS: I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be very dead, not a little dead, very dead.
HONIG (on camera): What was your time at Little Rock Central like?
PATTILLO BEALS: Was a horror movie. Put acid in my eyes. I see, for example, the liquid that light floaters go across. Pulling my hair, cut off my -- try to cut off my ponytail. I would go to the bathroom, and they would drop lit pieces of fire paper with matches and drop them over.
HONIG (voice-over): While Melba knew her role was important, the burden and the sacrifice were almost too much for her to bear.
But when Martin Luther King Jr. visited the Little Rock Nine, he made it clear that their mission was much bigger.
HONIG (on camera): You met with Martin Luther King.
PATTILLO BEALS: I did. And he said, Melba, you're not doing this for yourself. You're doing this for generations yet unborn.
HONIG (voice-over): This was hardly the first time she'd face challenges. As a black child, born in 1941, in the segregated South, Melba Pattillo Beals faced racism in every part of her life.
PATTILLO BEALS: We'd go in public, and they'd call us the N-word all the time. So what it was like? It was a living hell. Because from the beginning, my little spirit said, Hey, you don't treat me that way.
HONIG (voice-over): As a child, Melba witnessed unspeakable acts of violence.
PATTILLO BEALS: Five years of age, I'm sitting in a church. And so, all of a sudden, this backdoor opened, and there were, probably, I don't know, 100 -- more than a 100 people, and in walked these dudes in their white sheets, and I know what that meant. That's Klan, right?
They went right after this man, and there were rafters in this church, and they strung a rope over the rafters. I was too little to look up to his face, but I could see his feet dangling as they were hanging him, and I could hear the aargh and his throat, you know? I've never forgotten that.
HONIG (voice-over): In 1999, President Bill Clinton awarded Melba, and the other members of the Little Rock Nine, the Congressional Gold Medal for their role in the civil rights movement.
Given her own lived experience, Melba worries about what she sees unfolding today.
[22:00:00]
PATTILLO BEALS: Sending troops is not the answer. Eisenhower sent in troops because Faubus was not in compliance. And so, I think that in the end, will we regret what's going on now? Let's wait and see.
HONIG (voice-over): Elie Honig. CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BERMAN: What a life. What a hero. We're lucky to have her.
The news continues. "CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
