Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
FBI Searching Roads Around Nancy Guthrie's Home; Bondi Testifies Before Lawmakers Amid Epstein Files Scrutiny; Grand Jury Rebuffs Trump DOJ Attempt To Indict Democratic Lawmakers. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired February 11, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Elie, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.
Brianna, always a pleasure
KEILAR: Always.
SANCHEZ: Yeah. Even when it's during a contentious hearing.
KEILAR: That's right.
SANCHEZ: Thank you so much.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, a new search and a potential new ransom letter in the hunt for Nancy Guthrie.
Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.
As we come on the air, authorities in Arizona are conducting an expansive new search of the roadways near Nancy Guthrie's home. A law enforcement source familiar with the investigation telling CNN they are looking for any evidence that might have been discarded by the person seen on the haunting front door footage that was released by the FBI yesterday.
As that happens, we are learning new details about a new potential ransom letter received by TMZ earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARVEY LEVIN, TMZ FOUNDER: We got kind of a bizarre letter an email from somebody who says they know who the kidnapper is and that they have tried reaching Savannahs sister, Annie, and Savannah's brother, to no avail. And they said they want one bitcoin sent to a bitcoin address that we have confirmed is active. It's a real bitcoin address. And as they put it, time is more than relevant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So right now, one bitcoin worth more than $65,000. These new developments follow a dramatic night last night in which authorities released a man after they detained him, questioned him and searched his car and his home.
The police and the FBI have declined to confirm that man's identity, but he identified himself to CNN using only the name Carlos. A law enforcement official familiar with the case says that police were already looking into this man before those chilling doorbell videos were released earlier that day. Carlos says that he's innocent, that he was released without charges, and that he didn't even know who Nancy Guthrie was before yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of a sudden, the FBI pulled out the Miranda rights and he read Miranda rights. And that's when I asked, why I'm being arrested. No, we're just reading your Miranda rights. We can ask you some questions. What kind of questions? It's about a kidnapping (AUDIO DELETED). What kidnapping?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do you want from --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From my name, that's all I want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines. Head into THE ARENA.
With us now, CNN's senior law enforcement analyst, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, CNN chief, law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller, and CNN's Jake Tapper, who is live for us in Tucson, Arizona, where he has been most of this week.
Jake, what are authorities doing right now? What are you seeing play out on the ground?
JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Right now, they're combing through literally tens of thousands of leads and tips that they've been getting ever since the FBI yesterday released those six still images and three videos of the perpetrator who was on Nancy Guthrie's porch early in the morning of Sunday February 1st. Asking the public for help has pluses and minuses. The pluses are, of course, that sometimes a tip will pay off. The minuses are most of the tips are, however, helpful they're intended to be. Most of the tips are not real or not relevant. So, there is a lot of information.
As we discussed yesterday, in those images, in terms of the person's build, the person's gait, the person's clothes, the person's apparent familiarity with the porch or lack of familiarity with the porch. But right now, one of the tips obviously led to the detaining of that gentleman who goes by Carlos but he was released and his behavior, the other two gentlemen have much more experience in law enforcement than I do. But generally speaking, guilty people don't do a lot of interviews and talk and allow the searching of their house because often they have something to hide -- Kasie.
HUNT: Yeah, of course and, Jake, the other the other thing here that we've seen police in and around the home of Annie Guthrie and her husband, that's happened a number of times since Nancy Guthrie, the Guthrie children's mother disappeared.
What do we know about why that keeps happening?
TAPPER: Well, there are a number of reasons. The first one, and this is not meant to impugn Annie or her husband or anyone, but the first one is until there is a prime suspect identified, literally everyone is a suspect. And so, they're looking everywhere. Checking out every lead.
I mean, we can always imagine. We can only imagine why they were searching in Nancy Guthrie's septic tank behind the house.
[16:05:03]
But it's just pursuing a possibility because until they have actual verifiable, serious leads, they have to keep an open mind about everything. But then the second reason is probably even more important, which is Nancy Guthrie was last seen by Annie Guthrie, her daughter, and Annie Guthrie's husband, the night before her disappearance. She had dinner at their house.
So, if somebody followed Nancy Guthrie to her home, it's possible that they thought again, these are just possibilities. I'm not saying this is fact or even likely fact, but it's always. It's always possible. The person followed Nancy Guthrie from Annie Guthrie's home.
And so, again nothing can be ruled out until they have a verifiable, serious suspect.
HUNT: Of course. All right, Jake, stand by for us. We're going to be with us throughout the top of the show. But, John Miller, I want to bring you in on this apparent new alleged ransom note. How unusual is it for someone to try to communicate through these notes in this way? And how much credence do you give this?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it's very unusual, but we're in new territory here you know, kidnappings have been around -- kidnappings for ransom, have been around since the beginning of crime. But the ability to communicate with the kind of anonymity you get with -- you know, these encrypted and hidden email addresses. And then to move money anonymously through things like bitcoin and other tokens has brought some people out who are having attempts at one way conversation.
So, let's break it down. I mean, there's a $50,000 reward from the FBI for one of two things or both. The arrest of the kidnappers or the recovery of Nancy Guthrie. This person is asking for one bitcoin, which is about $66,000 depending on the time of day, for naming the kidnapper. It's pay me first, then I'll tell you. Well, that doesn't work because it's like if somebody said, you know,
I'm going to paint your house for $20,000 and you say, well, how do I know when you're going to show up if you've ever painted a house or if you even have paint? And they say, pay me first.
The way it works is you give some information, then you get the money if the information works out. So, I think it's one of those things where the only next step is to draw that conversation out to, okay so how do you know this information and what can you tell us to verify that you are real and that you have this knowledge. But other than that, it's not going to go anywhere.
HUNT: So, Andy McCabe, the bitcoin piece that we're talking about here, in some ways, it's obvious they can accept money anonymously, right? I mean, what's to say that this isn't somebody just fishing?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I think that's likely at this point, right? So, we -- let's remember we started with those ransom demands in that series of two different notes a few days ago. Those were deficient in many ways that would make, that would kind of, you know, it was impossible to take them seriously with the fact that they refused to ever provide any proof of life. It's exactly what John was just saying like every kidnapper knows, you have to provide proof of life to get paid.
So, if we -- if we start to think of those notes as really having been not legitimate, this one is even less legitimate than those because this is someone who is clearly taking advantage of a tragedy, and there are many people who will do that, to try to cash in. I mean, there's absolutely no fact upon which law enforcement could base a conclusion that, yeah, this is worth investing in. We should do this.
HUNT: Let's talk for a second about the man who was detained, questioned and then released. The search warrant in this was sealed. I mean, what do you make of that? And big picture. What do you think it says about the progress they're making or not making in this case?
MCCABE: So, I don't think the sealing of the search warrant is notable. It's actually pretty standard in criminal investigation. Search warrants typically stay sealed until the matter goes to court and is prosecuted and in this case, of course, this gentleman is not going to be prosecuted. He's been released, and we don't think there's anything suspicious about him now. So that warrant will likely stay sealed.
I think the fact that the FBI went through this process of very quickly locating this individual who had already been on their radar, and rather than doing what they would normally do, which is conducting a surveillance and trying to figure out who he was interacting with and taking days or weeks to go through that process. They know they don't have that time, so they took the fairly aggressive move of just saying, let's pull him over, ask him a few questions if he's willing to talk to us, we'll take him back and interview him and that way we either rule him in and he stays, or we rule him out, and he goes home and we move on to the next lead.
[16:10:07]
I'd like to see more of that from the FBI over the course of the next few days.
HUNT: Certainly. I take your point on what it says about how aggressive they're being.
Jake Tapper, let me close here with you. Obviously, this is such an incredibly trying time for the Guthrie family. And yet, they clearly believe that their mother is still out there. I mean, how are they maintaining hope?
TAPPER: That's a difficult question. I think, first of all, this obviously is a family rooted in very strong Christian faith. Savannah has talked a lot -- wrote -- written a book about her personal relationship with Jesus Christ and her knowledge and her belief in. And her faith is rooted very much in the idea that God is not only there for the good times. God is there for the bad times, too.
Savannah's father died when she was in high school, so the family has been through grief and a lot of trial and tribulation before. But as a general note, I don't want to put two glossy a sheen on it. This is a horrible, horrific experience for any family and they are trying to maintain, but it is an ordeal, as one can easily imagine. And a complete nightmare.
HUNT: You can both imagine the ordeal and also find it to be completely unimaginable because of how truly horrific the entire thing is.
Jake Tapper, Andrew McCabe, John Miller, thank you all very much.
And of course, Jake is going to be anchoring "THE LEAD" live from Tucson, so stick around. That will be, of course, at the top of the 5:00 hour.
We're going to have much more on the search for Nancy Guthrie throughout this hour as this story develops, but also coming up in THE ARENA, what one senator is now calling a, quote, flashing red light for democracy.
Plus, we can now report that all of the shouting is over on Capitol Hill, at least for now. A member of the Judiciary Committee is with us after a combative hearing with the attorney general that let's just say it kind of went off the rails.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Didn't ask Merrick Garland anything about Epstein.
REP. BECCA BALINT (D-VT): Weak sauce.
BONDI: Not once when he was -- and also, I want the record to reflect that you know, with this antisemitic culture right now, she voted against a resolution condemning (CROSSTALK)
BALINT: Do you want to go there, Attorney General? Do you want to go there? Are you serious?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:17:08]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): You're not going to answer this question so let me just --
BONDI: Chairman, I'll direct it to you.
JAPAYAL: What a massive cover up --
BONDI: No, I'm answering a question.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Chairman, will you restore her time? The witness is interrupting.
(CROSSTALK)
BONDI: I'm not going to get into the gutter with this woman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Attorney General Pam Bondi there pulling no punches in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. With survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse present in the audience Democrats used the hearing to press the attorney general on her department's handling of the release of the Epstein files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAYAPAL: Please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice.
Please note for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand.
The survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice --
(CROSSTALK)
BONDI: Why didn't she ask Merrick Garland this?
JAPAYAL: I'm reclaiming my time.
(CROSSTALK) RASKIN: Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady is reclaiming her time.
BONDI: I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And after that, it got uglier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TED LIEU (D-CA): I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein --
BONDI: Don't you ever accuse me of a crime.
LIEU: I believe you.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): How many have you indicted?
BONDI: Excuse me. I'm going to answer the question.
NADLER: I answer my question.
BONDI: No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question your theatrical question.
NADLER: No, you can answer the question the way I asked it.
BONDI: Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. It's a political show, and I need to give my answer on that. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to get -- you're a failed politician.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chairman, she's embarrassing you. This is your committee and she is embarrassing
(CROSSTALK)
RASKIN: You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch, not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started.
BONDI: You don't tell me.
RASKIN: No, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.
BONDI: You're not even a lawyer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay, on that note, joining us now, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, she sits on the House Judiciary Committee. She had her own fire exchange with Attorney General Bondi. Congresswoman, thank you very much for being here today. I want to put
that picture back up on the screen. Still picture of the survivors that were in the room today raising their hands, saying that they had not gotten justice from the DOJ.
What do you see when you look at this picture?
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Well, I see a bunch of survivors seeking justice and being ignored by the attorney general. And frankly, the Trump administration. The attorney general's behavior today was bizarre and unhinged.
[16:20:04]
For the most part, I think we were asking -- I know I was asking a real question about whether apparent misconduct -- apparent may be potential crimes were being investigated, and in fact, they aren't. And instead of talking about that, she goes on, the attack goes off on nonsense.
You know, it was weird. She was -- it was weird behavior. But in the end, we didn't get answers. And the survivors didn't get answers. And I really think that's a shame.
HUNT: Another photograph for you to take a look at these are notes that the attorney general brought to the hearing today. Okay, it was captured by a photographer who was in the room. And this shows a list of -- Democratic Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. You saw her in some of those clips of her search history. And this, of course, lawmakers are allowed now to go to a DOJ facility to sit down at a computer and to search unredacted files.
We have learned from this photo that the searches that members of Congress are performing are apparently being tracked and then read by the Department of Justice, by the attorney general. What do you make of that development?
LOFGREN: Well, it's a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration. Wholly improper. But frankly, not a surprise given their misconduct in so many areas. Honestly, when I went over there yesterday, you know, they log you in under your name, so it's clearly, you know, they're going to try and make something of it.
But members of Congress who took the time to go over there sharing the information that we found and it's not a pretty picture. They were required under the law to take out the redactions unless it was necessary to protect the privacy of the victim survivors. In fact, they tried to protect the offenders, the coconspirators. It's their names that are blacked out.
And they actually revealed information about the survivors, which was very wrong, contrary to law. But really, a lot of the survivors feel that it was being done intentionally to try and intimidate them, force them into silence.
I don't know if that's true, but that's how they feel. The other thing that's interesting that I mentioned is that when Kash
Patel, the FBI director, was before the committee last time, he confirmed that hundreds of FBI agents went through the files to take out Trump's name and when the FBI sent over their files, Trump's name was still blacked out. That's not what the law requires.
Nevertheless, Trump's name is in these files. Thousands and thousands of times. It's -- so that's a concern to me. It doesn't comply with what the law requires and the transparency that the public was seeking. And after all, that law was passed with only one no vote in the House and signed into law by Trump.
HUNT: Yeah, of course, we should note that there are, of course, people whose names appear in these files who have done nothing wrong. But your point is, of course, well taken.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate it.
LOFGREN: You bet.
HUNT: My panel is here in THE ARENA.
CNN contributor and "New York Times" journalist Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN political commentator, Republican strategist and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, CNN political commentator former DOJ official Xochitl Hinojosa, and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here.
Scott Jennings, Ro Khanna went down to the house floor this week and named six names of people that had corresponded with Jeffrey Epstein, were implicated in the Epstein files in different ways that had been essentially blacked out here.
Pam Bondi, who you saw testify very angrily on Capitol Hill about this today, in the early days of the Trump administration, she went out to the press and said she's got a list of the perpetrators on her desk and she is ready to put it out there. Why is the Trump administration covering for these people?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't know that they are covering for them. They've released all the documents. And as far as I know, she testified today that they're still open investigations related to the Epstein files. Now whether that will come to fruition quickly or not, I don't know.
HUNT: Are you really totally satisfied with how they've put this out into the public domain?
JENNINGS: Am I satisfied with it?
HUNT: Yeah.
JENNINGS: They obviously had some pr blunders at the beginning, but they have now put out all these documents. Members of Congress were able to review the documents. I'm a little -- frankly, I'm a little exhausted with all the talking around and the beating around the bush.
[16:25:01]
There are women who were involved here they were at the hearing today. They obviously know the people who victimized them. We have members of Congress who claim to know names of people that were perpetrators. There are people here who can go down to the House floor more or go out into the public domain and say, here are the men who need to be investigated. That's where I think most Americans are.
Why can't we just skip to the part where the people who have the information say out loud, this person did this thing to me, and this is a crime?
HUNT: Well, in a lot of cases they're not allowed to because they're bound --
JENNINGS: Members of Congress can go down to the House floor and say anything they want.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well --
JENNINGS: And there are members of Congress who have claimed -- Ro Khanna is one. Thomas Massie is one. They have claimed to have names. And I don't know why we're not actually seeing that right now to be honest with you.
HUNT: Well, I mean, I think, you know, just put yourself in the position of a victim who perhaps doesn't want the public to know what they went -- I mean, that's --
JENNINGS: Well, they just showed up at a hearing here and said they haven't been spoken to, but they have talked to members of Congress. Look, the American people do want transparency and they do want answers. And then sometimes we get right up to the line of maybe getting some answers. And then people say, well --
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You're actually saying that the victims are the ones who are supposed to now take this on to them and get justice for themselves as opposed to the Justice Department doing it and investigating if indeed they are supposed to?
And there is a big confusion, I think, here. Todd Blanche said that there wasn't an investigation happening. And now today, Pam Bondi says there are investigations happening. I mean, which is it? Is it investigations are happening or investigations are not happening?
At the end of the day, you know what everyone wants here -- you me, the public, the victims is some sense of accountability. And the only way that that accountability is going to come is if people are held legally responsible, not in the court of public opinion, but actually legally responsible.
And the one entity who can do that is the Department of Justice. And the one entity who has failed so far to articulate whether or not they have active investigations and who they might be investigating, is the Department of Justice
JENNINGS: Well, I'll answer your question. Look, I do think if the victims have given names to members of Congress which we have heard that they have, at least some of them have, I think the members of Congress who have those names could well go put those in the public domain. Ro Khanna you mentioned has mentioned some, and now there are some documents that would corroborate that.
I guess I disagree a little. I agree with you on legal accountability, but the reason that congress asked for the documents was also for public accountability. At the same time, I don't know why we can't have both, and I don't know why we can't get to the answers right now.
HUNT: Well, and lets for a second, lets show a little bit of what public accountability can look like. Of course, there is a distinction between the court of public opinion and the courts that Lulu was just talking about.
But one person who has been recently implicated is Secretary Lutnick, commerce secretary, who, you know, when he wasn't implicated by any of these files, was free to say in public, something that he now is having to say was actually not true.
So, here's the before and the after from Howard Lutnick. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: His assistant on like a Saturday says, Mr. Epstein, your neighbor, would like to invite you over for coffee. So, my wife and I go next door.
My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. So, I was never in the room with him socially for business or for even philanthropy.
That's my story. A one, an absolutely done.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you, in fact, make the visit to Jeffrey Epstein's private island?
LUTNICK: I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, you can't make this up. You can't -- Scott, you cannot make it up. And this is like his name was redacted in these files.
JENNINGS: Yeah, I don't know why you're yelling at me, but I -- I mean --
HINOJOSA: Because you defend -- you defend the administration
JENNINGS: I mean, I mean, it's obviously -- HUNT: This story -- I mean, it's -- this is something that was
labeled as a conspiracy theory, you know, by some people on the left, you know, during the campaigns for sure. And you have rightly criticized the Biden administration and others for not doing more about it. But it turns out that the people that said that there was something really, really, really wrong here that was being covered up were correct.
JENNINGS: Well, I don't think Lutnick --
HUNT: The Trump administration has a chance to make it right.
JENNINGS: I don't think Lutnick's committed any crimes. Now, if this was a huge F up of a -- of a P.R. --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: He lied, no, no.
JENNINGS: A P.R. -- I mean --
GARCIA-NAVARRO : He lied.
JENNINGS: Yeah, but he didn't -- did he commit --
HUNT: He said he had never -- look, it was a podcast.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I am in agreement with you. I am in agreement with you that obviously this is a horrible public relations blunder. He did not commit any crimes. There's a big difference between making a P.R. blunder and lying --
HUNT: It's a public relations blunder to say in public you never spent time with a pedophile, when in fact, you know, you had and you didn't actually cop to it until you were forced to and you were under oath? I mean --
JENNINGS: Of course, it's a blunder. I mean, are you saying it's not?
HUNT: I'm saying that it might be more than a blunder, that perhaps you were understating --
JENNINGS: Is it a crime? Is it a crime?
HUNT: I'm not arguing that it's a crime, Scott. It's just like. Let's like blunder?
JENNINGS: You have pointed out that he said something that wasn't true. I presented the evidence. We have agreed that it is a blunder and that you shouldn't lie about it. What more what more do you want to do?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, is lying -- is this administration not saying that lying about something in the public interest like this is not -- there should be no accountability about that? Because if you've looked at what's happened in the U.K. -- HUNT: I'm going to say, the king of England has put out statements
about this.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah. I mean --
HUNT: That are stronger than blunder.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, this is -- this is -- what -- we've gotten so far from where the moral compass.
JENNINGS: They're dealing with is different. He said something that wasn't true about a meeting that he had. I don't think anybody has accused of committing any crimes.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, as "The Daily Show" said, to bring your children to a pedophiles island is a serious error in judgment.
HUNT: All right. Well, we -- obviously, you know, this story is going to be one were going to be continuing to follow. Unfortunately, we're out of time for right now.
Up next in THE ARENA, new video coming in of an FBI search today in an area near Nancy Guthrie's home.
Plus, we're going to talk to one of the six Democrats featured in that so-called illegal orders video after the Justice Department tried to indict her on federal charges and whether this is the actually the end of the story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Donald Trump has a pretty limited capacity to move on from things, and he doesn't take bad news well, and he's got quite -- quite the ego that I think it makes it difficult for him to move on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:24]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
We are continuing to follow the breaking news in the desperate search for Nancy Guthrie. In the past 24 hours since that video from Nancy's doorbell camera was released, authorities detained, questioned and released a man in south Tucson.
Joining us now in THE ARENA is retired FBI profiler Jim Clemente. He worked on the investigation to capture the Unabomber. And CNN's John Miller is back with us as well.
So, Jim, you know we often hear that it just takes one mistake for someone who has committed a crime to get caught. What, if any mistakes did you see in this video that could potentially lead law enforcement to finding this man?
JIM CLEMENTE, RETIRED FBI PROFILER: Well, clearly, he thought about this plan, this out, but he's not as smart as he thought he was because he didn't actually prepare for this door cam. He actually wore a face mask, but it didn't prevent him from breathing out his DNA. So, if he spent 40 minutes in that house, he's definitely left his DNA there.
Also, eyelashes and eyebrows and mustache hairs could come off as well. Also, when he was trying to cover that camera just then we saw, you could see what looks like a tattoo on his right wrist. And that is a very identifiable feature. So, I think this video in itself -- in and of itself, will end up capturing this guy.
HUNT: And so, John Miller, I mean, it's likely that this person, whoever they are knows that these images are out there all over the internet, obviously all over TV. How does that impact someone's thinking especially if they're still holding Nancy Guthrie?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it's interesting because he may think he did a great job. He may be looking at himself saying, well, I'm glad I wore the mask. I'm glad I was clothed head to toe. I'm glad I didn't take my gloves off, you know to put a piece of tape over the camera but the idea that that he's out there, he has to be asking himself now.
Well, what did I do with all that stuff? Did I throw the gloves and the mask in a garbage can? Is somebody going to find that? Did I toss it out the window of the van on the road? And I'm suggesting a van you know, is somebody going to find that? Did I leave my DNA in there?
It just depends what he did because, as Jimmy says, he did a lot of planning going into the crime how well did he plan coming out of the crime? And, you know you raise the most important point, which is while we're talking about finding this guy and arresting him the main number one priority is where is Nancy Guthrie? And will those clues not just take us to him, but to her, too?
HUNT: Yeah. For sure. So, Jim, you obviously are former FBI official. They keep going back to Annie Guthrie's home, the investigators. Is that normal? I mean, what does it tell you that they keep doing that?
CLEMENTE: Well, it's normal in that this was the last place this victim was before she went home and was abducted. It could mean that there are unresolved issues. In other words, there are things that are inconsistent between the statements that were given and the facts they've been able to corroborate. If that's the case, it would increase the chances that maybe she never actually got home that night. Or that whoever dropped her off went back there later.
But those are just theories. I don't know any evidence that proves that.
[16:40:01] But I do know that somebody knows this guy, that people live around him. They may even live with him. He works with people.
There are people that have noticed a change in behavior. And I think especially since yesterday, his stress level is probably through the roof. He may be changing his physical appearance, shaving his mustache, cutting his hair, covering up more in public or with whoever he actually lives with.
And he may have changed the color of his car. He may be cleaning it out over and over again. He may put it in a garage and hide it, and he may borrow somebody else's car. He may also leave town for an emergency.
But all those behaviors will stick out to people around him who know him well. And I hope those people see those behaviors. And then call law enforcement.
HUNT: For sure.
And John Miller, we haven't heard from the Pima County sheriff in over a week at this point. We heard from him fairly regularly in the beginning. What do you make of that?
MILLER: I think that the sheriff in the beginning was trying to get the word out. And here's what we know, here's what we don't know, and here's what we're asking the public. The last thing he said in his last press conference is, were not going to call another press conference just to take questions. The next time we call one, we're going to have something we need to tell you. So, I think they are investigation and mission focused right now.
HUNT: Which, of course, we need very much for them to be. John Miller, Jim Clemente, thank you very much for your time really appreciate you both.
CLEMENTE: Thank you, Kasie.
HUNT: Ahead -- of course.
Ahead here in THE ARENA, new reaction to the Trump administration's decision to pursue federal charges against some Democratic lawmakers. And if Republicans think the DOJ crossed a line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How can you -- how can you say that this is not being weaponized when they're going after Democrats and they're not able to even secure an indictment?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUES: I very much and very consistently opposed to the Department of Justice being weaponized in any way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:47]
HUNT: Democratic lawmakers who made a video reminding U.S. service members they're required to not follow illegal orders, are slamming the Justice Department. As you probably know by now, a grand jury on Tuesday declined to indict these lawmakers after the DOJ tried to bring federal charges against them. It's a major rebuke of President Trump's assertion that their participation in the video was criminal, even seditious, an accusation the lawmakers say was made simply because they disagreed with the president.
Here's what House Speaker Mike Johnson is saying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: A line is crossed and it's very serious when you have leaders here in the Senate and the House effectively telling members of the military to defy orders, it's a very dangerous gambit they were playing. Should they be sent to jail? Probably not. But we need to call it out as being wildly inappropriate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Joining me now, one of the lawmakers who participated in that video, Democratic congresswoman from New Hampshire, Maggie Goodlander.
Congresswoman, thanks very much for being here.
You, of course, were looking at the speaker's shoes in that clip, but you could hear his voice pretty clearly there talking about what the DOJ was trying to do what ultimately happened? What's your response to Speaker Johnson?
REP. MAGGIE GOODLANDER (D-NH): Unfortunately, the speaker has been serving at the pleasure of the president from day one on this job, and it's an absolute dereliction of duty. And it's an outrage.
HUNT: Congresswoman, your colleague Jason Crow is demanding that the U.S. attorney in this case, Jeanine Pirro, preserve all evidence related to this effort. What do you think they're referring to there? And you're an attorney. I mean, what would you hope that might come from such an effort?
GOODLANDER: I am a lawyer, and I served for years at the Department of Justice. Look what we have seen here is an absolute outrage. It's an outrageous abuse of presidential power. It's an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars.
We've got a lot of challenges in this country. And what I saw every day at the Department of Justice were lawyers who were having to make difficult decisions about how to allocate resources. The idea that the Justice Department, federal prosecutors, at the direction of the president of the United States would target members of Congress for simply and clearly stating an uncontroversial and bedrock principle of American law. It's an outrage, and it's downright dangerous. And what we saw yesterday was that, unfortunately, something that fits
into a dangerous pattern by this president and by this Justice Department, which, like the speaker, serves at the pleasure of the president that's not how our system of justice is supposed to work. But what did work yesterday and what was extraordinary was that an ordinary group of American citizens, a grand jury, stood up for the rule of law, stood up to this outrageous abuse of power and of taxpayer dollars.
[16:50:02]
And that is a win for the Constitution.
HUNT: Senator Slotkin and Congressman Crow have both suggested they would sue Jeanine, or they would take legal action if prosecutors try to indict them. Is that something you would consider doing as well?
GOODLANDER: Every option has got to be on the table. You know I believe what's happened here is really dangerous for our country. We -- we all want to live in a country that upholds the rule of law where we can trust in our public safety officers and in law enforcement, and nothing undermines trust quite like outrageous abuses of power. And a Justice Department that is doing the president's personal bidding.
And so, every -- to me, every option is on the table. We're in unchartered territory here. This is a Justice Department that is a shadow of its former self. And this is a president who is testing the boundaries of the law in ways that we've never seen before in our 250 years of American history.
HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, thanks very much for your time today. I really appreciate it.
GOODLANDER: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. The panel is back.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, how do you see what the Trump administration is doing here with these members of Congress? How does it fit into what Americans are telling us right now about how they feel about the Trump administration?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So I feel like and correct me if I've misinterpreted what we heard from Speaker Johnson there. What he was trying to say was that look, he doesn't think that these Democratic leaders ought to have made this video. But at the same time, you ought not go to jail for making such a video.
And I suspect if you went out and asked Americans what they thought about this, that is where you would find kind of the median Republican. So, he has always found himself in this tough spot of wanting to be on Donald Trump's side on things wanting to be a supporter of the president while recognizing that there are times where Donald Trump goes too far, even gets out over his skis past where I think the sort of median norm Republican might be. And I think it's Speaker Johnson who's trying to thread that needle of like, how do I keep my caucus together while creating distance, where I think Trump actually has gotten away from his own voters might be.
HUNT: Yeah. Xochitl, you worked at DOJ.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. And I worked with Maggie Goodlander when we were at we were at DOJ together in the last administration. And one thing I'll say is during my time there, I don't think I ever saw a grand jury declined to indict it is very difficult to do that.
And so, the fact that they did so here just says a lot about the case, and it just shows that the administration will continue to try to indict. They did this in -- what -- they've obviously done this with Tish James. We saw Don Lemon. They didn't want to sign off on charges there at the beginning.
And so, there are several instances where the Justice Department is somewhat of an embarrassment because they're doing things that are unprecedented by charging the president's enemies.
What I'll also say about the hearing earlier today, I mean, Maggie Goodlander is right. This Justice Department is serving on behalf of the president. And that hearing today was just another example of that.
And so, every step that you have seen, whether it's the Epstein files, whether it's this, whether it is prosecuting Tish James, whether it's going after other of the presidents enemies, it is all in an effort to silence people. And it is all in an effort to protect the president.
HUNT: Scott, you know, I try not to do hypotheticals on, you know like, well, what if what if a Democrat was president? How would you feel about this? But it is hard not to think about this in the context of if roles are reversed, right? I mean, the speaker -- speaker seems to have changed his tune a little bit in the 12 hours.
I mean, last night he said that the members of Congress, quote, "probably should be indicted". And then today, he says, should they be sent to jail? Hopefully not.
It does seem like -- especially for members of Congress who are protected by the speech and debate clause when they're on the House floor, they made a social media video right? Like, how comfortable are you with the idea that we are then going to indict our lawmakers, our elected chosen lawmakers, for things like that, regardless of what party they are from?
JENNINGS: Yeah. Well, I think two things can be true. One, and I've been highly defensive of the grand jury system, whether it's been in the cases in Virginia, the case in Minneapolis, this one -- look, grand juries exist for a reason. Citizens go in there, they look at evidence, they make decisions. And I think if you're going to cheer on a grand jury one week, you got to cheer on a grand jury in the next week. That's number one.
Number two, the video was extraordinarily irresponsible. Ridiculous. Not one of them can yet name any illegal order that they're referencing. Not one of them has ever been able to name the illegal orders. Extremely irresponsible.
Is that criminal? That's up to a grand jury. A grand jury says no.
HUNT: It could be talking about the Epstein island. It's like our last conversation. There's criminal, there's irresponsible, right? Going to the island may or may not have been a crime but it sure was irresponsible.
JENNINGS: Yeah. I mean, this video was extraordinarily irresponsible.
[16:55:00]
But, you know, I'm not even sure what they were proposing to charge them with. I'm not sure the reporting has that, but obviously a grand jury looked at it and said no.
Now am I super surprised about that? Look, Donald Trump got 6.5 percent of the vote in the District of Columbia. Do I -- am I surprised that 20 people from D.C. went into a room and wouldn't follow the Trump DOJs recommendations? No, I'm not super surprised.
HINOJOSA: These are grand juries everywhere. This has happened in Virginia, too.
HUNT: We're, unfortunately, out of time. Lulu, I'll get you on this one when we -- when you come back, which you will, I'm sure, very soon.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel for being here today. I really appreciate all of you.
Thanks to you at home for watching as well. We always appreciate you.
And please do not go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD" in Tucson, Arizona, where he's continuing to cover the desperate search for Nancy Guthrie -- Jake.
