Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Search for Nancy Guthrie Continues; DOJ Lists Prominent People Named in Epstein Files; Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie Grapple with Fallout from Parents' Epstein Scandals. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 16, 2026 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And thank you to my panel. You can now stream "The Arena" live or catch up whenever you want on the CNN app. Just scan that Q.R. code below. You can also catch up by listening to "The Arena" podcast and follow the show on X and Instagram @thearena/cnn. Dana Bash is in for Jake Tapper in "The Lead" on the other side of the country. From us, Dana, great to see you, my friend.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You, too. Good to see you, Abby. We are going to look for more on "The Arena" tomorrow.

An agonizing weight for DNA test results in the Guthrie case. "The Lead" starts right now. The glove that could give investigators a new break in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. DNA testing is happening now as "Today" show anchor Savannah Guthrie issues a new plea to the person who took her mother. And more members of the royal family wrapped up in the Epstein files. How the daughters of the former Prince Andrew were mentioned. Plus, tracing the toxin used to kill Alexei Navalny, one of Vladimir Putin's most vocal critics. The lethal weapon of choice, poison from a tropical frog. We're going to have the new report.

Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Dana Bash, in for Jake Tapper. "The Lead" tonight, the Pima County sheriff officially declaring the entire Guthrie family not suspects in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. The 84-year-old mother of "Today" show anchor Savannah Guthrie has now been missing for 16 days, last seen and taken from, it appears, her home in Tucson, Arizona.

The sheriff, Chris Nanos, putting to rest remaining speculation from the public and some in the media, saying in a statement, the family -- quote -- "including siblings and spouses are cleared as possible suspects and have been cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel."

As the investigation heads into its third week, a source familiar tells CNN authorities have still not zeroed in on a leading motive for the suspect. The FBI is now analyzing DNA from a glove found just two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home. The FBI says this glove appears to match what the suspect wore when seen here, tampering with Nancy Guthrie's doorbell camera before her disappearance on February 1st.

Today, President Trump told the "New York Post" the abductors would face very, very severe consequences if Guthrie is found dead, even threatening the death penalty, while Savannah Guthrie issued a new plea last night on Instagram directly to her mother's possible captor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, DAUGHTER OF NANCY GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS SHOW HOST: And I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is that it's never too late.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I want to get straight to CNN's Ed Lavandera, who has been in Arizona since this investigation started. Ed, where do you think it stands right now?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now, we're awaiting. As you talk about the DNA tests and the glove found by the FBI, I can walk you through all of that since it's really the primary thing that we know about at this moment. But over the weekend, FBI officials acknowledging that they have collected more than a dozen gloves. One of those gloves found within two miles of Nancy Guthrie's home seemed to match the glove worn in by the suspect in that doorbell camera video. And that glove did contain some DNA that was sent off for testing.

Why is this significant? Because, obviously, if there's -- we also know because the sheriff told us on Friday that they have collected an unknown person's DNA here at the Guthrie property. And if those two DNA samples match, this is going to provide a new avenue of investigation for the FBI and the Pima County sheriff's detectives working this case as well.

And then the question becomes, you know, they will put that match into the databases that are available to them and try to come up with a name associated with that. We do not know if those DNA, different DNAs have been matched or where that stands now. We're waiting for news on that final confirmation. But that is continuing to develop here this afternoon.

And Dana, I think I should also say that there's other work that's also going on.

[17:05:00]

We do know that the sheriff here told us that the backpack worn by the suspect has been identified as a backpack that is sold at Walmart. The sheriff told me this morning that they are working with Walmart to try to identify where that might have been purchased. So, a lot of investigative leads like that that are very tedious continue this afternoon. Dana?

BASH: Tedious but -- yes, tedious but very important. Ed, thank you so much for that, getting us up to speed. And let's discuss more with behavioral analyst and criminologist Casey Jordan and two former FBI agents, Bryanna Fox, who's now an associate professor at the University of South Florida, and CNN's very own Josh Campbell.

Josh, I'm going to start here with how we started the program, which is that the sheriff's department issued a statement clearing anybody in the Guthrie family of any wrongdoing. There's no suspicion there. It doesn't sound like it should -- you know, people who don't live on the internet might not know why this is a big deal, but it is.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It's a huge deal. And look, at any crime investigation, particularly a violent crime, authorities will naturally look at anyone who's close to the potential victim, to include relatives. But there has been no information that surfaced to date indicating the family is actually culpable.

Nevertheless, we have seen just the slew of true crime enthusiasts, armchair, online sleuths coming out, postulating all kinds of things without fact, a lot of it irresponsible, claiming that the family members are under suspicion. And so, here you have the sheriff coming out very forcefully and saying that is not true. To the contrary, the Guthrie family has been nothing but cooperative.

BASH: And Bryanna, the FBI, as Ed reported, now has this DNA from a glove found about two miles from the Guthrie home. They're waiting to put it in CODIS, the FBI's DNA database. What happens from that point on?

BRYANNA FOX, FORMER FBI AGENT, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Right. Well, the first thing is they're going to run it through CODIS. So, obviously, to see if there's any matches, this is anyone who has been, you know, entered into the CODIS system.

But they have more options even if it doesn't match. So, they could actually enter it into commercial databases, which are things like Ancestry or, you know, genetic genealogy. These things are able to see if there's family members that have uploaded their own data into these public databases. Now, they either can get a warrant or they can do this with people essentially volunteering their own data.

After that, they're going to obviously want to match that glove back to the scene. So, as Ed said, it's important that they have a link from that glove back to the Guthrie household.

BASH: Yes. That's really such a fascinating detail. I'm just going to ask you to follow up, Josh, because you and I were talking about this earlier today. People sort of around the world have used these commercial companies like 23andMe to check their DNA, look at their ancestry. But the fact that this is now being used in potential crimes is obviously a tool that the FBI didn't have for, you know, up until just a few years ago.

CAMPBELL: And it has been successful in so many cases. And what I would add to Bryanna's excellent analysis there is that this is the one thing that a suspect cannot control, because someone going out to commit a violent crime probably isn't going to be submitting their own DNA to private companies. But a family member may have, and a family member who's not involved in a crime can still lead you to a potential suspect based on the unique nature of DNA mapping. We've seen it beneficial in a lot of cases.

BASH: And Casey, to you. On the message, the new message that we saw from Savannah Guthrie last night directly to whoever may have her mother, have you seen cases where appeals from family do work to soften perpetrators or even people with valuable information?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST, BEHAVIORAL ANALYST: Yes, we have seen that, absolutely. And the biggest thing is whether or not the suspect is acting alone or whether they have an accomplice. Very often, it's the accomplice, if it's a master-disciple kind of duo, who actually ends up folding.

And Savannah's message was very clear. There were three times she said, we believe, and just left it dangling there. We believe what? We believe what? She draws you in, and then she says, we believe in the essential goodness of human beings. So, it's kind of like, we know you have a good heart, we know you want to do the right thing. And the final message she left was, it's never too late. It's never too late. No matter how bad you might feel, you can still do the right thing. And I think it was a really important message to get out there, especially as we entered the third week.

BASH: It's hard to believe it's the third week. And Bryanna, the Pima County Sheriff's Department has confirmed that the backpack seen in the video is from Walmart. The question is whether or not or how important is knowing that even if it was purchased a long time ago.

[17:09:57]

FOX: Yes. Actually, it is a huge facet to this investigation because now, they have records of every single time that backpack was sold obviously in Tucson, but around the country, and they can start pulling the video of each of those, also sales receipts. So, if anyone is popping up as a suspect or we do get genetic genealogy, we see a family member or relative and it's related to, you know, someone who has been purchasing a backpack, it just -- it relies on the rest of the obviously police work to do the rest, but the big point is it gives them a lead to go on.

BASH: Yes. And the leads have been very hard to come by. Casey, last question to you. TMZ reportedly received four letters now from individuals who claim to have Nancy Guthrie or claim to know where she is. Why would an abductor feel more comfortable reaching out to a TMZ than the family or law enforcement?

JORDAN: I think the better question is what kind of extortionist would do that, because I don't think there's any indication or evidence that any of these communications are actually coming from anyone who has any knowledge of Nancy's whereabouts. And if it's true, it's really simple. Stop calling TMZ and get that reward money by calling the FBI tip line.

So, at this point, I just think it's a bunch of really horrible clowns, if you will, if I can be kind, who are exploiting a really horrible situation. If they were real, if they really had Nancy, if they really knew her whereabouts, they would be calling the Pima County sheriff or the FBI.

So, I don't think any of them are legitimate, but you can believe that the police are looking into every one of them, taking them seriously, very carefully analyzing them, because you never know, something could pan out, and we just want to bring Nancy home.

BASH: Yes, we can say that again. All right, Casey, Bryanna, Josh, thank you so much. And on that note, let's give our viewers, everybody out there those numbers, to call the Pima County Sheriff's Department, 520-351-4900, or the FBI, 1-800-CALL-FBI. You can also reach the agency online at tips.fbi.gov.

Up next, update to breaking news that we can give you right now in Rhode Island. Police say two people were killed in a shooting at an ice rink. Three others were injured. High school co-op hockey teams were playing in the arena at the time. Police say the shooter appears to have been targeting his own family and died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. This incident happened in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, only five miles from Brown University, the scene of December's mass shooting that killed two students and injured nine others. Absolutely terrible.

All right, more news that we are following tonight. More prominent names in the Epstein files. The Justice Department compiled a list, sent it to Congress. What was the reason that they did that? Well, we're going to talk about it with Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett next. And later, a key factor that could determine exactly where you will see Republicans win big this November and where you could see Democratic pickups. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: In our "Justice and Law Lead," billionaire Tom Pritzker stepping down as executive chairman of Hyatt hotels over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, saying he regrets his association with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Meanwhile, the Justice Department sent a weekend letter to Congress listing hundreds of prominent people listed in the Epstein files.

But there's a "but" and it's a big one. Being mentioned doesn't necessarily mean anything. Elvis Presley is in there, and he died almost 50 years ago, which raises questions about why DOJ sent this six-page letter that you saw with scores of prominent names. Yes, there are some presidents, business leaders, government officials who have been well-documented in their ties to the convicted sex offender, but there are many others who are simply talked about in the Epstein emails and texts.

I want to bring in Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas. Congresswoman, I'm not sure if you can hear me. REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): I can.

BASH: OK. She can hear me. Forgive me. I cannot hear the congresswoman. So, congresswoman, if you stand by, we're going to take a quick break, and we're going to try to fix this audio issue and come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: And we are back with the Justice Department's letter written to Congress with a list of prominent names in the Epstein files. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas is still here. Now, I can hear you. Thank you for your patience, congresswoman. You are on the Oversight Committee. That's one of the jobs and the committees that you sit on in Washington. One of your colleagues, Democrat Rok Khanna, said that this is DOJ's attempt to muddy the waters. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace pointed out that the list is -- quote -- "missing names." What's your reaction?

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Yes, it's selective release. We've seen this consistently. There is an agenda that this DOJ has, and that is why the American people simply do not trust the leadership in Washington right now under this administration, because it feels as if it's more about protecting pedophiles than it is in actually seeking truth and justice, which is the job of the Department of Justice.

So, sadly enough, just like when we saw the initial release of the Epstein files, we saw that there were victims' names that were released as well, and it was clear that that was intentional. Sadly enough, I feel like that was an attempt to intimidate these amazing survivors. And, frankly, we saw when Pam Bondi appeared before judiciary, the other committee that I serve on, that they absolutely were the courageous ones, and our pathetic attorney general, sadly enough, is not doing the job that she sworn oath to do.

BASH: There's so much that was redacted from these files. I know you are one of the lawmakers who went in and looked at some of the unredacted documents. What were your takeaways?

CROCKETT: No, that's actually not the case. I went in to see unredacted files. And of the files that my staff had listed that they wanted me to go ahead and try to review, all of those files are still redacted. And so, I was asking the staff that was there, why is it that I am here? And basically, it was just a waste of my time.

This is another thing that concerns everyone, whether you're talking about a Ro Khanna or a Thomas Massie. There's a lack of transparency and seemingly an attempt to cover up. It is really sad that the United States has historically led this world.

[17:25:00]

And right now, we're seeing the United States fall for so many reasons. We see leaders --

BASH: I just want to make --

CROCKETT: -- all around the world that are resigning. Go ahead.

BASH: I just want to make sure I understand what happened. So, you went in, as did many of your colleagues, to see unredacted files, but was it --

CROCKETT: Yes.

BASH: -- the specific files that you wanted to see that they would not unredact?

CROCKETT: Correct.

BASH: Why do you think that is?

CROCKETT: So, the way --

BASH: Do you the context around those?

CROCKETT: I don't know exactly what all I was supposed to see if it had been redacted. My staff gave me a list of specific files that they were like, we think you should try to go and look at these. They have four computers set up for all 435 members of the House. I sat down at one of those computers. They showed us how to go through the process of actually seeing the unredacted version.

I then had to have the person that taught us how to do that to say, wait a minute, am I doing something wrong? Because as I continued to search specific documents, they are coming up and they are redacted. And so, the explanation that I was given is that that must have been how they were sent over.

And there are a lot of documents that they've been getting the same issue. They've been trying to resolve, I will say, because a lot of members have had that problem. So, they were taking note of everything that I was trying to unredact and denoting that they were not available in an unredacted form.

BASH: Wow. I do want to ask about the political race that you're in. You are running in the Democratic primary for Senate in Texas. Early voting starts tomorrow. And I want to ask about a report from Notus that says some of your allies are worried about your approach, that you're being outspent. Some Democrats aren't sure who's in charge of your campaign.

I know and people who know anything about you know that you're not a traditional candidate. But why are you so confident in your non- traditional approach and whether it will work statewide against your Democratic opponent, James Tallarico, who, for example, just announced a 12-day bus tour ahead of the March 3rd primary?

CROCKETT: Yes. So, listen, we're going to barnstorm through the state as well. As you and I both know, I still have a job in D.C. I mean, I'm on a 48-hour call right now to go back and deal with DHS funding. But I didn't get here by doing it the traditional way. I can tell you that the establishment was always against me. I can tell you that, you know, I had all odds stacked against me. My very first race for the state house, I was outspent five to one.

We do know that there was a specific intent to try to defund our campaign as we saw podcasters specifically saying do not send money to Jasmine Crockett. We know the operative that is behind my opponent's campaign that has specifically been peddling these stories to New York and D.C. That's why the stories aren't coming out of Texas but, instead, they're coming from New York and D.C. just like the podcasters are coming out of New York and D.C.

But I have faith in the Texans, right? And the coalition that we specifically attract is the coalition that it's going to take to win. The most recent polling that came out from University of Houston, the number one said that independents and Republicans prefer me. Now, they want to say that I can't win, but the reality is that the numbers don't suggest that and no one is putting numbers behind this. All they're doing is sinking a lot of money into a candidate who has never been tested and never been hit.

And the final point that I'll say is not only does my opponent have a super PAC that is spinning against us with negative ads, but also our governor. He decided to sink over a million dollars into T.V. ads against me, our governor. Listen, the Republicans say that they believe that I would be the one that they want, but when you look at their actions, who spends a million dollars and doesn't even go after the people that are running against him?

BASH: Yes. Well, that is interesting. I have a lot more I want to talk to you about. I hope you come back and we can talk more ahead of the March 3rd primary. Thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

CROCKETT: Absolutely. Good to see you.

BASH: And the Epstein files are revealing more prominent names connected to the now dead pedophile. The latest, British princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, daughters of former Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, "Fergie." Their parents were already under scrutiny for their messages with Epstein. CNN's Max Foster reports it appears that at times, they dragged their daughters into Epstein's world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAX FOSTER, CNN LONDON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of Britain's royal family thrust into the spotlight after being named hundreds of times in the latest tranche of Epstein files. The saga involving the late sex offender had already engulfed both their parents, the former Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. Now, new details have emerged about Epstein's friendship with the princesses' mother, who seems to have brought her daughters into his orbit even after he was convicted for sex offences.

[17:30:00] A series of emails released by the Department of Justice indicate that Ferguson, Eugenie, and Beatrice all visited Epstein in Miami in 2009, just five days after he was released from jail. He served 13 months for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

[17:30:19]

Do you need a ride, Epstein asks before they lunch. No, thank you, the former duchess replies, adding it'll be myself, Beatrice and Eugenie, at a time when they were 20 and 19 years old. In a subsequent e-mail, Ferguson tells Epstein, cannot wait to see you.

A separate thread between Epstein and his personal assistant days earlier also appears to indicate that he paid about $14,000 for the trio's flights to the U.S. And here's another email chain, nearly two years later, in 2011, between Epstein, Ferguson and her then spokesperson. In it, the former duchess says that Beatrice advised her on how to handle a British journalist to whom she had given a statement about Epstein.

Just last year, Ferguson's spokesperson said she had cut off relations with Epstein, "As soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations." But all these DOJ files suggest otherwise. As for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Beatrice and Eugenie's father, he remains under pressure from his ties to Epstein.

The disgraced former prince has previously denied any wrongdoing, including after he reached an out-of-court settlement with a woman who said she was trafficked to him as a teen. Beatrice and Eugenie have kept a low profile through all of this, and there's no suggestion of wrongdoing simply because they've been named in the Epstein files.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER (on camera): Dana, we have reached out to Ferguson's representatives for comment on these exchanges seen in the Epstein documents, and CNN has also sought to contact the princesses for comment, but we haven't heard back from any of them. Dana?

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Max Foster, thank you. And still ahead, the actual toxin used to kill Alexei Navalny, one of Vladimir Putin's most vocal critics, turns out it was a poison from a tropical frog. The report laying out how is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:36:24]

BASH: In our World Lead, tributes today to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, marking two years since his killing. Navalny's mother gathered with a crowd at her son's grave in Moscow. Meanwhile, a stunning new report pinpoints what Russia allegedly used to poison Navalny. Lethal toxins from a tropical frog. Here's CNN's Nick Paton Walsh.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR (voice- over): Tiny, brightly colored, yet deadly and found in Ecuador or Peru. But 8,000 miles away in Siberia, the naturally occurring toxins of the South American Anthony dart frog were used to murderous effect by Russian authorities to kill President Vladimir Putin's leading irritant opposition figure, Alexei Navalny. That's according to an investigation by the U.K., Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands announced ahead of the second anniversary of Navalny's death.

They said studies of samples from Navalny's body left them, "Confident" the rare substance epibatidine killed Navalny. Inside the IK-3 prison in Kharp, Northern Siberia, given by touch or injection and likely a synthetic version lab made, said an expert.

ALASTAIR HAY, ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGIST PROFESSOR, LEEDS UNIVERSITY: Never have I come across anything to suggest it's been used to poison anybody, deliberately. I think there's only one instance in the literature of a laboratory worker having what was clearly a much smaller dose. Otherwise it would have been made synthetically. The structure of this chemical has been known for some time. Epibatidine is so toxic that it's never been used clinically because doctors just can't take the risk.

WALSH (voice-over): An answer for his widow, yet still pain, she told "Politico."

YULIA NAVALNAYA, ALEXEI NAVALNY'S WIDOW: It's difficult for me to say that it's good news, you know, because my husband was killed. And of course I knew that he was killed. He was very young. He was less than 50.

WALSH (voice-over): Moscow has form here, several detailed western investigations evidencing its use of exotic and savage poisons. In 2018, former Russian spy and defector Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned on his home's door handle by the Russian nerve agent Novichok. They survived, but an abandoned bottle discarded by the suspected Russian agents killed a passerby, Dawn Sturgess.

Navalny himself narrowly survived Novichok being put in his underpants in 2020. You can hear his agony here on a visit to the Siberian city of Tomsk. He was later imprisoned after his return to Russia.

And in 2006, another Russian spy who defected, Alexander Litvinenko, was poisoned by polonium-210 in his tea. In an operation likely approved by Putin, a British inquiry concluded. The Kremlin has always strongly denied any involvement.

The Kremlin spokesman resolutely rejected the latest claims and called them negative, biased and unfounded. Painful, imaginative and rare, the list of substances the Kremlin has been found to use on Russians it sees guilty of the highest crime, turning on Putin's Russia.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE) [17:39:47]

BASH: And we are less than eight months out from a major election cycle here in the U.S., the 2026 midterms. My next guest says he can show us where we might see razor-thin races, maybe where Democrats could take control or not. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Here's a President's Day game you can play. Who will win your congressional district this year in the midterms? Here's how to play. First, find out which district you're in. Then look up who won in 2024. Was it Donald Trump or Kamala Harris? And then try to figure out how much they won by. A 60 to 40 percent spread is 20 points, 52 to 48. We all know basic math. Even I can do that. That's four points. Ron Brownstein is here to explain why those numbers are really important at looking ahead to this year's midterms.

[17:45:03]

So let's just start with somebody who lives in a congressional district that Donald Trump won or lost by that small margin.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, historically, those are the districts that have moved the most in a midterm. I mean, if you're thinking about this midterm in the big picture, it really is starting to look like the classic collision between the irresistible force and the immovable object. I mean, the irresistible force is that Trump's disapproval rating is rising to a level that has usually signaled a really bad midterm for the president's party.

The immovable object is that there are so many Republicans barricaded into very safe Republican districts and the number of Republican incumbents in those kind of districts you just mentioned that are highly vulnerable that Trump either lost or won by a narrow margin in 2024 is smaller than it was in 2018, much less 2010 or 2006.

If Trump's approval rating stays as low as it is now, bad things are going to happen to Republicans. But if he recovers into anything like his normal range, Democrats are going to have to win in terrain that has been tough historically for the other party to win in the midterms.

BASH: And I just want to put a finer point on it because this didn't just happen.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

BASH: Just, you know, poof, a magic wand happened. And if we could put those numbers back up, I think this is critical. And that is the redistricting that we've seen over the past year.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

BASH: That's sort of, you know, mid-decade redistricting, which is unusual. But the redistricting that we've seen, which is supposed to happen because you recount with the census every 10 years, that has been taken by Republican led states, by Democratic led states, and they've gerrymandered these districts already so much that the number of swing districts, which used to be even in 2018 or other times where Democrats and Republicans had wave elections, there were a lot more seats that were kind of movable.

BROWNSTEIN: Right. Look, obviously Democrats only have to win three seats. So they're still the favorite to win the House because the party out of the White House has won on average, well more than three seats. But 85 percent of the House Republicans are now in districts where Trump ran at least five points better than he did nationally.

And if you look back, even in really big midterms, I figured this out the other day, '06, 2010, 2014, 2018, really big midterms. The party out of the White House won 17 of 674 chances to flip seats where the President ran at least five points better than he did nationally.

So there are enough seats that are narrow for Democrats to win the majority. And if Trump's approval rating stays anywhere where it is now, they will be strongly favored to do so. But to get to that kind of 2018 blue wave election, you have to go deeper into Trump country than they did then.

BASH: And what about what we have seen in Texas, in California, where we are right now, and how that may affect what we're going to see?

BROWNSTEIN: I think it's kind of a national tragedy because in the end, it's going to end up pretty much close to a partisan wash, right? Republicans are not going to get the big advantage out of this that they expected. But what is happening? You are eliminating Democratic seats in red states and Republican seats in blue states. And basically, you're pulling the country further apart.

We're already in a situation, Dana, where if you look at the 25 states, there are 25 states that voted three times for Donald Trump. Republicans now have all 50 of their Senate seats. There are 19 states that voted three times against Donald Trump. Democrats have 37 of their 38 Senate seats and have a good chance at winning the last one with Susan Collins.

The same thing is happening at the House level. I mean, you're going to come out of this election because of this redistricting where something like 85 percent of the House seats in each of these blocks are going to go with the party that won the presidential race. And that just kind of pulls, I think, pulls at the threads that hold together the country, gives the President less incentive, especially someone inclined like Trump, you know, to view the places that vote against you as the enemy.

You know, he has to worry a little bit now about New York or California because he's worried about losing members. That's going to be gone. I mean, we are -- it's just a dangerous trend that ultimately really had no partisan payoff.

BASH: I encourage everybody to read your piece on CNN.com. I also, I've known you for so many years and it still amazes me how you just spit out these numbers and data points. You're remarkable.

BROWNSTEIN: We've been doing this for a while.

BASH: Yes. Ron, thank you.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Thanks for having me.

BASH: Appreciate it.

Now let's get some reaction and insight from our political experts. Shermichael, I want to start with you. What do you make of Ron's analysis? And what are you thinking about as a Republican, as you look towards the midterms?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, I'm looking at the same numbers. I read Ron's article and he is spot on. I think the question for me as a strategist becomes if the President's approval ratings can somewhat stabilize, number one. Number two, do you see some predictability in the economic conditioning of most Americans? And if so, then I think you can somehow break what could be a pretty disastrous midterm for Republicans. That's going to be my primary focus as I'm talking with members who are up for re-election, really trying to protect those sort of vulnerable Republicans who are in Democratic states, such as New York, for an example.

[17:50:11]

But to the core premise, I am worried just as an American, put my partisanship aside, that we are moving in a direction where bipartisanship is just a word of yesteryear, where there will not be an incentive for political candidates and Republicans of either side to feel the need to work across the aisle. That's not beneficial to anybody, particularly Americans at the lower end of the economic spectrum to bring it back to the economy.

BASH: Yes, Shermichael. I'm going to burst your bubble here. That ship sailed because it used to be that they used to work across the aisle. But now, because there are so few swing districts.

SINGLETON: I'm trying, Dana.

BASH: I know, listen, I appreciate it. I like your glass half full point of view. Adrian, just on the other point that Ron was talking about, which I think is really important. If you look back to 2006, when Democrats won back the House, huge wave. 2018, also big wave. And Republicans had the same big numbers in 2010. As a Democrat who wants to retake the House, even though it's just three seats. Are you thinking in waves? Are you thinking in increments?

ADRIENNE ELROD, FORMER SR. SPOKESPERSON, HARRIS-WALZ CAMPAIGN: Well, I think, Dana, first of all, I was part of a team at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 cycle. And Ron was also covering that cycle. So it was kind of fun to listen to him reminisce about the good old days when Democrats won back the House. And of course, Nancy Pelosi became speaker for the first time making history. All that being said, I think you did raise an incredibly important point about redistricting. This is a whole different ballgame now this time around for both Democrats and Republicans, because we're seeing mid-cycle redistricting in a historic way that we never have before, which is making these districts and these congressional seats even more entrenched.

So, yes, typically when a President is under 50 percent, the opposition party this time, of course, the Democrats will pick up anywhere from, you know, 22 to 30 plus seats in the House. This could be a little bit different this time, because, again, as you mentioned, there is so much redistricting going on. These seats are even more entrenched in either a D or an R category. When I was at the DCCC in '05, '06, there were a lot of marginal seats.

And I think it was something where between 10 and 15 seats, Dana, we won those seats by half a point to a point. You probably are not going to see that as much. You may see some seats, of course, that close. You're probably not going to see the margins that close in a lot of the seats that Democrats will flip. So it's a totally different ballgame.

But look, Dana, you look at 2025 for Democrats, great year. We won every single special election. We also won the Virginia governor's race and the New Jersey governor's race. So the statistics for Democrats are looking very good. And also on that note, historically, when Democrats have taken the New Jersey and the Virginia governor's seats, we have won back the House the following, the succeeding year.

BASH: I want to play something that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said about election security.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I would say that many people believe that it may be one of the most important things that we need to make sure we trust is reliable and that when it gets to Election Day, that we've been proactive to make sure that we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country through the days that we have, knowing that people can trust it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Shermichael, how do you feel about that description, the right people voting, electing the right leaders?

SINGLETON: I'm a Republican. I want voters to vote for Republican leaders. And I think my dear friend Adrienne would say she wants voters to vote for Democratic leaders. And I think we would all agree that we want our election process to be secure. But I don't think that that's the role of the Secretary's agency, number one. And number two, if we are going to put a spotlight on election integrity, Ron has written about this in the past.

I was actually watching an old clip before this segment of him talking about election interference from international actors such as Russia. And so we're going to have a conversation about this. One, I don't think it's partisan. And two, I think we need to do a lot more to make sure that Republicans and Democrats pass the type of sweeping legislation to assure that every single American has their vote counted without the interference from foreign actors.

BASH: It shouldn't be partisan but --

ELROD: And Dana, can I just --

BASH: Yes, go ahead, Adrienne.

ELROD: Yes. Sorry, Dana. I was just going to say, I mean, I think Shermichael and I can actually agree on this. First of all, of course, elections should be secure. Elections are secure. They have been historically secure in the United States. It is not the job of Kristi Noem to go out there and make these blatant statements and try to intimidate voters. You know, and I think, Dana, when we see, you know, some of these ICE raids that are going on and the implosion of the National Guard around the country, there is concern that Trump could try to use both, you know, the agency's deployed in ICE, the agency's deploying the National Guard, and try to use the Insurrection Act in a way that's not going to be positive for voters.

[17:55:08]

So I just think everyone needs to stay on top of it. I feel confident in our Secretaries of State across the country that they will continue to do what they've done all along, Democrat or Republican, and that is to administer safe and fair elections.

BASH: Adrienne and Shermichael, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

SINGLETON: Good to see you, Dana.

BASH: And an update from the sheriff in the Nancy Guthrie disappearance today, what he's saying tonight about the entire Guthrie family. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:59:46]

BASH: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Dana Bash in for Jake Tapper. This hour, investigators are making it clear all of Nancy Guthrie's family members, including siblings and spouses, have been cleared as possible suspects in her disappearance. It comes as law enforcement reveals they are analyzing DNA from a glove which appears to match the one worn by a suspect in --