Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Ex-Prince Andrew Arrested On Suspected Misconduct For Links To Epstein; Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, (R-PA), Is Interviewed About Trump: "Bad Things Will Happen" If Iran Doesn't Make A Deal; Judge Orders Restoration Of Philadelphia Slavery Exhibits; Zuckerberg Defends Social Media Platforms At Landmark Trial; Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 19, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:27]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right, thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you all. Thanks you at home for watching as well. Don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for The Lead.

Hi, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Thanks so much, Kasie. We'll look for more tomorrow in The Arena.

HUNT: See you tomorrow.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: A scandal like this has not rocked the royal family since 1647. The Lead starts right now.

The new images of former Prince Andrew appearing to duck from cameras capturing his release from custody after his dramatic arrest.

Ahead on The Lead, the journalist who conducted that damning 2019 interview with Andrew about his alleged ties with the dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What does she make of the allegations against the former prince now?

Plus, in the U.S. more revelations in the Epstein files, this time entangling two Harvard researchers visiting Epstein's private island, taking his money. One even gave Epstein key card access to his Harvard office.

And a U.S. military strike on Iran possible, if not probable, within a matter of days. The president's public warning today after a critical meeting in the White House situation room.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

We're going to begin in our law and justice lead with the extraordinary, extraordinary arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew. Here he is slouched down inside a car as he left the police station this evening after his arrest today on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Police saying that Andrew is released under investigation, though they have not publicly said what exactly led to the arrest.

We know Andrew was the U.K. trade envoy from 2001 to 2011. And police previously said investigators were reviewing allegations that a female of unspecified age was trafficked to the U.K. by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to have a sexual encounter with Mountbatten-Windsor.

Investigators were also reviewing claims that Andrew shared sensitive information with Epstein while serving as trade envoy. According to some Epstein documents recently released by the U.S. Justice Department, Andrew was in contact with Epstein during his tenure in public office as U.K. trade envoy.

Now, inclusion of Andrew's name in those documents is not evidence of wrongdoing. And so far, the former prince has not commented publicly on the arrest or on the allegations of misconduct in public office. Andrew has previously denied all accusations against him as they relate to Epstein.

Today, after arresting the former prince, police began searching two royal addresses. Royal Lodge, that's Andrew's former residence in Windsor, from which he was evicted last year by his brother the King, King Charles. And Wood Farm, his home on the Sandringham estate where Andrew moved earlier this month. If the former prince is ultimately charged with misconduct in public office, that of -- that offense carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Again, Andrew has previously denied all wrongdoing as it relates to Epstein.

Here he was back in 2019 being asked about Epstein during that now infamous, at least his -- regarding his performance, BBC interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMILY MAITLIS, FORMER BBC ANCHOR: Do you regret the whole friendship with Epstein? ANDREW MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR, FORMERLY PRINCE ANDREW: Now, still not. And the reason being is that the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn either by him or because of him, were actually very useful. He himself not, as it were, as close as you might think. We're not -- we weren't -- we weren't that close.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In just a moment, I'm going to talk to the journalist who conducted that BBC interview in Buckingham Palace. It would not be a stretch to say that Andrew's answers accelerated his own downfall in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the royal family. Shortly after that interview aired, his late mother, Queen Elizabeth, who had been his protector in so many ways for so long, forced her son to step back from public duties. And then in January 2022, she stripped her son of all his honorary military titles and royal patronages. Things got worse for Andrew after his mother passed and his brother, King Charles III, ascended to the throne. Last year, when more Epstein related allegations against Andrew surfaced, King Charles stripped Andrew of his royal titles and evicted him from Royal Lodge. And now we're here.

[17:05:00]

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, still technically eighth in line to the throne, becoming the first senior British royal to be arrested since King Charles I in 1647. That's the year, 1647. And that turned out to be a colossal moment in British history.

It led to revolution. King Charles was beheaded and the monarchy was temporarily abolished. So what does the current King Charles make of the historic arrest of his brother? His statement today reads in part, quote, "As I have said before, the authorities have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly, the law must take its course." King Charles spent the rest of the day keeping calm and carrying on, as it were. He was attending London Fashion Week.

I want to bring in Emily Maitlis. She was the journalist who sat down with Andrew in that infamous BBC interview in 2019, infamous for his performance, famous for hers.

Emily, it's been nearly seven years since the interview. Are you surprised that an arrest on any allegations didn't happen in 2019?

MAITLIS: Honestly, I am stunned by what's happened today. This doesn't happen in our country. It is virtually unheard of. The last time a royal was arrested was King Charles I in 1647, and he was beheaded. And that was briefly the end of the monarchy.

So to say that this is a crisis moment, I think doesn't begin to cover it. Andrew, no longer Prince Andrew, is still eighth in line to the throne. He still lives in a royal residence on a royal estate. It's not the one that he used to live at, it's not the one next to Windsor Castle, but he is essentially still in line to the throne. So I think that gives you the perspective, really, of just the gravity of what has happened today.

TAPPER: At the time, you repeatedly asked him about the fact that he kept up a friendship with Epstein despite an investigation into him back in the United States. I want to play just one of the exchanges from your fantastic interview. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAITLIS: In 2006, in May, an arrest warrant was issued for Epstein for sexual assault of a minor.

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: Yes.

MAITLIS: In July, he was invited to Windsor Castle to your daughter Princess Beatrice's 18th birthday. Why would you do that?

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: Because I was asking, Ghislaine. But even so, at the time, I don't think -- I -- certainly I wasn't aware when the invitation was issued what was going on in the United States. And I wasn't aware until the media picked up on it, because he never said anything about it.

MAITLIS: He never discussed with you the fact --

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: Yes, no discussion.

MAITLIS: -- that an arrest warrant had been issued?

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Looking back on it, what do you make of that response, do you feel news in the U.S. is so siloed or was in 2006 that it's credible that then Prince Andrew wouldn't know about such serious charges against his so called friend? There would be no one in the royal family or all their extenuate -- all their extensive staff that would say, hey, by the way, he was just arrested for sex with a minor?

MAITLIS: Look, we now know there were a lot of lies in that interview. When he told me that he'd gone to visit Epstein in December of 2010 to break off the relationship and he said he'd done it in person because he felt it was his words, the honorable thing to do. We have now discovered the e-mails that show their friendship, their relationship continued almost days after he left that New York mansion for that four, five day stay. And once the photograph emerged of him with Virginia Giuffre, we think taken by Epstein in Ghislaine Maxwell's Belgravia house, there was more correspondence between the two men discussing this photograph.

Now we should say that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor denies all wrongdoing. The fact that he's in that photo and the fact he's in the files does not make him a criminal per se. But I think in terms of going back to that interview, so much of it is kind of disintegrating in our fingers now because it's become clear how much of it was fabricated.

TAPPER: Yes. You asked Andrew about a dinner party with Epstein in December 2010. He strongly disputed your characterization of it as a party. Let me play a little bit of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: Well, I was there, so there was a dinner. I think it was quite as you might put it. But yes, OK, I was there for -- I was there for dinner. Yes.

MAITLIS: I'm just trying to work this out because you said you went to break up the relationship and yet you stayed at that New York mansion several days. I'm wondering how long --

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: But I was doing a number of other things while I was there.

MAITLIS: But you were staying at the house --

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: Yes.

MAITLIS: -- of a convicted sex offender.

MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR: It was a convenient place to stay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Again, Andrew was arrested today on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Not at least as far as we know as of now on any sexual misconduct allegations.

[17:10:07]

But do you know if authorities ever used your interview in their investigations? Do you sense that that possibly could be happening now?

MAITLIS: It was very important to us when we sat down with then Prince Andrew, that we created a document of public record. That was something that my editor, Esme Wren, was really adamant about. She said, this has to be available, and it has to be useful if the FBI want it, if Congress want it, if the Met police want it. It has to be something that gives us a record.

And the clip you've just played, I think is really indicative. It really takes us inside the character. Because my question to him was, there was a party given in your honor, and his way of understanding that was, well, it wasn't in my honor. I was there. In other words, I'm a prince.

If I'm there, then of course it's in my honor. And so much of the interview suggests a sort of dislocation, if I'm honest, Jake, between how regular people would hear and see things that were going on and how he appeared to. So in one of the lines, I quoted Virginia Giuffre's legal team saying, you could not be around Epstein and not know what was going on. And he said, well, it was a bit like a railway station. You know, people were coming and going the whole time.

I guess the question for most of us would be, why? You know, doesn't that raise your -- doesn't that raise your curiosity? Aren't you going to ask questions? But look, Prince Andrew -- ex-Prince Andrew is not alone in remaining friends with Epstein. Once he'd been convicted on pedophile charges, it was one count, wasn't it, of child, I think they called it child prostitution at the time.

We would probably now call it child rape. But the bigger question, I guess, for all of us is whatever happened to that trial? Whatever happened to make a trial in which 36 or so women testified, suddenly disappear and get turned into a sweetheart plea deal? I think that stands at the heart of really understanding the Epstein mystery or travesty, quite frankly.

TAPPER: And as you noted earlier, Andrew denies any wrongdoing. This interview -- MAITLIS: Yes.

TAPPER: -- is so good. I really urge everybody watching right now to go on YouTube or wherever exists, BBC or whatever, to see it. Such a masterclass interviewing and journalism by you, Emily. I'm such a fan.

Such a legendary interview. They actually made two movies about it. One scoop, the other a very royal scandal. When you walked away from the interview, do you think Andrew had any idea of how damning his performance was? Did he or an associate ever call you to try to clean up or clarify anything he had told you?

MAITLIS: My sense was that Prince Andrew was pretty pleased with how it had gone. And I know that because we do interviews the whole time as you do, and if your guest is not happy, then you are ushered out of there pretty quickly or they leave via the back door. We were in the heart of Buckingham Palace to do that interview and after it finished, I got a guided tour. I walked along the corridors. I was shown where the Queen, his late mother, the Queen's office was.

We stopped in front of a statue of Prince Albert and he said, next time you come -- next time you come to the palace, we'll talk about entrepreneurship. In other words, I think he felt, and maybe it was the sort of adrenaline rush that often accompanies the sort of end of, you know, an hour long conversation. I think he felt it had been fine and I think those around him felt it had been fine. And we stayed in touch. We did it very thoroughly, I would say, ethically, we stayed in touch with the members of his sort of the palace whilst the interview was going out, whilst were putting the headlines out.

And even after it aired, we checked in with them to see that they were happy and they were. I think -- I think what he wasn't expecting possibly was the reaction in the next day's press, our papers, our press can be pretty brutal in its --

TAPPER: Yes.

MAITLIS: -- headlines. And most importantly of all, the public reaction, the public just heard something very different to what he thought he had delivered that day.

TAPPER: Well, I'm a huge fan. Emily Maitlis, thank you so much for joining us today.

MAITLIS: Thank you.

TAPPER: We really appreciate it.

MAITLIS: Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: As noted, former Prince Andrew has long denied sexual assault claims by Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide last year. Giuffre's attorney up until her passing will join me ahead with her reaction to the Andrew arrest on apparently unrelated charges.

But first, is President Trump about to order another U.S. military strike on Iran? Does he need any sign off from Congress? Does Congress care? I'll ask a Republican who sits on two key House committees.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:18:45]

TAPPER: In our world lead sources tell CNN that the U.S. is prepared to strike Iran as soon as this weekend. As President Trump weighs his options, he did issue this warning to Tehran earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region and they must make a deal. Or if that doesn't happen, I maybe can understand. If it doesn't happen. But bad things will happen if it doesn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: President Trump suggesting a decision on what happens next will come in the next 10 days.

Joining us now to discuss Republican Congressman Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania. He's on the House Foreign affairs and Homeland Security Committees.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. So I want to start with a question a lot of Americans may have. Why does the U.S. need to strike Iran regarding the nuclear program? Because President Trump repeatedly said last summer that the U.S. had obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities. What threat would need such immediate action?

RYAN MACKENZIE (R-PA), FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Yes. So we need to show great restraint in military action against Iran. And we certainly did have a very successful strike, as you pointed out years ago, with those military capabilities being deactivated for Iran.

[17:20:00]

But we do have to make sure that any new capabilities that they are developing do not threaten to destabilize the region all over again.

At the same time, what we see is Congress, we have Representatives Khanna and Massie putting forward a War Powers Resolution, which is very vague, very ill defined, and I think would actually leave America less safe and more vulnerable to potential conflicts in the Middle East. So we have to be very careful here. It's something we're engaging with the administration on as they move forward.

TAPPER: Do you have any concerns about another strike on Iran without Congressional authorization? I mean, the War Powers Act that you're referring to notwithstanding? I mean, it is supposed to be the task of Congress to declare war. This would be the second military attack, and there doesn't seem to be any immediate danger to the U.S.

MACKENZIE: Yes. And so this is something that is not clearly defined. This is why we have these debates in Congress all the time about what is an imminent threat against the United States. When should we step in as Congress to take action? And certainly we do not want to see boots on the ground.

We do not want to see another forever war in the Middle East. So again, we need to show great restraint here. But precise or precision attacks that can help deactivate somebody's military or nuclear ambitions, I think are certainly warranted in certain situations. But we do want to evaluate on a case by case basis.

TAPPER: Satellite images appear to show Iran rapidly fortifying some of its nuclear sites. What does that signal to you about what could be targeted in any potential strikes by the U.S.?

MACKENZIE: Well, I think certainly we also need to recognize not only their nuclear ambitions, but also the fact that we are engaged in diplomatic negotiations at this time. So there are instances where countries like Iran want to posture and maybe bluff on what their nuclear capabilities are. So our intelligence community is assessing those things. As a member of Foreign affairs, as you pointed out, we do receive top secret classified briefings on a regular basis. Chairman Mast hosts those for those of us that are members of the committee every week when we're in session.

And so when we go back next week, we're certainly going to be looking for more information from the intelligence community.

TAPPER: There is obviously a logical concern about what Iran's retaliation might look like. On Tuesday, Iran's supreme leader threatened to sink U.S. warships if the U.S. chooses to strike. So if the U.S. does strike Iran, how do you anticipate Iran might respond?

MACKENZIE: Well, that's a real challenge in this situation. Obviously, they are not a rational actor. They have different motivations than most other participants on the global stage. And so, again, this is why you have to show great restraint that we don't get entangled into some kind of conflict unnecessarily. And so, again, when we go back into session next week, we're going to be looking for more information from the intelligence community, from the administration.

But again, the War Powers Resolution that's being proposed is not the answer. It is very vague and again, would leave us more vulnerable and susceptible to attacks.

TAPPER: Republican Congressman Ryan Mackenzie from the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

We're back with what has been a big day for our friends across the pond in the U.K. Police arresting former Prince Andrew on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Could this escalate to any sexual misconduct charges? An attorney for Andrew's most prominent accuser is going to join us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:27:39] TAPPER: And we're back with our law and justice lead and more on the fallout over the shocking arrest of King Charles III's younger brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the ex-prince's arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office in the United Kingdom. This comes after new revelations from the Epstein files released by the Justice Department.

The family of Virginia Giuffre reacted to his arrest, issuing this statement which reads in part, quote, "He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you," unquote. Giuffre, who died by suicide last year, repeatedly claimed that she was forced to have sex with then Prince Andrew while underage.

In her posthumous memoir, "Nobody's Girl," Giuffre wrote about what she said in a sworn declaration in 2015, quote, "Epstein, Andy, and approximately eight other young girls and I had sex together. The other girls all seemed and appeared to be under the age of 18 and didn't really speak English. Epstein laughed about how they couldn't really communicate, saying they are the easiest girls to get along with," Andrew has -- unquote. Andrew has long denied the claims which do not appear as of right now to be connected to his arrest today. He has yet to publicly respond to his arrest.

Sigrid McCawley served as Virginia Giuffre's lawyer up until her passing. She joins us now.

Sigrid, what was your reaction to hearing the news of former Prince Andrew's arrest?

SIGRID MCCAWLEY, REPRESENTED VIRGINIA GIUFFRE: I will tell you, it was really a monumental moment. The most heartbreaking part, though, was when I got the call at 5:00 a.m., my first instinct was to reach and pick up the phone and call Virginia. And I had done that so many times before when Epstein was arrested, we spoke immediately. When Maxwell was arrested, we spoke immediately. When Jean-Luc Brunel was arrested, we spoke immediately.

So it was incredibly heartbreaking not to be able to pick up the phone and celebrate this moment with her, a moment that she had worked over a decade for.

TAPPER: Our viewers, I think are familiar with Epstein's arrest and Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest. Explain to them who Jean-Luc was or is.

MCCAWLEY: Jean-Luc Brunel was one of the key conspirators with respect to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. And he was the primary recruiter of young females that were models and he used his modeling agency that was connected to Epstein in order to recruit those young girls.

TAPPER: So we are getting closer to marking one year since Virginia died. I'll be talking to her brother and sister-in-law in the next hour.

[17:30:00] But you also had a very close relationship with her. She trusted you. How do you think she might feel about this? You know, this is huge news, and she was very public with her allegations against former Prince Andrew.

MCCAWLEY: I think she would have seen this as a step in the right direction for justice. I mean, as we know, he has not yet been charged with sex trafficking, which was really what Virginia was after. She, you know, made those allegations again over a decade ago and worked tirelessly to make them public, to bring forward this information so that this sex trafficking operation would be exposed.

So I am certain that she is smiling down from heaven on this information that was released today with this arrest. But it's just a sliver of justice. There is so much more to be done.

TAPPER: How do you make sense of today's arrest? Because the arrest does not appear to be connected to Virginia's claims about him in terms of sexual assault, trafficking, etcetera, all of which Andrew denies. But it is an example of someone powerful facing some legal consequences overseas. And in addition to that question, why do you think that we're not really seeing legal consequences here in the US in terms of charges against anybody?

MCCAWLEY: I think what we're seeing with Prince Andrew or the former Prince Andrew's arrest today is really how the elite traded in this currency. Right. This currency of, I'll offer you a favor and, Epstein, you'll provide me with these women.

So what we see today is him abusing his public office. I am hopeful that the arrest and then the investigation will lead to additional information where he will be charged with his activity in this sex trafficking operation.

And as we've seen, it wasn't just Virginia, so there are other survivors out there who were similarly harmed. And so I'm hopeful that this is a step forward where the investigation will go forward and there will be more information uncovered.

TAPPER: All right. Sigrid McCawley, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

MCCAWLEY: Thank you.

TAPPER: What could the next phase of this legal case look like former Prince Andrew? We're going to get some legal perspective, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:36:18]

TAPPER: And we're back with our Law and Justice Lead, President Trump this afternoon weighing in on today's arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the former Prince.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think it's a shame. I think it's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's a very, very sad to me, it's a very sad thing when I see that. It's a very sad thing to see it and to see what's going on with his brother who's obviously coming to our country very soon. And he's a fantastic man, the king. So I think it's a very sad thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The former prince was taken into custody this morning on suspicion of misconduct in public office. With me now, CNN's Kara Scannell and Elie Honig and U.K. barrister and international attorney Andrew Eborn.

Andrew, let me start with you. You know Great Britain's legal system. How serious are these charges? Could he face prison time? What do these charges suggest?

ANDREW EBORN, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER AND BROADCASTER: Well, the extremely serious charges, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. But we also have basic rules in the U.K. about contempt of court and what that is, very strict liabilities about what can be reported once somebody has been arrested. And if there's a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, then basically intent is irrelevant.

And what happens? Criminal proceedings become active upon arrest. That's what's happened. He was arrested and they remain active until acquittal, sentence or discontinuance. Now, as has been reported and it's live as we go on here. Andrew Eborn, basically, it says Andrew has been released under investigation. This is about the former Prince Andrew. And searches in Norfolk have basically finished.

So we're expecting further revelations to come out over the next few days. But I would warn people around the world, I've been on more platforms than Paddington discussing this, and different jurisdictions have different rules and regulations about what can be said in the media about ongoing cases.

In the U.K., it is incredibly strict and intent is almost irrelevant from that point of view. So we need to be very, very cautious what is said over here. But the principle is that I always say that sunlight is the best disinfectant. More is going to come out, but it will follow the due process.

And all credit to King Charles. He came out and said, look, nobody is above the law, so it needs to follow the due process and he will respect that process.

TAPPER: Quickly, if you could, Andrew, the other Andrew, former Prince Andrew, he's been released. He has not been charged. But do you expect charges?

EBORN: That all depends on. The police will weigh up the evidence that they gather and they will then determine that based on that particular evidence. And I say what's happened in the media, a lot of people are interviewing people like Virginia Duffrey's family.

That side does not form part of the arrest at the moment. Obviously, further things may come about and lots of people are demanding that people look into that. Even the Clintons, they say that people should be coming forward with evidence if they have it.

But we need to look at that sort of side. So it's not looking at the sexual side of things. It's merely looking about this abuse in office, which, as I say, is an incredibly serious offense with a very draconian penalty.

TAPPER: Elie In 2022, I spoke with Geoffrey Berman. He had been the U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York. That's an office you worked in, too. Berman prosecuted Epstein, and I asked him about his efforts to interview then Prince Andrew. Take a listen.

[17:40:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEOFFREY BERMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Lawyers gave us the runaround. We even filed an MLAT request, which was an official request to interview a foreign witness with the government officials in the U.K. and that got stonewalled.

TAPPER: So you think he committed a crime?

BERMAN: You know, what we wanted was the information.

TAPPER: He wouldn't give it to you, even though he's out there lying, saying that he was willing to.

BERMAN: He said he was willing to give it to us. He didn't give it to us. He stonewalled us. And as of the day I left, he was stonewalling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, Elie, today's arrest further highlights the difference in approach that the U.K. is taking compared to the United States. Do you see this putting more pressure on Attorney General Pam Bondi in any way?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, for sure, Jake. The contrast here is absolutely striking. So 20 days ago, the Justice Department puts up its Epstein Files public library, and here we are just 20 days later, and the English authorities have used some of the documents, including emails that are in that library between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein to bring about this arrest. There's meaningful accountability here in the course of less than three weeks.

Now, contrast that, and you just showed this with your clip with Geoffrey Berman. Contrast that with the approach that the English authorities had been taken previously, but also with what we've heard from Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and others who have been myopic and confused and confusing when asked point blank recently, is there any ongoing criminal investigation of anyone around Jeffrey Epstein? There's no indication that our DOJ is meaningfully investigating anybody.

And I think the contrast with what the English authorities have done just now is going to be striking and it's going to be something they're going to be asked about.

TAPPER: Kara, what might accountability look like? One presumes it would start with the DOJ talking to the survivors of Epstein, all of whom raised their hand in that hearing last week and said that nobody from DOJ had talked to them.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. I mean, as you'll remember from 2019, after Epstein died, Geoffrey Berman invited a number of the survivors into the office to meet with the prosecutors. And ultimately the only charges they brought were against Ghislaine Maxwell because that's where they had the evidence. Or efforts to interview Prince Andrew were stymied over and over again.

I mean, now what we're hearing is that the Justice Department appears to be not actively investigating anyone. Yesterday, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, who was directed by Pam Bondi to investigate Democrats after Donald Trump president, had posted on Truth Social that's what he wanted. He was asked whether there were any active investigations and what he was that they were ready to engage with anyone with credible information and their doors were open.

But that did suggest that there wasn't anything that they were actively working on based on the information that they already have and the information that's in the files. So it would appear that they would -- they're looking for something new to walk in the door for them to open a criminal investigation. You know, because of course, to be fair, they need some allegations of criminality.

What we've seen in a lot of the for the U.S. figures where we've seen people step down from, you know, prestigious positions or resigning entirely from their job is that it's their ongoing association with Epstein after they previously said they had cut off all ties that is costing them their jobs. But it doesn't appear that they were caught up in any kind of criminal activity. But you know, we'll see what more comes to light as all of this information continues to come out.

TAPPER: Kara let's turn to CNN's new reporting on Harvard. In 2008, the school quietly decided it would refuse any future donations from Epstein. Cut to six years later, Epstein was still finding ways to channel his wealth towards some of Harvard's world renowned scientists. What more can you tell us about this?

SCANNELL: This is new reporting from our colleagues who went through the Epstein files and found that even after Harvard said it would cut off ties with Epstein after 2008 when he was arrested and convicted on those state prostitution charges, it shows that for a number of years afterwards, Epstein was communicating with some premier scientists working at Harvard trying to set up a business with at least one of them and that had all been under the radar.

The reporting also shows that Harvard was being urged by some of these scientists and professors to accept money from Epstein yet again, but the dean at the time had refused that.

Now Harvard said it is reviewing all the information that has come out about these folks and the individual scientists that were continuing to engage quietly with Epstein, including one of them discussing set up a company, did not return CNN's calls for comment. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, thanks to all of you. Really appreciate it. In our National Lead, a Philadelphia museum exhibit on slavery is back up after being taken down last month. The panels were restored today to Independence National Historic Park.

Well, litigation over their removal ordered by the Trump administration continues. A district court judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore the display, citing George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 in her ruling saying, quote, as if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984 now existed. This court now asks to determine whether the federal government has the power claims to dissemble and disassemble historic truths when it has some domain over historical facts, it does not.

[17:45:11]

We're staying on top of a trial examining the addiction of social media and the possible effects on younger users, including children. One mother who lost her daughter to suicide has been at the courthouse for this trial and she's going to join us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We're going to continue in our Tech Lead covering the landmark social media addiction trial that is continuing in Los Angeles today following high profile testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Meta denies claims that it knowingly created a dick -- created addictive algorithms which harmed young people. Zuckerberg cited privacy concerns when asked why the company waited until 2019 to start asking users to verify their age.

[17:50:00]

Zuckerberg also said that teens make up less than 1 percent of Instagram's revenue and quote, valuable for advertisers, unquote. But an internal Meta document presented reads, quote, if we want to win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens, unquote. The CEO was also grilled on beauty filters. Meta consulted with 18 experts who warned that the filters could be harmful to users. Still, Meta decided to allow them, though they didn't recommend them.

Zuckerberg said denying the tools would have been paternalistic. In the courtroom today was 20-year-old Caylee, the woman who brought the lawsuit against Meta, along with parents who say their children died or were harmed because of social media.

Joining me now is one of those other parents, Lori Schott. Lori, your daughter Annalee had a social media addiction and was just 18 when she died by suicide. We are sorry for your loss. I'm sure this trial is a lot to take. So let me start by asking you how you're doing. LORI SCHOTT, MOTHER OF ANNALEE SCHOTT: You know, I'm all full of

emotion. I'm hollow, I'm mad, I'm angry. The grief is outpouring because my daughter is not here. She should be getting married and graduating from college, but instead I'm going through the courthouse doors to hold people that caused her death accountable.

TAPPER: You were in the courtroom today and yesterday during Mark Zuckerberg's testimony. Do you feel like he took away and he took any accountability?

SCHOTT: Absolutely not. I think there were well rehearsed talking points that was just trying to script around every issue there was. You cannot argue about the unsealed emails and communication, especially in my situation with Annalee taking her life in relationship to algorithms that told her about anxiety and depression and beautification filters that just destroyed her.

And they had 18 out of 18 researchers tell them that this harms children's mental health and they did nothing. Their own internal Meta employees even warned them of the dangers. So for me, my blood was boiling along with my heart was breaking.

TAPPER: We've seen you and other parents outside the courthouse this week. Tell us about that network of support and what you are hoping to get out of this trial.

SCHOTT: You know, we've come together all across the United States. We were joined by the Archewell Foundation, association with Prince Harry and Meghan that basically had the foresight early on in 2021 that there were parents that were trying to survive the social media harms that their children experienced. They brought us together. They gave us strength. They propped us up. We had mental health support and I feel like they propped us up so much that were able to stand in front of that courthouse the other day, and that is something that we cannot ever not say thank you for.

TAPPER: For people who are not familiar with your daughter Annalee's story, you referred to algorithms and anxiety and depression and beautification filters. Give us a short summary, if you would, about how you blame. Why you blame social media for Annalee taking her own life.

SCHOTT: You know, I think they pick on children that are vulnerable. These algorithms, as I've learned today, are even more calculating than what ever imagined to keep children engaged. And my daughter was -- she's struggling with some things mentally. It found an opportunity to engage with her on anxiety and depression and beautification filters to make sure, you know, that she didn't feel good enough. So that comparison level with algorithms pushed to her, not of her asking, destroyed her.

TAPPER: This trial's one of more than a thousand lawsuits against social media companies. What kind of real change do you want to see?

SCHOTT: I want accountability. I want controls. I want our children to be able to, basically, us as parents, also to have, like, a TV remote where we can change channels, where we can control what they see. We can turn the volume. We can turn the volume up and down. But I am also going to take this information because I want policy change. They need to be held accountable and not be shielded by laws like Section 230.

TAPPER: What is your message to other parents out there who are trying to navigate their children using social media?

SCHOTT: Stay strong, get the facts, follow the trials and the media related like you're giving us the opportunity today so they can have a window to the world of how these platforms are designed. And it's all for profits, so keep that in mind. Your children are their bottom line, and we have to break this pattern.

TAPPER: Your daughter, from the photographs we've been showing, is such a beautiful child and with such a wonderful smile. Tell us something about her other than the sad, you know, the tragic details of the end of her life.

[17:55:03]

Tell us how you want people to remember her.

SCHOTT: She was kind. She was compassionate. She loved the rural life we had in eastern Colorado. And she made a difference. You know, all these children that are gone because of social media harms are making a difference and they're driving our change. And that's nothing that we cannot ever underestimate the power of a child.

TAPPER: Lori Schott, thank you so much. I know it's not easy talking about these things. May Annalee's memory be a blessing. We really appreciate your time today.

SCHOTT: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: And if you or anyone you know is considering suicide, there's help. Please dial the suicide and crisis lifeline. You can call or text dial 988 or text 988. I promise you there is help for you. There is love for you.

Coming up next, CNN's royal correspondent Max Foster what he's learning about the arrest today of the former Prince Andrew. We're going to go live to Buckingham Palace.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)