Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Bill Clinton Testifies In Epstein Probe, I Did Nothing Wrong; Trump Says, I Like Bill Clinton, Not Happy He Got Deposed In Probe; Trump Orders Government To Stop Using A.I. Company After Standoff; Bill Clinton Releases A Video Statement On The Epstein Files; No Endorsement From Trump In Texas Senate Primary. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired February 27, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, 42 testifies he saw nothing in the Epstein scandal. Is the Republican effort against the Clinton's backfiring? Even 47 has doubts.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I like them and I don't like seeing them deposed.
PHILLIP: Plus, it's life and death technology that could play a role in a nuclear war. Now, the Pentagon is threatening an A.I. company, give us access or else.
Also three Republicans, one seat, no endorsement.
TRUMP: I like all three of them, actually. You're supposed to pick one. So, we'll see what happens.
PHILLIP: The president hedges his bets as Democrats look to flip what was once ruby red.
And as beef prices continue to skyrocket, the GOP has some advice.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have so many proteins to choose from.
PHILLIP: Liver, it's what's for dinner.
Live at the table, Leigh McGowan, Tim Parrish, Chuck Rocha, Bev Turner, and Peter Meijer.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, and setting a precedent. Tonight the former president is denying having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes, and his message was loud and clear, he saw nothing, he did nothing, and he did nothing wrong.
Now, those were his words under oath in a historic deposition as he answered questions about his past relationship with Epstein. One of the big takeaways was that Clinton addressed this photo of himself in a hot tub with a woman whose face is redacted. He says he did not know her and he did not have sex with her.
Clinton's testimony caps off a high-profile two days in the Republican-led panels Epstein probe. Hillary Clinton spoke yesterday. The former president's name appears many times in the Epstein files and so does the current president, President Trump's, and neither have been accused of any crimes.
The question is now what does this mean for Trump? Here's the top Democrat on the House Oversight panel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): The House Republicans have set a new precedent, and that new precedent now includes bringing in for depositions, presidents, former presidents, and first ladies.
We now want President Trump to come in and to testify under oath in front of the Oversight Committee. We want the first lady, who we know had a relationship as well with Jeffrey Epstein, to come in under oath and testify to the Oversight Committee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And President Trump seems very much aware of that precedent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't like seeing him depose, but, you know, they certainly went after me a lot more than that. I don't like it. I like him and I don't like seeing him deposed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Again, the only time you will hear President Trump saying nice things about Bill Clinton is when it comes to the Epstein files. It's really weird. But that being said, I mean, is President Trump worried? Should he be worried, Peter, that he could be brought in?
PETER MEIJER (R) FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Why?
PHILLIP: Because there is --
MEIJER: For what?
PHILLIP: Is there not a precedent that has been set?
MEIJER: It is true that Donald Trump's name is mentioned hundreds, thousands of times in the Epstein files, because the Epstein files include his entire email inbox that has every news digest that occurred while Trump was the number one cultural figure -- LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Come on, you cannot seriously believe this. This is so lame, man. I know he's not in there of these email drips.
MEIJER: No. He literally is.
MCGOWAN: Kind of so lame. We all know what -- why Trump --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: What about the FBI interviews that they withheld?
MEIJER: The same ones who are from folks who were viewed not credible.
PHILLIP: What about -- no --
MCGOWAN: What about the (INAUDIBLE) that just came out? They've like actually removed them.
You sound crazy and the poor women who have gone through this just sit here and say, oh, he is only in there because of his emails. That's not true. There are people who have actually credibly accused him of crimes that were removed --
MEIJER: Credibly? Credibly or anything, like literally nothing that would --
MCGOWAN: Oh, you're talking about -- you're talking about them being emails too. You're talking about --
MEIJER: In the court of law.
[22:05:00]
MCGOWAN: Yes, I'd love to see him in a court of law. I'd like to see him deposed. I'd like the rules. I'd like to see them unredacted.
MEIJER: Excuse me.
MCGOWAN: No, it is absolutely bananas. Just to sit here and be like, oh, he don't let.
Yes, I'd love to see him in a court of the post. I'd like to see the rules of -- of Congress. I'd like to see them unredacted.
Excuse me.
No, it is absolutely bananas. Just to sit here and be like, oh, don't --
PHILLIP: Let me let Peter finish.
MEIJER: There was one member of Congress who voted against this because of all the hysteria, Clay Higgins from Louisiana. And God bless him because he said, listen, we have never done this in the past where you release just everything, not relevant files, everything. And so there are folks who are having their lives ruined because they emailed somebody, because they were mentioned peripherally, because Epstein said, hey, look at this thing this person did, and the next thing you know, they're in the Epstein files.
MCGOWAN: Can I speak whenever he's done?
PHILLIP: When he's done, you can speak.
MCGOWAN: Great.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
MCGOWAN: People who have their lives ruined are not people whose names happen to be in these files. The people who have -- I don't know why you're looking at me like that.
MEIJER: I'm waiting for the actual --
MCGOWAN: The people who have had their lives ruined, can we talk about the tragedy in crisis of these horrific crimes that include murder and sex trafficking and torture, and rape of children and young people without dissolving into this is hysteria? It's not hysteria. There are literally millions and millions of pages, and we are not looking into them. We are redacting them. Our government is covering them up, and Trump is scrambling around to get his name redacted and telling everyone he's totally exonerated when he is not. Then we're spending all of our time going after the Clintons right now. And I don't know a single Democrat or leftist who hasn't publicly said, if Clinton is proved part of the Epstein files, we should lock him up. Lock him up, throw away the key, lock her up, lock anyone up who partook, you know, helped or enabled this group of horrible people with their repulsive crimes.
But for you to sit here at this table and say that the victims are the people who have emails in this thing and not the women who were trafficked, it is sickening and it makes the country sick.
PHILLIP: Okay, let me ask a question here.
MEIJER: Who is --
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. If President Clinton is mentioned in the Epstein files, there are photos of him with Epstein, just like there are photos of Trump with Epstein, but there are no -- just to put it in your framework, no credible accusations against him, why did he testify today and why did the president not testify today? Because it seems to me they're in the same boat.
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Well, I think, first of all, I would like to say that if Peter Meijer is willing to take up for Donald Trump in a situation like this, not take up, but just be honest about something that I think that we should, we should probably listen. I totally agree. Look, first of all, I understand your passion and I believe you that, that we have to get justice for these victims. That's not how our country works. We work off of the fact that people are innocent until they're proven guilty. PHILLIP: Okay.
PARRISH: And until you can bring something credible --
PHILLIP: I am still waiting for an answer to my question. If Bill Clinton was forced -- no, no, wait. But I want to -- hold on. I am asking a question. If Bill Clinton was forced to testify despite the absence of credible accusations against him, what is the justification for not having President Trump do the same?
PARRISH: Has the committee called him?
PHILLIP: What is the -- what is -- okay. Well, let me play what James Comer says about why he's not going to call President Trump. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee? And President Clinton said, that's for you to decide. And the president went on to say that President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, he says, okay, close the book. We're done here because President Clinton said he'd never talked to President Trump about doing crimes with Epstein? Are you kidding me?
CHUCK ROCHA, SUBSTACK, THE ROCHA REVOLUTION: If the FBI has these files and there's an investigation that has went on, Democrats are the only one, by the way, who's put anybody in jail, hello, Ghislaine Maxwell. And this is about politics. We know it's about politics and they just said it's about politics and we all know it's about politics. Even the Clintons who said, sure, I don't want to testify until they make me testify. They made them testify. They were like, well, let's do it out in the open.
I have had one Republican after another come up and go, look at all the crazy stuff Donald Trump's doing. Well, at least he's doing it out in the open, so it's got to be okay. Let's have this transparency. Democrats are screaming that right now. And I'm with you, Leigh, whoever did anything wrong, let's put them all in jail. I don't care.
PHILLIP: Okay. Hold on, hold on. Let me let that --
BEV TURNER, G.B. NEWS HOST, THE LATE SHOW LIVE: I think you're all slightly barking up the wrong tree completely. Nobody is ever going to go behind bars for any sort of sexual impropriety on this island. Why? Because there's no proof. At this stage, it is going to be one word against another. And if you're going off emails, they are always open to interpretation. You're literally looking at syntax when it says things like, thank you for the young girls. Okay. Was that a young girl who was 14 or was that a young girl who was 21 and it was a 70- year-old man? There is no hard evidence in these emails. What we've done in the U.K. is looked at the financial impropriety, which can be traced. So, Prince Andrew has been arrested, ex-former prince. He's been arrested and investigated. Peter Mandelson, who was the ambassador of the U.K. to this country until a couple of weeks ago, until a few months ago actually, and then he got arrested a couple of weeks ago, they have a paper trail in which they say, I'm just coming out of 10 Downing Street.
[22:10:09]
I'm going to call you about policy. Now, that is a crime. That is misconduct in public office.
MCGOWAN: That's a crime you can prove that. That's the same reason that --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Let me just -- I think you're very correct, right? A true investigation would actually look at things that we can prove. But unfortunately, we're dealing with the political circus that we have been given, okay? We're living in the world that we have. And in this particular world, Republicans on this committee have decided to call a former president and a former first lady, and now they claim that even having done that, the current president and current first lady who also have ties to Epstein are immune from similar testimony. I am still trying to understand how that makes sense.
MEIJER: I mean, I think the distinction, and, again, like I -- there should be no reason why anyone doesn't testify, even if it's just to say, you know, answer. And Trump has talked plenty about his break with Epstein. They were friends, he's been on video with him, and then there was a falling out, I think around 2004 prior to a lot of these allegations.
MCGOWAN: And he's such a credible witness. Everything he says is so true.
MEIJER: But what I'm saying is --
PHILLIP: And it's not under oath.
MEIJER: The difference -- yes. The difference here is that, I mean, Trump -- or, sorry, president -- former President Clinton traveled with Epstein. He's in -- not in photos socially, he's in photos, traveling and all this, and there's people with blacked out boxes, which automatically makes it massively incriminating, right.
PARRISH: Abby, to answer your question, I think anyone involved should be able to go testify and get justice for these victims and closure for the families of those that are no longer with us. I don't think there should be any -- you know, I want to just agree with your point. The point that I was making earlier is that you can't just throw out empty accusations that people until they've been charged with a crime and you have the evidence to do that. That was my point. But I agree with you that if people are implicated, then they should go testify to either clear their name or provide the facts toward --
TURNER: So, what are they going to say? Literally, what are they going to say? Clinton was not going to turn around when this pitch of him in a hot tub and they're going to go, who was that woman next to you? He's not going to go. Oh, yes, she was 15 actually, I remember,
PHILLIP: Yes, I tend to agree.
TURNER: It's a complete waste of time and money.
PHILLIP: I mean, this whole thing, I mean, to, to use your phraseology, the entire enterprise on Capitol Hill is barking up the wrong tree, because there are real investigations that could be had, and it's not clear that anybody in the government has ever done it or is currently doing it.
And here's just one of the Epstein survivors, Jess Michaels, she's actually responding to Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who has claimed repeatedly that Trump has been exonerated. But she says this, you know, we, as a collective, have not cleared the president of wrongdoing. He is a person of interest. He should testify. You don't need to lie -- you don't need to lie, obstruct or delay transparency when you're innocent. And they've also made the point that the FBI has not talked to them, okay? Even just to get to the beginning of the story, I'm not saying that's the end of the story, but the FBI has not talked to these victims.
So, the question of whether there is anybody out there doing anything real outside of this political madness remains on the table today after a week --
MCGOWAN: But that's why I disagree with what Bev said, where you said there's not going to be any people put behind bars for these sexual crimes because you can't just go through emails and be like this. There are lots of other things that we don't know about. They haven't talked to the victims. The victims haven't said this is the person that, that they could then follow the evidence through the emails without the redactions and do it. Go and search the farm. Go and search the thing in North -- in you might not be able anything -- New Mexico, thank you. Go with body dogs and see if there's anything there. There might be a lot of evidence.
So, to say there's thousands of victims and we are never going to see any justice for them, I think, is absolutely --
TURNER: The committee --
MCGOWAN: Yes, thousands, dude.
MEIJER: We're just amplifying. I just want to know who was murdered. Who was murdered?
TURNER: But the committee said that they'd spoken to the victims and they said they've spoken to the victims and not one of them has said, President Trump did anything wrong. So, if the victim -- where is this crime if there are no victims, if there was somebody? MCGOWAN: But Donald Trump has said they have --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: She said here, we have not cleared President Trump of wrongdoing. So, I don't know the truth of the matter, but that's what she says. And she's one of the victims.
MCGOWAN: It's his closes associates. It's his cabinet members.
PHILLIP: But, again, I think that we are -- the point actually about the Trump thing is not to get stuck on Trump. It's actually about whether or not there is equanimity being handed out here by people in power, and the answer is very clearly no, they are not. They didn't show up at Les Wexner's deposition. He's somebody who is very close to Epstein financially, yes, the money.
[22:15:01]
So, again, this is a circus. It's a sideshow. We all know that. But the victims have a right to be pissed off about this.
ROCHA: The real question here is what happens in ten months when the new Democratic majority in the house is sworn in? What changes and what questions are asked when Robert Garcia is not the ranking member, but he is the chairman of that committee and could subpoena somebody to come testify? Whether it's something there or not, whether whatever everybody's saying is true or not, at least we could ask questions there. The question is, what happens if you don't show up? What if he just gives them the middle finger and says, I ain't got to come.
MEIJER: But Democrats had the House and the Senate from 2021 to 2020.
ROCHA: And we put people in jail.
PARRISH: And the presidency --
ROCHA: Well, Maxwell was in jail, and there was an investigation.
MEIJER: Yes. I mean, obviously Epstein was arrested during Trump's presidency. Maxwell, I think, was arrested, and then she was finally tried and charged, you know, during the first part of the first two years of Biden's presidency when the Democrats were in charge, sure. But I'm cynical on this --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I take your point that this has not been a major issue for Democrats right now. But I think that if Democrats want to make this a real issue and not just a political football, they're going to have to prove that they're really interested in getting to the bottom of this.
PARRISH: That's the point.
PHILLIP: And we will find out if they do take control of Congress what they end up doing with that. TURNER: Yes. And the bigger issue as well is who was Jeffrey Epstein working for? I'm sure the politicians are all happy for us to be talking about potential sexual crimes. What about the political crimes? It looks like he was working for every government around the world, working for Russia, working for America, working for the British, working for whoever would buy his compromising material. What were all those cameras doing on the island.
PHILLIP: Congresswoman Luna alluded to that today. So, that's a very big unanswered question here.
Next for us, how will A.I. be used in war and what about a nuclear war? That is the question that's at the heart of a standoff between the Pentagon and a major tech company. And tonight, Donald Trump just put them on the black list.
Plus, Democrats are breaking records in early voting in Texas primaries as Trump can't decide which Republicans he wants to endorse. Kamala Harris is backing Jasmine Crockett. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Donald Trump is directing federal agencies to stop working with Anthropic after the A.I. company refused the Pentagon's demands to use their technology for all lawful purposes. In a dispute over how the military uses A.I., Anthropic has maintained two red lines. One that it's Claude code not be used for autonomous weapons, or, two, for mass surveillance of American citizens.
Now, in a statement, Anthropic said that the Pentagon's demands were framed as a compromise, but were paired with legalese that would allow its safeguards to be disregarded. Its CEO, Dario Amodei, confirmed earlier this week that threats wouldn't change his position. He wrote, we cannot, in good conscience, accede to their request.
After the government's deadline passed tonight, Pete Hegseth announced that he was designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security. That is a significant escalation. And at least according to Open -- or, excuse me, according to Anthropic, it is the first time that a domestic company has been designated that way. It is basically the nuclear option. It basically says you can't do business with the government. And Pete Hegseth is claiming that it means that contractors also can't use the technology if they want to do business with the government, which Anthropic is going to dispute.
But why is this happening in the public, first of all? And second of all, I don't know, why won't the Department of War say that A.I. is not going to be used for domestic surveillance or for autonomous, you know, weaponry?
MEIJER: I mean, we're already using A.I. for autonomous weaponry and defensive purposes. The Phalanx System, which is counter-drone, counter-rocket, we have it on naval ships, we have it in fixed locations that already uses autonomous, you know, reactions. That is not a problem.
Now, the one part on the domestic mass surveillance is focusing on what the Pentagon pushed back on, and they said, we will use it for any lawful means. And this is really the challenge, lawful. That is determined by our elected officials. That is determined by Congress. That is determined by folks who are responsible and accountable to the people and the bridge the juncture here comes when you have a private company that says, hey, I'll sell you my product, but here's what you can do with it.
Henry Ford tried to do the same thing with the Department of Defense in the lead up to World War II. He eventually backed down after a back and forth. That's exactly what we're seeing right now, negotiation.
PHILLIP: Well, let me just take up the first thing. Because, actually, the first part is you sort of suggested, well, we're already doing it, but that's actually not what Anthropic is taking issue with.
MEIJER: They're concerned about the offensive --
PHILLIP: Exactly. They're not -- something is up in the sky and an autonomous agent shoots it down. That's not what they're talking about. They're saying that the technology is not reliable enough to be used offensively independent of humans.
MEIJER: Yes.
PHILLIP: And that seems like a reasonable thing to say.
TURNER: We should listen -- like, sure, we should really listen if the people who invented Frankenstein's Monster are saying, I can't hand Frankenstein's Monster over to the government, you need to listen because they're probably making a really, really good point.
And we have this debate in the U.K. quite a lot at the moment about the fact that we don't have any sort of mandate for this, any digital bill of rights for the citizens. Like did any of you vote for the fact that your government might be able to survey you at every time?
MEIJER: Part of this is also why Europe has no artificial intelligence research to begin with.
[22:25:03]
I mean, President Macron was bragging about spending like $50 or $500 million on A.I. It's like, great, that is the CapEx in one month for one company.
TURNER: Correct.
MEIJER: And they're being left behind.
TURNER: Yes, but --
MEIJER: Because the question isn't, you know, is the U.S. or Europe going to lead it in the west? It's going to be the U.S. The question is, or the U.S.
TURNER: Yes. But, look, because you've got no ethical boundaries.
PHILLIP: And, look, let me -- well, to this point --
MEIJER: Civilian government vote for it.
PHILLIP: Dean Ball, who is a former A.I. adviser to the Trump administration, he says, NVidia, Amazon and Google will have to divest from Anthropic if Hegseth gets his way. This is simply attempted corporate murder. I could not possibly recommend investing in American A.I. to any investor. I could not possibly recommend starting an A.I. company in the United States because he's suggesting here that the force of the threat that the government would basically blackball you, prevent any other contractors from using your technology.
Again, Anthropic is going to challenge this in court. And then also on top of that, just the public strong-arming of a private company, the threats to use the Defense Production Act to take it anyway, this is uncharted territory.
PARRISH: It is, Abby. And I think there's a crossroads that we find ourselves, like traditional Republicans like myself, who believe in free markets and the government really getting out of the way of innovators and job creators in this situation. What we're seeing is it's scary. And at the same time, there is a national security element to this. The first priority of the president is national security and protecting the American people. So, we find ourselves at this crossroads.
A few weeks ago, there was a group I've mentioned here before, the National Artificial Intelligence Association had a policy conference. The main thing they asked for was a framework from Congress. We need to be having this conversation, to Bev's point, through the lens of a national framework on how we're going to do this or else we're going to keep finding ourselves in this crossword where it's big government and the free market people are scared by this, and also national security, which we have to invest in and pay a lot of attention to.
ROCHA: This is one of the few companies that's been outwardly open about maybe we should have some regulation. Maybe we should have some regulation here.
PARRISH: Yes, this is national framework.
ROCHA: Absolutely. And this is also, it seems like bad timing. I don't know about you all, but I've been seeing a bunch of ships over in the Middle East and we're going bomb Iran tomorrow. Who knows? But it just seems like the wrong time to be doing. Can we do this after the Iran thing at least? This thing's crazy.
MCGOWAN: I also feel like, to your point, you're saying the government, we vote for the government, they're the ones that would decide if A.I. gave over, if Anthropic gave over their, you know, ability to hunt us down with machines and kill us at will, and they don't happen to like us, like I'm called a domestic terrorist constantly by my government. My president just stood at the State of the Union and said, the Democrats are evil monsters who should be killed. If that person --
PARRISH: Oh, no. The president did not say that. Wait a minute, you have to be accurate.
MCGOWAN: Okay. He said -- I'll be accurate. Okay, Tim --
PARRISH: The president did not call anyone be killed. I'm sorry.
MCGOWAN: I'll be accurate.
PARRISH: Yes, the president never called anyone to be killed. I just want you to be honest. I like you way too much --
PHILLIP: Okay, let me let -- let me give -- okay. Tim, let's give her an opportunity to correct what she said.
MCGOWAN: The American government is already --
PHILLIP: But he didn't say --
MCGOWAN: He did not say -- he said we were the enemy and we were terrible. Would you say that that is fair?
PARRISH: I think he did say -- he looked at the Democrat and said, these people are crazy. But, Leigh --
(CROSSTALKS)
MCGOWAN: Correct. I was being hyperbolic and I apologize.
PARRISH: Well, you have to be accurate, not hyperbolic.
PHILLIP: All right, go ahead and please finish because we have to go.
MCGOWAN: Okay. My point is if the man and the government who have already made half the country the enemy from within, the domestic terrorists, if they are already using ICE to shoot American citizens in the street and then not investigate it, to give the -- Alex Pretti, then give them control over machines that can take us out at will and they can say, actually, the machine did that and we didn't actually have any control over it, that seems like an incredibly bad idea.
PARRISH: What sci-fi world are you living in? That the American people are going to -- the American government's going to use Wi-Fi.
TURNER: You do have to use your imagination. You do have to use your imagination in these issues. And you do have to do that compound thinking, actually. Leigh's just talking about what's next. Because I always say, if you like the government in power now and you give them extra powers, well, picture the politician in the world that you hate the most and imagine those powers in their hands. Because one day, if you are a Republican and you like the idea of this, it may not be a Republican -- PARRISH: Yes, and I agree with you. But, guys, the accusation that our government is going to use A.I. to kill Americans in the street, that's a bridge too far.
TURNER: That's my point. They may not, but the next one might.
PHILLIP: Okay.
PARRISH: I don't think so.
PHILLIP: Well, hold on. I don't know that it's a bridge too far that the government would use A.I. --
PARRISH: To kill Americans?
PHILLIP: -- in general, in general, okay? And the government actually, yes, has the power to kill Americans. It happens every single day. So, how the government is allowed to use A.I. matters, and that's what this debate is about.
PARRISH: Abby, can you give me an example of the time where the government is like killing Americans on the street? They don't have a monopoly of force.
PHILLIP: They have -- well, they have --
PARRISH: You know, give me an example of the time when the American government is killing Americans in the street.
PHILLIP: That is not what I -- listen --
MCGOWAN: Renee Good.
PARRISH: That is what she's --
PHILLIP: Tim, we really have to go, but let's just do this step by step.
[22:30:00]
Does the government have law enforcement power domestically?
PARRISH: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: Does the government have federal officers who have lethal power that can be exercised domestically?
PARRISH: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: Have those federal officers ever killed American citizens?
PARRISH: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: Okay, so then we're done. They have the power to kill --
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: The government -- the federal government, the state government, any government has the power to kill its own citizens. And with that power comes a lot of responsibility. And that is why deliberation over the limits to those powers, that's what government is for. That's what Congress is for. That's what voters are for. That's why we're having a Democratic debate about this --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. Every -- all right -- all right. Breaking news we have to get to tonight. Bill Clinton has just released a video on his testimony before the Oversight Committee on the Epstein scandal. We'll tell you what he reveals and we'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:34]
PHILLIP: Breaking news tonight. Bill Clinton has just released a new video statement on X, delivering his first public remarks after testifying before the House Oversight Committee. In the message, the former President doubles down, firmly denying any wrongdoing. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I just finished testifying in front of the House Oversight Committee. I did it for two reasons. First, I love my country, including our Constitution. And America was built on the idea that no person is above the law, even presidents, especially presidents, and that we should all live under the same set of rules.
This kind of democracy requires every person to play their part. And I hope that by being here today, we can bring ourselves just a little further away from the brink and back to being a country where we can disagree civilly, and we can search for truth and justice, and that it outweighs the partisan urge to score points and create spectacle.
The second reason I was there is that the girls and women whose lives Jeffrey Epstein destroyed, deserved not just justice, but healing. They've been waiting too long for both. Though my brief acquaintance with Epstein ended years before his crimes came to light, and though I never witnessed during our limited interactions any indication with what was truly going on, I offered the little I do know in the hopes that it would help prevent anything like this from ever happening again.
I also have to say something personal. Republicans made Hillary testify yesterday, and she had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein, nothing. She has no memory of ever even meeting him. She neither traveled with him nor visited any of his properties. So, whether 10 people or 10,000 people were subpoenaed, including her, was simply not right.
So, here's what I told the Committee. First, I had no idea the crimes Epstein was committing. No matter how many photos they showed me, I have two things that at the end of the day matter far more than any interpretation of 20-year-old photos. I know what I saw and more importantly what I didn't see. And I know what I did. And more importantly, what I didn't do. I saw nothing and I did nothing wrong.
As someone who grew up in a home with domestic violence, not only would I not have flown on his plane if I had any inkling of what he was doing, I would have turned him in myself and led the call for justice for his crimes, not the sweetheart deal we got. But even with 20-20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me real pause.
We're only here today because Epstein hid it from everyone so well for so long. And by the time it came to light with its 2008 guilty plea, I had long stopped associating with him. When the video of my testimony today is released, I hope it will motivate everyone to go in front of Congress to say what they know. I hope it will motivate the Justice Department to finally release all the files and to ensure that this never happens again. The survivors deserve that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Former President Bill Clinton, the first time we are hearing directly from him about his testimony today. What you just heard there mirrors what he told the lawmakers under oath in his testimony, and he did not speak to reporters afterwards. What did you make of it?
TURNER: I'm just thinking --please. I mean, he completely overreact that sincerity, the sentimentality that -- as I say, we're not going to find any actual crimes here. I don't think that we'll end up in court and no one's going to end up prison. However, in terms of truth, he went on Epstein's plane 16 times in 12 months.
That is a lot of contact with a man who had an actual room in his house that was specifically for massages with a massage bed where women would -- girls, young girls, young women would come from school, go in that room and go out with $200 in their pocket.
[22:40:00]
The idea that he didn't know, it might not have been criminal, but it was seedy, and it depends on your moral code as to whether you think that was acceptable or not. We know about Bill Clinton's moral code because we know about Monica Lewinsky. I mean, did they ask him about the portrait of him in Monica Lewinsky's blue dress that was at top of the stairs in the house that he visited? Like, it's murky for Bill Clinton. So, that kind of that faux sincerity, I'm sorry, it just leaves me a little bit, it's not very palatable to me.
MCGOWAN: Look, I'm no Bill Clinton stan, but I like -- the man has been brought to justice many times for his lascivious nature. I think we know who he is. I think his wife knows who he is. I think the country knows who he is. But I don't think he's involved in this. I think there's a reason that he and his wife both came out and said, we will testify, release all the files, make them unredacted. We have nothing to hide.
They're the only people that have come out who have said, do that. Show it all. Show it all without the black boxes. Show everything that has to do with us, because you will see we have nothing to do with it. You're not going to find me here being like, oh, I'm Bill Clinton's biggest fan. That's not it. The thing is, is he came forward and said, show it all. And I will testify. And I think that speaks to what he actually has to be involved in.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Next for us, as Democrats turn up in record numbers in Texas, Donald Trump refuses to endorse in the Republican race for Senate. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:46:10]
PHILLIP: Tonight, as Democrats aim to flip a Senate seat in what was once the ruby red state of Texas, Donald Trump is hedging his bets, naming, but not endorsing, all three of the Republicans who are running in that primary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have a great attorney general, Ken Paxton. Where's Ken? Hi, Ken. Hi, Ken. And we have a great senator, John Cornyn. Hi, John. Thank you, John. Where's Wesley? Wesley Hunt. Doing a good job. Thank you, Wesley. Well, you do have an interesting election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now on the Democratic side, a familiar face has already picked her contender.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Hi, this is Kamala Harris, and I'm calling to encourage you to please go vote for my friend Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary today, Friday, February 27th, or on Election Day, Tuesday, March 3rd. Texas has the chance to send a fighter like Jasmine Crockett to the United States Senate.
Jasmine has the experience and record to hold Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies accountable. But Jasmine can only do it if people like you vote early. Today, Friday, February 27th, or on Election Day, Tuesday, March 3rd. It's time to turn Texas blue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Let's go straight to our resident Texas expert.
(CROSSTALK)
ROCHA: This is where the Chuck Rocha filibuster starts you all just get tough. And second of all, I think James Talarico needs equal time for a whole commercial we just played for Jasmine Crockett. Listen, there's a lot of things going on in Texas. There's a lot of things going on Texas. And look, we get on here and we pontificate right to them. Pontificate
about lots of things. But this is actually folks voting. So, let me give you some crazy numbers. More people have already voted. And election day has not happened yet -- in U.K. And it didn't even happen yet. And they've already voted more people than in 2018 or in 2022.
Another crazy statistic, again, these are real people. We get the voter file back, I can look the day after it happens. Twenty-five percent of these folks have no Democratic primary history. Something is happening. Another point of this is 12 percent of these people that have voted -- have voted in a Republican primary.
They don't answer everybody's question, but it definitely tells you that people are pissed. Even a Mexican Redneck can tell. People are pissed in my state and they're showing up and they're voting. Now the Republicans, this Wesley Hunt and this Cornyn and all this, they've spent $10 million against that guy and he's still pulling almost second place.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Ken Paxton -- who is -- Paxton you're talking about?
ROCHA: Cornyn and Hunt. Hunt jumped in this race late and they have already spent 10 million against him trying to keep him out in Texas.
PHILLIP: Okay.
ROCHA: If you don't get 50 percent in the top two you go to a runoff. It's going to be interesting to see. We've never seen turnout like that.
PHILLIP: Yes, and so there's a massive disparity in the early vote from Democrats and Republicans. Sixty percent more ballots were cast in -- so far in the Democratic primary than in at this point in the 2020 Democratic primary. On the Republican side, it's 15 percent higher than it was at this point in 2022 and slightly trailing the 2024 primary. And meanwhile, Donald Trump is like, I don't know, pick whoever you want. I mean, should he be endorsing?
PARRISH: Abby, this is interesting because usually you guys are like, Donald Trump hates democracy and now he's letting democracy play out, and you guys are like, why is he not picking someone?
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: That's my first point.
PHILLIP: How is an endorsement anti-democratic? Is that what you're saying?
PARRISH: No, it's not what I'm saying.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Oh, okay. (CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: He championed democracy and you guys are like, we can't believe that. But anyway, this happened in 2008 when there was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going against each other and the same story played out, and then John McCain just crushed everyone and won the state.
[22:50:04]
So, like, this is not some smoking gun. There are in fact more registered Democrats in Texas and there are Republicans. And Republicans still consistently win the state time and time again. So, I don't think that there's like a big smoking gun here. Going back to the President Trump thing, there are three talented men running for office. The President is saying make your choice. That's --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, when Trump endorsed in other races, he was being anti- democratic.
PARRISH: That's not what I said.
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: -- just Eric, in Missouri -- between Eric Schmidt and Eric Wright.
(CROSSTALK)
ROCHA: There's a big difference in the turnout and not just being a smoking gun. In the midterm elections, it's about motivation. If it was a presidential year, we'd be having a whole different conversation. I've never seen folks get this motivated in an off-year and seeing folks. And when you go into a campaign, you target folks on who you think can win.
I've been running campaigns for 36 years. You do not talk to, very rarely ever, spend a dollar on somebody who's not a primary voter. This, girls and boys, is why the polling has been off, because there's a whole bunch of people showing up who are primary voters. So, they don't know who to talk to. So, they're looking at the polls of just those people.
But when you have this kind of motivation, it proves one thing to me, that Donald Trump is not as popular as he thinks he is from the State of the Union.
PHILLIP: And don't forget, there was a 31-point shift toward the Democrats in the Texas nine district that was earlier this year, and that was a shocker because it seemed to be foreshadowing the state senate race. It seemed to be foreshadowing dissatisfaction in Texas with a whole lot of things. And the President, to your point, endorsed in that race and then he pretended like he didn't, but she lost. TURNER: I think what's so interesting about this, would this normally
be such a big deal in America, a Texas primary like this? Would you normally be sat here talking about it or is it because the results of these, what might be seen as small elections are totemic of what's happening across the country.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I would say a Senate race is a huge deal. The control of the Senate is -- it's the ball game, right? And Texas is not a state that is normally in play in general for Democrats. So, that's why this is happening.
(CROSSTALK)
TURNER: Okay but to your point about -- that people are motivated. So, we've just had a by-election yesterday in the U.K. So, an M.P. lost their seat for something else. And we have a very unpopular Labor government at the moment, and this seat has been safe to labor for a 100 years and we've just lost it to the Green Party, this tiny little party. And now to your point, when people are politically dissatisfied they will go and vote and strange things happen.
PHILLIP: I'm going to let Leigh have a final word.
ROCHA: She's going to defer to me. Go ahead.
MCGOWAN: Yes, no, actually I should defer to you. It's your state and you know it the best. But honestly, I think this is good for democracy. I think it's great that we're primaring an incumbent. I think it's great that the turnout is wonderful. And I think that it speaks to how people are feeling.
ROCHA: There's thing that's not being said here. Donald Trump started this in Texas when he weighed in and wanted redistricting done in the middle of the year and made a whole bunch of people mad. And now he's redistricted a bunch of seats, five new seats, three of which he thought were going to be automatically Republicans because they were heavy Latino and Latinos had swung to Donald Trump. Well, guess what, girls and boys, he shows that they're swinging back. I'm not saying they'll stay there forever, but right now they're mad.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean -- and I think that the impact of the Trump policies, there are the economic policies, which I think is causing broad dissatisfaction. But the immigration policies specific to the state of Texas is the wild card right now in terms of what kind of enthusiasm is being injected into this race that Republicans don't want to be competitive, to be honest.
ROCHA: Three of these congressional races that are up in November. They have a little bit of a primary now, but most of these elections are in November, all along the valley. So, we're going to see exactly what you're talking about because they're all Donald Trump plus 10 seats, all three of them side by side, they represent the entire border. Well, you have Democrats there running saying, sure, let's secure the border. We should have a secure border, but we should also not be killing Americans in the street.
PHILLIP: Yes --
ROCHA: Pretty simple message Democrats right there. After that --
PHILLIP: You will be --
ROCHA: -- send me a check.
PHILLIP: Oh, okay, we will be following this very, very closely as you all know.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Next for us -- and everyone, thank you very much for being here. Stephen A. Smith weighs in on the new bromance between Trump and Zohran Mamdani and much more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:44]
PHILLIP: The comedians of "Have I Got News for You" are joined by Bomani Jones and Julia Ioffe this week. Here's a sneak peek.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROY WOOD JR. COMEDIAN: Does anyone know what Rep Al Green did at this year's State of the Union?
JULIA IOFFE, JOURNALIST: He held up a sign that said "Black people are not apes."
WOOD JR.: Here's Al Green just a few minutes into the President's speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOOD JR.: He got kicked out. Now if that looks familiar, it's because Al Green did the same thing last year. He was kicked out of last year's State of the Union address at 9:24. State of the Union usually starts right at 9 o'clock. Last year, Al Green got kicked out at 9:24. This year, Al Green got kicked out at 9:14 P.M. That shaved 10 minutes off his time.
(APPLAUSE)
WOOD JR.: That's a champion.
BOMANI JONES, SPORTSWRITER: Every year he say he going to show up. Every year he tell somebody I'm going to be there at 9:30.
AMBER RUFFIN, COMEDIAN: Before the State of the Union is over, he is an Apple beast.
(LAUGHTER)
RUFFIN: Three apps deep.
WOOD JR.: As soon as Trump get on stage, Al Green pull out that Uber app.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:00:00]
PHILLIP: New episode tomorrow at 9 P.M. on CNN and on the CNN app. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". Be sure to catch our Saturday show, "Table for Five", tomorrow morning at 10 A.M. Eastern. And have a great weekend. "Laura Coates Live" picks up our coverage right now.
