Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Former Prince Andrew Arrested Amid Epstein Files Revelations; Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) On Billionaire Les Wexner Saying He Was "Conned" By Epstein; Sources: U.S Prepared To Strike Iran, Trump Hasn't Made Final Call. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 19, 2026 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:34:00]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Again, major breaking news out of the United Kingdom this morning. Police have arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, brother of King Charles. Police say he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This follows a report that Andrew, while prince, allegedly shared confidential information with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any wrongdoing over his ties to the disgraced financier.

Here is what British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the BBC this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAGA MUNCHETTY, BBC BREAKFAST: Should Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor testify?

KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Anybody who has any information should testify. So whether it's Andrew or anybody else, anybody who has got relevant information should come forth to whatever the relevant body is. In this particular case we're talking about Epstein, but there are plenty of other cases. It is anybody who has got information relating to any aspect of violence against women and girls has, in my view, a duty to come forward whoever they are.

MUNCHETTY: Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called on police to interview -- police to interview --

STARMER: Yeah.

MUNCHETTY: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. You said he should testify to Congress. Should he voluntarily come forward to U.K. police?

STARMER: Well, I think that's a matter for the police. They will conduct their own investigations. But one of the core principles in our system is that everybody is equal under the law and nobody is above the law. And it is really important that is applied across the board.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Joining us now is British broadcaster and royal watcher Bidisha Mamata. Thank you so much for being here.

You heard the words of Keir Starmer who, himself, was dealing with political -- potential political fallout because of his appointment of the U.S. ambassador who had ties to Epstein, and now you're hearing his statement. And we've also gotten a statement from His Majesty the King that says let me state clearly the law must take its course.

What do you make of what you are hearing from both the political side of things and from the king himself?

BIDISHA MAMATA, BRITISH BROADCASTER, ROYAL WATCHER (via Webex by Cisco): This has just been an absolutely extraordinary day. You can see how this Epstein case is striking right to the heart of the upper echelons of all of British society, all of British history.

The idea that plainclothes police officers are going to the home of a former serving public duty-bound member of the royal family and arresting him, and that he's possibly even in a police cell right now is totally and utterly unprecedented.

[07:35:08]

Keir Starmer is exactly right and, in fact, there's a vested interest for him because he is a lawyer by profession. That was his previous career. And not only that but he's very well known for standing up for victims, witnesses, and survivors. So Keir Starmer has said all along that no one's above the law.

And for a long time people were watching this Epstein case as it related to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and asking themselves, "Well, if no one's above the law then why are all these people who have been named -- why are they getting away with it? Why is this all occurring at the level of public scandal and gossip but there are no arrests?"

These are crimes. These are at least evidence of tacit endorsement of a very negative set of values and behaviors and finally, it's happened, and it's happened right at the top of British social hierarchy.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: And also presents quite a moment when you think of -- you talked about the upper echelons of, well, British society as well as American society, you know. And you talk about the -- what this says about the richest of the rich and what wealthy can get away with.

But it also presents this morning now with an arrest quite a juxtaposition to that we have not seen such arrests in the United States. You are, though, have seen quite a bit of fallout but not culminating in something so extraordinary here with the former Prince Andrew. It's quite a thing to see on display this morning.

MAMATA: I had always maintained that the royal family being what it is -- such an ancient, powerful institution -- that they never would enable one of their own, even if it was a thorn in the side of the family, to actually be picked up and arrested.

But I think Prince -- there I go -- King Charles' statement this morning is so chilling. It's so formal. It's so clear. He is making it very obvious to the public that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is absolutely a pariah, unwanted, disgraced. Yes, perhaps you could say the royal family is scapegoating him because they had always known that he was poor character but now it has become extremely official. And I think King Charles' statement is really that we are going to give this over to the police and to the law.

And I thought it was very significant the way that King Charles said, you know, I -- you know, myself and my family will continue with our duties. So they are really saying Andrew is no longer of the family.

SIDNER: Yeah, they already stripped him of all his titles last year and now you are seeing this statement where he doesn't mention my brother. He mentions only his name in his statement.

I do want to ask you about a question I think that is on a lot of our minds. It's, like, did the royals or the Parliament or others in the upper echelons know about any of this prior to the United States releasing all of these documents where it makes it pretty plainly clear some of the things that were at least being discussed and were going on?

MAMATA: Well, the public and the official statements have been that the royal family did not know about the arrest that was happening today.

I have to say that they may not have been in close contact with the local police force -- the exact individuals who picked Andrew up -- but all of these bodies -- yes, the royal family is a family, but it is also a firm, an institution, a corporation. It's a way of being in the world. And they are intimately in contact with security services, politicians, diplomats, and advisers, and they have been for decades. In fact, for as long as they've been in existence. So I don't think that any of this is a surprise.

Perhaps they didn't know about exact times, dates, and locations, but certainly they would have been given a heads up. And they are acutely aware of media interest, political relationships, diplomatic fallout, and also what the public think. The royal family is an ancient institution but there have been public rebellions before.

BOLDUAN: Bidisha Mamata, thank you so much for coming in. I really appreciate your time as we continue to follow this breaking news -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, obviously, everything they've been discussing has connections to the Epstein files. There are developments -- new developments in the United States as well.

The billionaire founder of Victoria's Secret says he was conned by Jeffrey Epstein and did not know anything about his sex trafficking crimes. That's what Les Wexner told House lawmakers during a six-hour, closed-door deposition in Ohio. That's according to sources. And with us now is Congressman Stephen Lynch, a Democrat from

Massachusetts. He was one of the lawmakers who questioned Wexner.

Congressman, look, I know the United Kingdom is not the United States, especially Massachusetts, which worked hard not to be part of the United Kingdom, but I do want to know your reaction to this news out of the U.K. this morning -- the former Prince Andrew arrested.

[07:40:10]

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA) (via Webex by Cisco): Well, it offers a great contrast, I think. Look what the British government is doing in light of the evidence and look what the United States government is doing -- nothing. Our chief law enforcement officer is defending and obstructing the investigation -- Pam Bondi.

And so it has been Congress and getting subpoenas and then passing bills and fighting to get this information disclosed, and our own executives -- President Trump, Pam Bondi, and others -- are obstructing that effort.

So it is refreshing that the British government is coming forward and actually -- and the king is actually saying we need to follow the law here. I wish our government were doing the same.

BERMAN: I was going to ask you about the idea of whether or not you see a difference in the level of accountability between the United States and the United Kingdom.

LYNCH: Absolutely. I think -- I think the royals -- you know, the king is worried about the reputational damage. I think -- I think the president is worried about the same thing but he's approaching it in a different way. They're actually engaging in a coverup.

And yesterday's interview with Mr. Wexner was another level of obfuscation. As the deposition went on and as we were asking him questions, he knew less and less and less about Jeffrey Epstein even though Jeffrey Epstein was, you know, a friend of over 20 years. Jeffrey Epstein had taken control of -- he actually had power of attorney of Mr. Wexner's fortune and had stolen about $300 million worth of -- or supposedly stolen $300 million from the Wexner family and estate.

But still, Wexner had never gone to the police. Had never gone to the police even though later on he said that Epstein had stolen $300 million from him. Never went to the police. Never came forward and openly accused him. So there's a lot going on there.

BERMAN: Yeah. Tell me more about this deposition -- six hours long, you just said -- and you said before that as those six hours went on Wexner appeared to know less and less about Jeffrey Epstein. But what did you learn? What were your takeaways about Mr. Wexner after those six hours?

LYNCH: Well, his effort was to distance himself, definitely, from Jeffrey Epstein. However, the documents are all laid out there.

You know, he was empowered -- Jeffrey Epstein was empowered by Les Wexner. Everything he owned -- his 23-room townhouse in New York, his property on -- in the Virgin Islands, his jets going back and forth -- all of that was enabled by his relationship with one man, and that was Les Wexner.

So the effort was just not believable. His testimony yesterday was just not believable in light of the evidence.

As I said before, Epstein actually had power of attorney so he could execute on behalf of Les Wexner the sale of real estate. He did that a number of times. He actually had control of Wexner's family's -- his children's estate and his finances. So there was a -- there was a complete trust and friendship between those two men.

Just as we saw --

BERMAN: But Wexner --

LYNCH: -- Donald Trump had sent a -- you know, a sex -- or a, you know, an improper birthday card, Wexner did the same thing in a sexual way. He knew -- he knew what Jeffrey Epstein was all about.

BERMAN: To be clear, Donald Trump has denied that he sent that birthday card.

And as far as Les Wexner, he says he was conned by Epstein, ultimately. And you don't believe that?'

LYNCH: Look, this guy -- Les Wexner -- you've got to give him credit, right? He went from rags to riches -- a very smart businessman. And he says he was conned? That's not what the evidence shows. They were complicit, these two. They were -- they were sort of birds of a feather, the two of them --

BERMAN: Um-hum.

LYNCH: -- engaged in this.

You know, he says that now but that's not what the evidence demonstrates.

BERMAN: Congressman Stephen Lynch, as we said, stunning new developments this morning. So much going on yesterday and I know there is more to come in the coming days. We appreciate your time this morning. Thank you -- Kate.

[07:45:00]

BOLDUAN: So the U.S. military is prepared to strike Iran, and it could happen as soon as this weekend. That is what sources are now telling CNN. The lingering question though, also now, is will President Trump order that strike? He has said that he is frustrated that he hasn't yet landed on a nuclear deal with Iranian leaders yet. He has laid down warnings after warnings that could be viewed and can be viewed as red lines.

We're also told top administration officials met yesterday in the White House Situation Room about all of this. A second U.S. aircraft carrier group is headed to the region as we speak. And new satellite images appear to show Iran fortifying its nuclear facilities.

CNN's Kevin Liptak is live at the White House for us this morning. Tell us more about this great reporting you have, Kevin, and what you're learning.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and this massive military buildup in the Middle East is essentially getting larger by the day.

I'm told this morning by sources that the USS Gerald Ford, which is the world's largest aircraft carrier, will be in place either by this weekend or by earlier next week. It will join, you know, dozens of American warplanes, submarines, refueling tankers -- all in preparation for a potential strike against Iran.

And it is now clear that President Trump has quite a significant decision in front of him to either allow this diplomacy to continue or to essentially go to war. As of today, the president has not given any indication that he's made up his mind. In fact, behind the scenes he is sort of telling people one side or the other, sort of weighing the advantages of a strike versus the advantages of diplomacy. Essentially, polling other people about what they think would be best.

The White House did repeat again yesterday that "diplomacy is always Trump's first option." And we do understand that he was briefed by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who are his envoys to those indirect talks with the Iranians that occurred earlier this week.

You know, American officials have said that there are still large gaps between the two countries' negotiating positions. They expect Iran to come back in about two weeks' time with more details of what their position actually is. But the White House yesterday declined to say whether Trump would hold off on a strike within that timeframe, which is, of course, only leading to tensions in the region and leading to questions about really what the president's objectives are here.

You know, he has said, for example, that he would like regime change in Iran, but his own Secretary of State has said it's not clear what would replace the current regime if the existing one were to be ousted. He's talked about the importance of Iran not being able to obtain a nuclear weapon while, at the same time, saying that those strikes back in June totally obliterated Iran's nuclear sites.

So as this all seems to be moving somewhat inextricably towards conflict, I think still a lot of questions about what exactly the president is trying to accomplish.

BOLDUAN: Yeah, it's a great point that should be -- we should be reminded of over and over again as the tensions continue to ramp up.

Thank you so much, Kevin -- Sara. SIDNER: All right. This morning dangerous fire weather conditions across the Plains where multiple wildfires are burning. The biggest is called the "Ranger Road Fire." It's now what's known as a megafire exploding across Oklahoma and Kansas and scorching nearly 300,000 acres. At one point it was burning the equivalent of three to four football fields every single second.

Allison Chinchar joining me now. Give us the latest from this explosive fire that is so fast-moving.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Right. And so you can see the video behind me. Now this video was from Tuesday. This was Woodward, Oklahoma. And while that may be two days ago what you have to understand is the fire has spread so quickly and has really gotten out of control in at least of these areas that the weather conditions today, even though they might be slightly better than they have been the last few days, it doesn't matter. With that ongoing fire even a 10 or a 15 mile per hour wind gust is enough to continue that fire going.

So here's a look at where we have the fire weather threat for today. You can see it's actually across a pretty widespread area. You've got nearly half a dozen states that are going to be impacted by this. That's why you also have all these red flag warnings and even the fire weather watches in effect for the remainder of the day today.

Looking at some of these winds -- yes, 30, 35, 40, even 45 miles per hour in some of these areas. That is more than enough to take some of those embers from the fire and either start new fires or just continue on the current fire and spreading it into new areas.

We get a little bit of a lull later on this evening but then you'll notice as we head into Friday, we start to see a lot of those winds picking back up, especially right there along western Texas and eastern New Mexico where, again, you can see them jumping back up to 40, 45, even 50 miles per hour.

The key thing here is it's not just the fact that we have very windy conditions but that the ground in so many of these places is extremely dry. You can see here a lot of these areas dealing with moderate and even in some cases severe or extreme drought. That means all of that fuel that fire is spreading into is so dry it's very easy to quickly, you know, be engulfed in flames and continue to spread the fire.

[07:50:05]

So one of the concerns is you have all of these tight wind barbs that are right here across that concern area. Now as the first low pressure continues to slide away, that's why we're going to get a little bit of a break. But you'll notice the next low, which we would like to maybe get some moisture from but all we're really going to end up getting is another increase in winds.

SIDNER: I have been in those dangerous types of fires in California. It is really terrifying to see how fast they burn and how hot they burn.

Thank you so much, Allison Chinchar, for keeping your eye out on that.

And for us there is more on our breaking news just ahead. New video showing unmarked police outside the home of former Prince Andrew. And statements just this morning from the king and from the family of his alleged victim, Virginia Guiffre. Plus, we're standing by for more details about the charges he's facing. Those stories -- that story and more ahead.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:55:00]

BOLDUAN: This week there have been protests in Savannah, Georgia after a teacher was killed in a car crash -- killed by a man who ran a red light while fleeing ICE officers. Linda Davis is her name. She was on her way to school when she was hit. Those who knew her say that she dedicated her entire life and career to caring for her kids -- her students.

Her death is one of the latest flashpoints now driving the national debate over the president's immigration crackdown and ICE tactics.

It's at the center, of course, of the funding battle that remains a stalemate on Capitol Hill. DHS funding and the shutdown as Democrats demand ICE get reined in. But that does mean Democrats want to abolish ICE? Some say yes, some say absolutely, and some are warning that with that, Democrats are walking into a trap.

That's exactly the message now from a former top Obama official, Jim Messina, writing in a new piece now that's just out. I'll read just a quote from it. He writes, "Democrats should resist the impulse to again align themselves with slogans that temporarily meet the passion many in the party are feeling but will alienate voters come election day."

Jim Messina joins me now. Jim, thank you for being here.

Is -- I read this and you bring out the data here to back up your argument. Is this a warning or a plea?

JIM MESSINA, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER, CEO, THE MESSINA GROUP (via Webex by Cisco): Uh, both, Kate. It's a plea to give the voters what they want. What -- voters are very clear what they want is accountability for ICE, strong borders, smart enforcement of our laws, and a pathway to citizenship. That's what they want. What they don't want is slogans and they don't want sort of, you know, radical change here.

The interesting thing, and you've reported on this, President Trump's numbers have just crashed on immigration now. Seventy percent of Independent voters say they oppose his actions on immigration. The numbers that haven't moved, Kate, are the people who want to abolish ICE. Twenty-five percent of people wanted to abolish ICE before all this happened. Twenty-five percent of people now want to abolish ICE after it happened. So it's a warning to my Democratic friends to not get too excited about what they see on Twitter and get more excited about what the people in America are actually asking for.

BOLDUAN: I was going to ask you why do you think -- feel the need to lay this out now? Let's call it part of a plea and a warning. And what you are seeing because you know that you -- you're -- in the piece you talk about how the impact that back when this became very -- this became mainstream previously in June of 2018 after the Trump administration's family separation policy and the impact you saw from that.

But what are you seeing now? You think -- do you think Democrats are taking this too far? Because I've had many a Democrat on who says they are trying to navigate a fine line, like Raja Krishnamoorthi saying that he wants to abolish Trump's ICE. That doesn't mean all of ICE.

MESSINA: That's just not what voters hear, right? That's not reality. Swing voters think about politics four minutes a week and they kind of look at this and say what are people actually saying, and trying to get into that nuance I think just doesn't work.

We've been through this. We know on the -- on the police issue how Republicans used it against Democrats in election after election and won elections after this. We've been right in the middle. We've been fighting for exactly what the American public wants, which is a reform of ICE, and strong borders, and strong immigration. And if we stay there, we will win this debate. The American public is on our side on this -- we just can't go too far.

And I think this is where the -- most of Democrats are. It's just a reminder to get off Twitter and spend more time on Kate's show in the morning.

BOLDUAN: I will say though, take -- I was looking back at the -- some of the Democrats who have spoken out most strongly for -- to abolish ICE.

I was looking -- Ilhan Omar, February 4, talking about real accountability from the House floor. It starts with abolishing ICE, impeaching Kristi Noem, and rethinking how we enforce immigration policy in the country. Going on to just say what they -- what has been in place when you see federal agencies blocking state investigators and stonewalling accountability, this is unacceptable.

I -- you can -- you know that you are going to take heat from the progressive left of the party saying you're just being -- you're just being weak and that is not going to keep voters around.

MESSINA: That's just not true. Look at the numbers.

And, you know, I agree with a lot of what she said -- what you just quoted. People do want accountability for ICE. They want people held to action. They want smart enforcement of our immigration laws. What they don't want is to get rid of a federal agency that they think is responsible for keeping our borders safe. And so it's just -- it' just a little bit of difference --

BOLDUAN: But then real quick, do you think the damage could already be done? How do you -- can you put it -- can you put the genie back in the bottle on this one before Election Day?

MESSINA: No, Kate. I don't think the damage is done. And I think Democrats are now favored by swing voters on immigration because we've been united in calling for accountability.

I just -- why I did this piece is I've been down this road before. We've seen this in 2018. We've seen this with defund the police. We just can't make the same mistake again or we're going to pay at the election ballot box.