Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Lawmakers Speak As Bill Clinton Is Questioned On Epstein; Bill Clinton Testifies In House Epstein Probe; NASA Alters Moon Mission Plans, But Still Aims For 2028 Landing; Instagram To Alert Parents If Teens Search For Suicide Content. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired February 27, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI, (D-AZ): He just repeated that today to members of the Republican Party on the Oversight Committee, repeating that lie as well. There are very credible allegations that have been looked into and investigated by the FBI, that the Department of Justice is illegally withholding. Please do not stop asking about this.
Why is the DOJ continuing to defy the Epstein Files Transparency Act by refusing to release the full Epstein Files, by illegally withholding information, by deleting photos and videos of people like Howard Lutnick? This is unacceptable. Donald Trump must be deposed immediately in front of this Committee, as do many senior-level officials from this administration.
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, (D-VA): I'm Congressman Suhas Subramanyam from Virginia. If there was any doubt before today that Oversight Democrats are treating this investigation in a non-partisan way, it'll be put to rest when the transcripts come out. We've been asking the former president the hard questions. To his credit, he has answered every single question.
He's not taken the Fifth Amendment. He's been actually quite comfortable, and he has actually given very long, deliberate answers to all these questions. And so, we appreciate the former president being here today, and we would like to see the current president come before us as well and give the same kind of transparency that President Clinton has given us today.
We're going to continue to demand the release of the files and continue to demand transparency of this administration.
REP. WESLEY BELL, (D-MO): Two quick points. Wesley Bell, Congressman, Missouri's 1st District. First and foremost, President Clinton came here and answered tough questions. I think the victims and survivors, the American public deserve a serious investigation because, thus far, what we're seeing from Republicans is a very non-serious, as one of my colleagues referred to it, as a clown show.
Having led serious investigations, I can't disagree. When we hear members from the other side coming into a deposition with conclusions, get no evidence to support those conclusions, and then announce to the world that these conclusions must be true. That is unprofessional. It's unethical. And at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is get to the bottom of what actually happened so that we can hold any offenders accountable.
Democrats are doing that. The president and former first lady have done that. And now, it's time for President Trump to do the exact same thing, under oath, not when you can just make statements randomly on X or Truth Social, but under oath, where your right hand is in the air and there are consequences if you don't tell the truth.
And so, we're going to continue to push for transparency. We're going to continue to push for justice, because that's what the American people and the survivors deserve.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA, (D-CA) RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I think I'll just make a couple of brief comments, then I'll answer one or two questions. And then the deposition right now is on a break. And so we'll reconvene. There'll be some additional hours of questioning by both the Democratic side and the Republican side as the afternoon goes on.
I want to just reiterate a couple things that have been made which are important. The first is that we are thankful that President Clinton came in and answered tough questions from both the minority party and the majority party. We also think it's important to note that, and he made some of these statements in his opening statement, he made it clear once again that he does not understand, nor do we, why we spent so much time yesterday grilling Secretary Clinton when she obviously had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and had never met Jeffrey Epstein.
We also want to reiterate, and I want to think it's important for us to know, our call yesterday, because of transparency, it is so important that we continue to release both Secretary Clinton's deposition and President Clinton's deposition. Both of the Clintons are committed to these records getting out as soon as possible, and Oversight Democrats agree.
The best way of going forward is for there to be transparency and a full public record, and we're demanding that that record not be edited, but just a full recording of what transpired yesterday and what will continue to transpire today for the course of the day.
And finally, let me just also say once again that we have a new precedent in this country where we can now demand president and former presidents to testify in front of the Oversight Committee. So we are once again demanding that now President Trump, who is in the Epstein Files almost more than anyone else besides Ghislaine Maxwell, answer our questions. This is not a hoax.
He has not been exonerated, and we have serious questions for President Trump. With that, I'll answer a couple of questions.
[14:05:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chairman Comer just came out and said that, in the course (ph) of questioning, and you asked President Clinton if he thought President Trump should come and testify, and Chairman Comer said President Clinton's response was that, it was for you to decide. President Clinton went on to say that President Trump has never said anything to him to make him think he was involved. And obviously, we don't have the transcript (inaudible).
GARCIA: Yeah, I think the best response to that is for you to view the complete record of what actually he said which -- look, we're not going to disclose what was said because that's not in the rules. The Republicans keep breaking the rules.
But I think to what Mr. Frost said earlier, there was, I think that the president, President Clinton, did bring up some additional information about some discussions with President Trump. I think that the way Chairman Comer described it, I don't think is a complete accurate description of what actually was said.
So let's release the full transcript, so you can all get a full record of what actually was said, which brings up some very important new questions about comments that President Trump has actually said in the past.
Any other questions?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Ranking Member, I know in the former president's statement, he says that you are (ph) making time for what he says he can't (inaudible). As that, I know you can't really give a lot of details about what was said in the deposition, but how would you characterize when you say he's being cooperative? Is he answering the majority of questions? Or a lot of his responses were I can't recall?
GARCIA: I think everybody would agree that he's been very cooperative, and he's actually answering the questions fairly, to the best of his ability. He has not taken a pass on pleading the Fifth for any questions. He's been very thorough. He's been asked some questions multiple times over. I think you'll see that in the transcript.
So he's been very cooperative and, in fact, I don't think he's given any sense that he's been uncomfortable to be there. In fact, I think he's been pretty interested in answering, I think, all the questions of both the Republicans and the Democrats.
With that, we're going to wrap up. Everyone's going to have a break, and then we'll continue. Thank you very much.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": We've been listening to Democrats on the House Oversight Committee after their questioning of former President Bill Clinton in Chappaqua, New York. Mostly, I would say, to summarize their message, they want sitting President Donald Trump to testify under oath so that they could ask him some of the same questions that they've asked of the former president.
Notably there at the end, you saw Ranking Member Garcia suggest that something we heard just moments ago from the Chairman of the Committee, James Comer, was inaccurate, or at least incomplete. Comer says that during the questioning, Garcia asked Clinton whether he believed that Trump should testify, and the former president's response, according to Comer, was that he never saw or heard anything from Donald Trump that would intimate that he knew that anything untoward was happening around Jeffrey Epstein.
Again, Ranking Member Garcia says that is an incomplete picture and that we'll learn more once the transcript emerges.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Yeah, he said it's up to you if you would want to --
SANCHEZ: Right.
KEILAR: Which it is. It is up to the House Oversight Committee --
SANCHEZ: 100 percent.
KEILAR: -- if they want to call someone, so we're going to see if they're going to do that.
Let's go to MJ Lee, who is there in Chappaqua. She's been covering these depositions the last couple of days. So, MJ, only a few tidbits revealed, and maybe tidbits we weren't supposed to get, because you hear the Democrats taking issue with the Republicans revealing things. What do you make of what you've heard?
MJ LEE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, they said they've had so far two hours of questioning, one for each side of the -- one hour for each side of the aisle. We know that the former president has emphasized that he hasn't engaged in any wrongdoing and that he also didn't know any information about Epstein's crimes.
The lawmakers also said that he hasn't pled the Fifth, just like Hillary Clinton yesterday, and that he has been giving long and deliberate answers to some tough questions, including some questions that are challenging coming from the Democratic members. We also know from our previous reporting that at times, he has answered certain questions with the words, I don't recall.
I think my big takeaway from these lawmakers coming out for this break for the deposition is how much the focus is shifting right now to the current president, Donald Trump. You know, even the fact that the little that Chairman Comer had to say had to do with Donald Trump, I found really interesting, saying that when he was asked by the ranking member whether he believes that Trump should be brought in for similar questioning, the former president said, well, that's up to you, up to the committee, but adding, as you said before, that President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think that he was involved.
[14:10:00]
I mean, you can easily imagine the current president sort of using that to his benefit to sort of defend himself and say, see, even the former president is saying that he doesn't know anything about my wrongdoing. So, you know, we're going to have to wait for the transcripts. We'll have to wait for the videos of these depositions to see the full exchanges.
But really, keep an eye on the momentum that I think is growing here for other people who might have information about Jeffrey Epstein to be questioned in exactly this kind of setting, guys.
SANCHEZ: We will keep an eye on the next few hours of testimony. MJ, thank you so much for that.
Let's get some perspective now and analysis from Elie Honig. Elie, first, just what do you make of everything we just heard from both sides?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Apparently (ph), wide agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats on the Committee, as to Bill Clinton, that he's doing the right thing by answering questions here that, yes, he had a substantial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in the 1990s up to 2002, 2003 during the time when Jeffrey Epstein was committing his crimes. But there's no evidence to contradict Bill Clinton's claims that he did nothing wrong and saw nothing wrong.
There seems to be generally agreement on that. Now, when it comes to Donald Trump, as often happens, there is a very sharp division between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats, as we just saw, are hell bent on getting Donald Trump in front of the Committee to answer questions under oath. The Republicans seem to want to avoid that. And you've heard the debate. Democrats are now saying, well, now there's precedent. We're bringing in presidents and former presidents. Why shouldn't we bring in Donald Trump?
The Republicans are trying a sort of variety of responses to that. They're saying, well, a sitting president is different. They're saying there's not enough evidence to bring in Donald Trump. So this is a battle that's certainly going to carry on, Boris. And I think the way it ultimately gets played out depends on who wins the midterms and who takes control of the House next.
KEILAR: What did you make, Elie, of what Comer said, where he sort of said, well, Clinton was saying that Trump had never said anything to indicate that he knew sort of what was up? And I am loosely paraphrasing. I just want to be clear about that.
HONIG: Yeah.
KEILAR: Did you take that as Comer saying that Clinton was providing a reason not to talk to Trump about this? What did you make of that? How did you interpret that?
HONIG: Yeah, it's just silly, first of all, to ask Bill Clinton, should we bring in Donald Trump to testify? As Bill Clinton apparently said, that's not up to him. What does he know? It's up to the Committee itself. If, in fact, Bill Clinton said, as Jim Comer claims, if Bill Clinton said, well, Donald Trump never said anything incriminating to me. OK, that's one data point, but that's not complete exoneration.
Both parties sort of keep falling into this fallacy where one witness says, well, I don't know of a certain person engaging in wrongdoing. That doesn't mean that person is cleared for all time of any and all wrongdoing. That means that that one person doesn't know of any wrongdoing. So I think this effort by Comer to say and again, it's disputed, but the effort by Comer to say, well, Bill Clinton said Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong that he knew of. Therefore, we shouldn't call Donald Trump. I think that is a stretch.
KEILAR: All right, Elie Honig, thank you so much.
HONIG: Thanks, guys.
KEILAR: We're going to continue to monitor what's happening as this deposition of former President Bill Clinton continues there in Chappaqua, going into its third hour.
And still to come, NASA alters its plans to return to the moon. Here are the changes that it just made to its Artemis mission.
SANCHEZ: Plus, Instagram is soon to start alerting parents about their teen's searches. The data that will be sent and when, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:18:07]
KEILAR: NASA is making some big changes as it is setting a new course to return to the moon. Today, the space agency announcing that it will first focus on launching an additional crewed test flight into space before attempting to make a lunar landing. That mission is slated for 2028, but the road to get there has changed.
It will be the first return to the moon since the Apollo program ended more than 50 years ago. The development coming as NASA continues to work to get the Artemis 2 rocket off the ground after a series of setbacks.
CNN's Tom Foreman is with us now on this story. What more can you tell us about these big changes?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is a big change. I mean, we thought Artemis 3 was going to the moon. Artemis 3 is now not going to the moon. Part of the issue here is that the plan is for it to orbit -- was for it to orbit the moon, where it would connect with a moon lander, which would take them down to the surface.
Now what they're going to do is practice that maneuver in what is called Low-Earth Orbit, or as astronauts may call it, LEO, which is much closer. It's where the International Space Station is, that sort of thing. So it's within sight of Earth, in effect. They're going to practice it down here, and this fits into an overall idea that NASA Administrator, Jared Isaacman has said that what we should be doing is launching more often, smaller increment kind of launches to figure out some of the parts of this puzzle.
They still want to put someone on the moon in the not distant future, although this does raise the question, if you run into problems, as they have with Artemis 2, can you do it by the end of the decade? That's unknown. They want to, they think they can, but that's the plan.
KEILAR: I was going to ask if these were real, but --
FOREMAN: -ish.
KEILAR: These are --
FOREMAN: -ish.
KEILAR: Kind of. Some more than others.
FOREMAN: Yeah, yeah.
KEILAR: Well, it sounds like a really interesting development. And obviously --
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: It is an interesting development, and it comes -- it's not terribly comfortable for NASA --
KEILAR: Sure.
[14:20:00]
FOREMAN: -- I'm sure, because Artemis 2, which is the one we've been waiting to launch, has been delayed. It's been delayed, first of all, because it had a hydrogen leak. This is a massive, massive space launch system that they're using out here.
Hydrogen leaks have happened before. They're not that uncommon because hydrogen is a very small molecule, hard to contain, excellent rocket fuel --
KEILAR: Yeah.
FOREMAN: -- hard to keep it all where you want it. Now they have a problem with helium. Helium is pumped into these tanks for various reasons to clear out lines, but also because you forget, when you're in space and there's no gravity to carry your fuel to the ignition point, you need some pressure. That's what helium does.
They don't know what happened in what's called the interim cryogenic propulsion system, which is the thing that'll give it that last big boost to the moon there. They don't know what happened yet with the helium in there, whether they're having a valve problem which they've had before, but they had to bring this whole thing back to get technicians up there to look at it.
The bottom line is this isn't great news for NASA. On the other hand, their argument is, by launching maybe more often in incremental ways, this will be a more assured way to get back to the moon and ultimately, a safer way to get back to the moon.
KEILAR: Yeah.
FOREMAN: But right now, I think everybody's waiting to see the proof in the pudding.
KEILAR: Yeah.
FOREMAN: Do you get to the next launch? Do you make it look good? Do you have it under control?
KEILAR: It has to be safe. It has to be as safe as possible.
FOREMAN: Yeah. We're trying to put people further into space --
KEILAR: That's right.
FOREMAN: -- than we've ever put them before on even going around the moon. So it's a big challenge.
KEILAR: Tom, thank you for the very real report and the real-ish animations that are very cool.
(LAUGH)
KEILAR: We appreciate it.
Still ahead, a new law has just invalidated the driver's licenses of some transgender residents in Kansas. Plus, Instagram will start alerting parents about their teen's activity. What they'll be able to see, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:26:30]
SANCHEZ: Instagram owner Meta is alerting parents of a new safety feature that starts in the coming weeks on the social media app. If they supervise their child's Instagram account, parents will get notified when the teen does repeat searches for terms about suicide or self-harm. Industry watchers note the timing of this, just as Meta and other big tech companies are on trial in a civil case ,accused of intentionally addicting and harming young users. More now from CNN Business Tech Reporter, Clare Duffy.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS TECH REPORTER: Yeah, Boris, Brianna, these notifications will be available to parents who have their Instagram accounts linked to their teen accounts through Meta's parental oversight tools. The company is saying that it will serve up those notifications to parents if their teens have repeatedly searched for suicide or self-harm-related topics within a short period of time.
Now, it's not entirely clear how many times teens need to search for those topics and what a short amount of time is what Meta is considering a short amount of time in this case. But Meta does say that it will serve this alert to parents through an in-app notification as well as text message, email or WhatsApp notification, depending on their settings.
And we should also say that Instagram does not serve up search results for these types of searches. Instead, it says it presents mental health resources to teens. But I do think I'm starting to hear questions from parents about why Meta has not done this sooner. This decision comes as the company is standing trial in a case that accuses it of intentionally designing their platforms to addict young people and harming young users' mental health.
Meta is a defendant in that case alongside YouTube. And the timing here is striking, especially because it was just yesterday that we first got testimony from Kaylee, the young woman who filed this case. She's now 20-years-old, but she talked about getting onto YouTube at the age of six, on Instagram at the age of nine.
She says that by the age of 10, she had already posted 200 YouTube videos and was creating multiple accounts on both platforms to like her posts because she said it added to her anxiety and depression when she wasn't getting attention on the platforms. She also talked about being drawn in by the autoplay and endless scrolling features on these platforms, saying she eventually was staying up late at night and sneaking out of class in order to scroll through the platforms.
All of that, she said, has led her to develop anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia that she is still struggling with. So it was a really important moment, although the companies, of course, deny these claims to hear directly from the woman at the heart of this case that could ultimately set a precedent for hundreds of similar cases. Boris, Brianna, back to you.
SANCHEZ: Clare Duffy, thanks so much for that report.
Right now, former President Bill Clinton is being grilled about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But if Democrats have their way, he won't be the only president in the hot seat. We'll explain in just moments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
