Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Signs of Progress But No Breakthrough in U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks; Iran Covering Up Protest Deaths by Pressuring Families to Lie; No Deal in Sight to End Pentagon-Anthropic Showdown; U.S. Lawmakers Speak Before Bill Clinton Deposition. Aired 10a-11a ET
Aired February 27, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:32]
ANNOUNCER: Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: And welcome to the second hour of the show from our Middle East headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson in Abu
Dhabi, where the time is just after 7:00 in the evening.
Iranian officials say the talks with the U.S. have reached a, quote, "general understanding." However, Trump's military buildup and pressure in
the region continues.
Paramount has emerged victorious in the Warner Brothers Discovery bidding war. This after Netflix said the WBD deal is, quote, "no longer financially
attractive."
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton is appearing for his deposition today due to his ties with Jeffrey Epstein, a day after his wife met with the
committee. This marks two of the most high-profile witnesses yet.
Well, signs of progress but no breakthrough. That is how diplomats are describing the latest round of nuclear talks between the United States and
Iran. Washington and Tehran are set to continue nuclear talks in Vienna next week.
Here's how Iran's foreign minister described the negotiations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): During these several long and very intensive hours, we have made good progress and very
seriously entered into the elements of a possible agreement both in the nuclear field and in the area of sanctions. On some issues, we have now
become very close to an understanding. On certain other issues we still have differences of opinion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, that was at the end of talks in Geneva yesterday, Thursday. Meanwhile, the United States is strengthening its military forces. A source
tells CNN the U.S. President Donald Trump has been briefed on potential military operations in Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. embassy in
Jerusalem has authorized the departure of non-essential staff as more U.S. forces are en route to the region.
And more on that, Paula Hancocks here with the very latest.
The USS Gerald Ford expected to arrive off the coast of Israel soon, if not already. And the question is, what does that do for Donald Trump in, you
know, this period of decision about what happens next? How does that influence his options, do we believe?
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Becky, what we've been hearing from the military side in the U.S. was what they needed was all of these
pieces in place before they could make the definitive decision, whether or not they carry out this military strike. Not just to have the arsenal in
place so that they can carry out these strikes inside Iran, but also to make sure that they're strategically placed so that they can protect their
allies.
Because we've heard from Tehran that if there is a military strike then they will strike the allies, they will strike U.S. personnel, U.S. bases in
the region. They have said that this will become a wider regional war. So this is one of the reasons, we've been hearing from the secretary of state,
from the secretary of defense, that they had to have two aircraft carriers in place to make sure not only from an offensive point of view, but they
were able to protect their allies in the region.
ANDERSON: There is, of course, a world where a strike from Israel, rather than a strike by the U.S., might be the first kinetic activity that we see.
HANCOCKS: It's certainly possible. I mean, it's what we saw back in June. It was Israel, first of all, that carried out these strikes against Iran,
the nuclear facilities at that point. And then the U.S. became involved. So nobody is ruling out that option at this point. We know that Israel would
potentially support a military option. We know that -- we have seen that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, traveling quite frequently
to the White House to speak with the U.S. president.
And he is the one who has brought up the issue of Iran replenishing its ballistic missile program. He has brought up these issues and his concerns,
and that's obviously played into what we're seeing now.
ANDERSON: And just to be quite clear, I mean, we're talking the potential for a military strike. We've seen the price of oil rise. There is obviously
some real concern across investors in U.S. markets. We're seeing those markets down today. I mean some uncertainty around what happens next.
[10:05:01]
Meantime, the diplomatic track is still open, talks extended into next week. And the Omani foreign minister, who's been mediating these talks in
Geneva, on his way to Washington to see the vice president.
HANCOCKS: And that's interesting, because that's not the usual diplomatic protocol that the mediator would then automatically go to Washington. So
that's an interesting development, potentially showing that everybody knows time is of the essence and just how critical it is.
We have been hearing from people all week, experts, sources that Thursday's talks were critical. Now we can say that there was no breakthrough. We can
also say, from what we've heard from the Iranian side, that there were positive developments. Whether that is enough to prevent a military strike,
it's uncertain. But I think the fact that the Omani foreign minister is currently in Washington, he will speak with the U.S. Vice President J.D.
Vance, is telling.
ANDERSON: There's an awful lot of diplomatic activity, sort of mediation activity going on, certainly around the region where we are. This region of
the Gulf and the wider Middle East. That's the sort of -- that's a political and diplomatic track. We've talked about the potential for a
military strike. What we haven't done is talked about what's going on on the ground in Iran and that's what I want to do next.
Paula, thank you.
New details are coming to light about the Iranian regime's bloody January crackdown on protesters. A CNN investigation brings us testimonies now from
families of victims who say authorities pressured them to lie about the deaths of their loved ones.
My colleague Jomana Karadsheh has the story, and a warning that there are some graphic images in her piece.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): In grief, they dance, celebrating the life of those they've lost. This is how Iranians are
defying their ruthless clerical regime that's not only killed thousands in its bloodiest crackdown ever, but one that has also been trying to bury the
truth.
Over the past few weeks, we've collected testimony pointing to a widespread effort by Iranian authorities to pressure families of its victims into
silence and falsifying the circumstances of how those protesters were killed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The family were visited by Basij Paramilitary Forces and Revolutionary Guards. They told the father he was
talking too much because he had been saying that his son was shot in front of his eyes.
KARADSHEH (voice over): This man we are not identifying for his safety is in Iran. He spoke to us about his relatives, the Saadi family, whose
member, Amir Hussain, was shot and killed by regime forces. He says security officials tried pressuring the family to label Amir Hussain a,
quote, "martyr," supporting the regime's narrative that so-called rioters backed by the U.S. and Israel, not state forces killed protesters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The forces were present at their ceremonies. Basij members and others stayed nearby. They even went to their
house and threatened them, saying, "We have to announce your child as a martyr and you cannot speak anywhere. You must not say anything unless you
want your other child's fate to be the same as this one."
KARADSHEH (voice over): Amir Hussain had never protested before the January uprising, but on that night, not even a medical condition he was struggling
with could stop him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): He suddenly jumped up and down, saying, adrenaline has risen in my blood, I am flying. Tonight, I want to
fly.
KARADSHEH (voice over): Amir Hussain bled to death after being shot in the face by security forces according to his relative. The 19-year-old and his
dad were inseparable. On that night he died in his father's arms.
The Iranian regime has long been accused of harassing and intimidating families of protesters to silence them and coerce statements that align
with the official account. This time, human rights groups tell us it is a systematic campaign that appears aimed at controlling the narrative and
concealing the scale of state violence.
Memorials like this one outside Iran allow the world to see the faces of some of the victims. Getting firsthand testimony from people inside the
country is very hard. It is extremely dangerous to speak out against the regime.
(Voice over): With the help of Iranian human rights groups and activists, we reviewed voice and text messages from more than a dozen families. They
describe coercive tactics by the regime, including withholding protesters' bodies or burial permits.
[10:10:04]
In some cases relatives were pressured to attribute deaths to accidents. Many were harassed to accept the martyr designation, and we found that most
were pushed to claim their loved ones were affiliated with state forces, bolstering state propaganda.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They said Sam's body would not be handed over until he was declared a Basiji and a martyr killed by
terrorists.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): They said his father either had to declare Abolfazl as a Basiji or pay six billion rials.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They openly threatened that if we said or did anything, other members of the family would suffer the same
fate that Peyman did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They arrested his father and told him he had to say his son was martyred by the MEK opposition group or
Israelis.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Authorities were forcing the family to call her a martyr, or to say that she had been shot by
terrorists.
KARADSHEH (voice over): Also declared a martyr was 3-year-old Melina Asadi. Her death weaponized by the regime, which falsely accused agents of Israel
and the U.S. of killing the toddler. They even deployed new tools this time to reinforce their version of events airing this disturbing A.I. generated
video of the moment she was shot.
The rights group Hengaw says Melina was killed by the security forces, and her family was made to appear on state media.
Amir Hussein's family was also forced to sit in front of the cameras for this segment eulogizing so-called martyrs. Like other families, they gather
at their boy's grave, defying the theocratic regime, an act of protest against an oppressor trying to rewrite a blood-soaked history.
Jomana Karadsheh, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, Danny Citrinowicz is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Iranian branch at
Israeli Defense Intelligence. And he says, and I quote, "The broader aim would likely be to inflict significant damage on Iran's strategic
capabilities and disrupt the regime's functional continuity thereby forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table from a position of weakness."
And Danny joins us live now from Rehovot in Israel.
And you, I believe in your analysis, alluding there to a U.S. strike on Iran. Do you stand by the same analysis? Were that first strike, if indeed
we see a strike at all, Danny, will that first strike to come from Israel?
DANNY CITRINOWICZ, SENIOR RESEARCHER, INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES: First, good evening from Israel. We don't know. We're all waiting,
of course, to see what will happen. I think that the big question is of course when it will start if it will start but even more importantly what
the U.S. and Israel are planning because we see the gathering of equipment. It's really unprecedented in so many ways. But we still ask the basic
question, what they are planning to do, what they're planning to achieve.
We don't know that, whether they want to pressure Tehran back to negotiation or they want to change the regime, we don't know. And I think
we know -- hopefully we'll know when the war or the campaign will start. Of course, it's a lot of ifs because there's still talks behind the scenes
trying to convince President Trump that agreement is possible. But I think that if this will collapse at the end of the day there is the question of
what the Americans and Israel will try to achieve if and when they will start the war.
ANDERSON: Yes. So, so, at this point, given, and you're very well-sourced and your analysis has been extremely important to us across this period as
we've been watching this develop, what do you believe the gaps are that remain to be bridged to avoid escalation at this point? Before we talk
about the potential for escalation.
CITRINOWICZ: Well, I think at the end of the day, it's everything depends on what President Trump will decide. The Iranians are interested in an
agreement, an agreement that eventually would limit their nuclear capacity and program, but of course not dismantling. And President Trump will have
to decide whether it's going to pick the option of what we call a JCPOA Plus or Plus, Plus, because it will be more or less the same agreement in
2015 or on the other side of the junction is actually starting a war but you know how you're going to start and how you're going to finish knowing
that you have -- the U.S. have operational superiority.
But in the end of the day the Iranians can cause damage to the U.S. forces. And I think it goes back to what President Trump wants to do.
[10:15:02]
If his expectations are that the deal will be only touched by the nuclear issue, there is a ground to negotiation because there are -- there are
gaps, but they are not wide. If he's interested, thinking that Iran is weak and it can pressure them to forgo the missile program and of course
foregoing their aid to the proxies in the Middle East, then definitely they weren't going to agree and we are heading to a war because with this kind
of amount of equipment in the region, President Trump cannot do anything rather than attack, if they're not going to be in agreement.
ANDERSON: You wrote yesterday that while these talks have been substantive and there has been some narrowing in positions, some serious differences
remain and you've just explained where you stand on that. You also wrote that the key strategic question is whether coercive escalation would truly
strengthen Washington's negotiating leverage, or instead transform a threat, a limited coercive threat into a limited campaign, into an open
ended campaign.
Can you just like go a little deeper on that for me?
CITRINOWICZ: Yes, sure. I think that the basic problem that the administration has that he doesn't understand Iran and what the motives on
Iran and where Iran is coming from. And I think in Washington, they really think that, first they thought, especially the president, that if you'll
bring the carriers to the region, the Iranians will capitulate, but the Iranians not capitulate on giving basic pillars of the regime to U.S. with
nothing.
They're not going to forego the missile program. They're not going to forego the right to enrich. And this is something that it doesn't matter
what President Trump will bring to the region, even five or six carriers, it won't change the view in Iran in terms of that. For the supreme leader,
he doesn't -- he's not interested in a war, that we have to emphasize that. But we have to emphasize other things, that he has his red lines.
Now President Trump thought that he can pressure him. And I think that now there is maybe a notion in Washington that we can do some limited attacks
and then we can force the Iranians back to negotiating table. Unfortunately, as we saw in the 12-day war, it's not going to happen. The
Iranians were willing to fight rather than foregoing the basic pillar of the regime, the right to enrich and the missile capacity.
This is why I think that during the war we might see a shift between coercive or-and we don't know what will happen then, but we might assume
that they will try to undermine the regime, Israel and the U.S. together.
ANDERSON: Right.
CITRINOWICZ: And this is very risky because what will happen then? Then you have to invest more in doing something that I don't think you're able to do
by using only attacks from the air.
ANDERSON: Danny, some news just in, the U.S. ambassador to Israel has told embassy personnel who do want to leave Israel that they, quote, "should do
so today." That's according to a source familiar with Mike Huckabee's e- mail to staff that came as non-essential embassy personnel were cleared to leave Israel.
All of this of course happening amid the possibility of a strike on Iran. Huckabee told staff in this e-mail, as we understand it, there's, quote,
"no reason to panic," but noted the likely high demand for flights out of Israel.
Danny, your thoughts on this and the emphasis on speed from the U.S. ambassador? And if I can get your take where you are there in Israel, what
is the sense there? I mean, we are seeing both an offensive posture in the buildup of military off Iran, around the region where I am, and then a very
much more defensive posture with the USS Gerald Ford, for example, and aircraft buildup around Israel. I mean, what is your perception from there?
CITRINOWICZ: Well, definitely, we are getting close to the decision by President Trump. And I think the fact that the Omani foreign minister flew
from Geneva to Washington to speak to talk to Vice President Vance, I think it's also highlighted the fact that everybody knows in the region that we
are in a decision point. Decision point whether President Trump wants to continue negotiations or not.
I think that by seeing where we are in terms of the equipment in the region, in terms of what Ambassador Huckabee said to the embassy personnel,
I think that it's safe to say that everybody is getting ready for the option that President Trump will decide to attack. I don't know if he
already assumed that the decision or take took the decision, but I think that everybody is getting ready knowing that we are in a crunch moments
regarding the selection or the discussion or the decision regarding what to do, whether to strike or not.
[10:20:06]
And I think those events and everything that happened in the last 24 hours from the buildup or the continuous buildup of the American side in Israel,
and what Ambassador Huckabee said, and the decisions of, for example, embassies in Iraq to evacuate non-essential personnel, all of that coming
to the understanding for all of us, that decision point is near and everybody is getting ready for the possibility of an attack.
Same thing, of course, in Israel, high readiness, knowing that the decision to strike can come in the next couple of days.
ANDERSON: And just to be clear, were there to be a decision to strike either by the U.S. from the U.S. forces or indeed from Israel, that would
be unilaterally supported by government, would it, in Israel? Just to be clear.
CITRINOWICZ: Yes. In Israel there is no position to the Iranian issue because we informed from the leaders of the left through the right,
everybody supported Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think it's important to say that from Israel, it's a unique opportunity to use the America's might and
to downgrade the Iranian capability, the strategic one, the nuclear one and the missile one. And if we can also undermining the regime itself.
And I think that Israel is not going to forgo this opportunity. We'll do the utmost to see whether we can support the American presence in the
region, knowing that with this president and with this force buildup, it's something so unique that need to be exploited And I think that in Israel,
there is a hope that the negotiation will fail and eventually we'll see a wider attack that will maybe deprive, if not just significant damaging the
Iranian strategic capabilities.
And we're all waiting to see what President Trump will decide, knowing that if the war will start Israel will probably be a part of -- in the defense
and probably on the offense as the rest of the regional partners or other elements in the region from the Houthis in Yemen, to the Shia (INAUDIBLE)
in Iraq, and maybe through Hezbollah in Lebanon.
ANDERSON: Danny Citrinowicz, it's good to have you. Tense times where you are and in the region where I am at present, as we await to get a decision
from Donald Trump. Of course let's be quite clear, talks have been extended into next week and are scheduled in Vienna. Whether we get to those at this
point remains to be seen. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.
Right. Still to come, while the clock ticks on the Pentagon's deadline for Anthropic to loosen its safeguards, the American A.I. company has just
gotten support from an unlikely ally. More on that is after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:25:08]
ANDERSON: Well, the showdown between the U.S. Pentagon and Anthropic is barreling towards its deadline without a deal in sight. Now, the American
A.I. company has less than seven hours to give the Pentagon full access to its technology or face being effectively blacklisted. But Anthropic has
rejected the latest offer, standing firm on its two red lines that its Claude A.I. system will not be used in autonomous weapons, nor for the mass
surveillance of U.S. citizens.
And they are getting support from an unlikely ally. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has just told CNBC his company shares those red lines and that he opposes
the Pentagon's potential backup plan of forcing Anthropic to work with them under the Defense Protection Act, an emergency law known as DPA. Have a
listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM ALTMAN, OPENAI CEO: I don't personally think the Pentagon should be threatening DPA against these companies, but I also think that companies
that choose to work with the Pentagon, as long as it is going to comply with legal protections and the sort of the few red lines that the field we
have I think we share with Anthropic, and that other companies also independently agree with, I think it is important to do that.
I've been -- for all the differences I have with Anthropic, I mostly trust them as a company, and I think they really do care about safety. And I've
been happy that they've been supporting our warfighters. I'm not sure where this is going to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, I want to bring in Lance Ulanoff to discuss this. He's the editor-at-large for TechRadar.
I want to get your sense of where you think this is going to go. Look, it's remarkable to hear Sam Altman wade into this standoff into -- in
Anthropic's defense. I mean, we can't forget just last week an unforgettable symbol of the rivalry between him and Dario Amodei at India's
A.I. summit when the two refused to hold hands and raise their arms together on stage and you can see them there.
What do you make of this shift, and what is your sense of where this is headed?
LANCE ULANOFF, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, TECHRADAR: Well, I'd say, first of all, you know, this is Sam Altman and OpenAI acting in their own best interest
because, you know, the Pentagon could turn to OpenAI and say, yes, let's partner. And who knows they may be partnering already on some small
systems, and then, you know, try and force them to do the exact same thing.
The industry, the A.I., the robotics industry has been concerned about this for well over a decade. You know, arming A.I.'s, arming robots, giving them
kind of autonomy in warfare situations, surveillance is sort of a new frontier here. So, you know, these questions and concerns are very real and
long standing in the tech community, but it's really anyone's guess what's going to happen next.
I will say that, you know, Claude, Anthropic's Claude is already in use in the Department of Defense or war or whatever it's called now. And so
pulling that out might not be that easy, forcing them to do something that goes against the company's principles also might not be that easy because
it end up in courts. And then, you know, you have an unwilling partner.
I just think that that's going to be a bad path to go down. What I see here is that Amodei basically is calling Pete Hegseth's bluff. You know, that he
is saying uh-uh, well, here in very clear view is what we do here already and what we won't do for you and why.
ANDERSON: So that's a bluff that we may see come good in seven or so hours from now. If the Pentagon actually does follow through then on its threat,
it has a lot to lose here. It would have to replace Claude internally despite being the key system approved for classified use, of course, and so
would defense contractors who help with the Pentagon's highest stakes work. Take Palantir, as an example, which reportedly used Claude in these
successful U.S. raid to oust Nicolas Maduro.
There's a big picture here of the fallout if the Pentagon were to terminate this relationship, correct?
ULANOFF: Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, I just think that it becomes very complicated. One, it's also a chilling effect that if they follow through
with this, who's going to want to work with them anymore? You know, they're going to be -- everyone is going to like, we don't care about the size of
this contract because it's not worth it. Also, you know, it is worth noting that Anthropic's Claude is one of the best models out there. It's why it
was chosen.
And so they might get something from some other group that is not as good model. You know, the other thing that I thought was really interesting
about what Amodei said in this is that we are not caught up to the capabilities of A.I. in really our governance of them or regulation of
them, our understanding of what they can and can't do and how they will or won't fail.
[10:30:10]
And I think that that's the reason that he is so unwilling to do this. And I'm worried that the Department of Defense-slash-war, whatever it is, is
not interested in those concerns. It's just in a race and it wants to win.
ANDERSON: Yes. I want to turn to A.I. story unfolding today with enormous consequences. That's the decision by Block, the company behind Square Cash
App and After Play, to proactively slash 40 percent of its workforce, citing the massive recent gains in agentic A.I.
I want our viewers to get a sense of Jack Dorsey, who, of course, is their CEO and founder. Sorry, CEO, and he's the founder of twitter. This is what
he had to say, quote, "We're not making this decision because we're in trouble. Our business is strong," he said. "But something has changed.
We're already seeing that the intelligence tools we're creating and using paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working
which fundamentally changes what it means to build and to run a company."
He predicted within the next year, the majority of companies will follow suit. Do you agree? And to your mind, just how big a deal is this? I mean,
I know those who are calling this earth shattering. How big a deal do you believe this is?
ULANOFF: Look, we're -- so we're at a real inflection point with the growth of A.I. You know, as I've said to people over and over again, we're living
on A.I. time. Everything happens at three X the amount of time it happened with previous tech epochs, including the internet, including, you know,
digital publishing. This is faster. And so we're already confronting the massive sea change that's going underway in the workforce.
I didn't think this would happen this quickly because what I always said is that we would develop new jobs as we lost jobs, but it's happening too
quickly for that. And so companies are moving fast because they see the very near future. And they're not alone in this. I mean, we're seeing this
across many industries. And I feel like, again, we're not fully prepared for it. So it is of some concern.
I would say that, you know, we don't know that the tools that they're going to use are going to really supplant the humans in ways that will work well
for all their customers. So they'll be maybe a mess at first, but eventually the A.I. will get better. And for all those who say that, you
know, why are we trusting A.I. to do real work, I say, remember, have you seen how real people work? We make mistakes, too. It's not a question of
whether or not A.I. will be perfect. If it's as good as people, it'll probably be good enough.
ANDERSON: It's great to have you. We're looking at the Block stock, up some 18 percent today. Certainly shareholders like it. It's fascinating speaking
to you. Thank you so much for your time today. And we'll have you back because this story is not going away.
Let's just get you to New York. We've got some news just coming in. Members of the U.S. House Oversight Committee speaking before they depose Bill
Clinton about ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Let's listen in.
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): -- investigation and are outraged by the obvious fact that men and women, for that matter, of great power and great wealth
from all across the world, have been able to get away with a lot of, you know, heinous crimes. And they haven't been held accountable, and they
haven't even had to answer questions about what they knew and when they knew it.
Today we hope to be able to do as we did yesterday and continue to bring some of the most powerful people in the world in to answer questions. Again
no one is accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, but I think the American people have a lot of questions and our House Oversight Committee is
committed to getting answers. We're committed to transparency. We've already seen a lot of very powerful people who have been held accountable
by having to resign in disgrace from various boards all over the world.
We're going to continue to seek the truth, try to figure out how the government failed the victims, and try to hopefully hold more people
accountable. That's what the purpose of this investigation is. I will say this. It's very difficult to get people in for these depositions of great
power and great wealth.
[10:35:01]
And I used yesterday and today as an example, it took seven months, seven months to get the Clintons in here but we've got them in here, and we look
forward to answering -- to asking lots of questions that I think any curious media outlet in America would have. Yesterday Miss Clinton deferred
a lot of questions to her husband today. There were at least a dozen times when she said, you'll have to ask my husband that. I can't answer that.
So we already had a big portfolio of questions for him, and that increased yesterday. So we look forward to that. We'll be happy to answer a couple of
questions.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. Chairman.
COMER: Chad.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. Chairman, good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Specifically, what you need to hear from President Clinton today? What do
you want to know?
COMER: Well, I think everyone has seen there are a lot of photos that have been released by the Department of Justice, as well as the Epstein estate.
There are a lot of e-mail correspondence that included President Clinton. We know President Clinton had and Secretary Clinton confirmed this
yesterday, Jeffrey Epstein was in the White House 17 times while Bill Clinton was president. We know that Bill Clinton flew on Jeffrey Epstein's
plane at least 27 times.
So those are questions that we're going to ask, everything that most media outlets have reported with respect to pictures and correspondence between
Epstein, Maxwell and Bill Clinton. These are all questions that we're going to ask today. Go.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. Chairman.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Yesterday you both told me that you were planning on asking about an e-mail that Howard Lutnick sent to Jeffrey Epstein, I
presume, about a Hillary Clinton fundraiser, if that was the one. If he's worth asking about, is he not worth asking in to talk about what he might
know?
COMER: Yes, and I think it will be interesting when we hopefully get that video out later today or tomorrow, as quick as we can get it out, I think
it will be interesting what Hillary Clinton said about Howard Lutnick,.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And how she said it.
COMER: And how she said it. We look -- I think that was Miss Mace with the line of questioning. So there was a pretty thorough line of questioning
yesterday between Miss Mace and Miss Clinton with respect to Lutnick. Now I think you all find it very interesting what she had to say. But we're going
to continue to, you know, ask questions of everyone that shows up in photos on the island and things like that. Yes. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) will ask for the Commerce Secretary?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I will be asking for him. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You will.
COMER: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously, we've heard from Secretary Clinton after her deposition. She described the session as
repetitive. She said it veered off topic. She's asked about things like UFOs, Pizzagate. Can you explain why those topics were brought up? And also
in light of the release of that photo.
COMER: And she also said there were substantive questions yesterday, too. But one reason there were repetitive questions about Epstein is because we
went through every e-mail and every correspondence that implied Hillary Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein communicated often. You all have seen the e-
mail where he said that she looks better in person and all of that. Those were questions we asked.
So every, every item of evidence that would suggest Hillary Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein had a close relationship, we went and asked about that. So
it may have seemed repetitive because there was a lot of documentation that would suggest that she had a relationship with Epstein. So -- go ahead.
REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): To be clear, Secretary Clinton actually asked the --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the microphone please.
LUNA: Sorry.
COMER: Go ahead.
LUNA: To be clear, Secretary Clinton actually asked us about what happened with the disclosure language in the NDAA. So, I mean, I know she's trying
to pivot from the fact that she's here and she had a very close relationship regarding the Clinton Foundation and Epstein and Maxwell. But
the point is, and I think I'd like to hit on this with probably Miss Mace here, but I think we have a very important interest and curiosity about
what specifically the co-conspirators had a role in all of this, right?
We know for a fact that some of these were women. And I think that today, at least with my line of questioning, you know, I'm curious about that. Why
is it that these women were giving plea deals as adults for trafficking minors? How much of that did they witness, et cetera? And so, you know, I
don't know that Secretary Clinton was all that honest about the context of this investigation.
We asked extensively about intelligence ties, whether or not she felt that she was targeted as a result of possibly an intelligence gathering
operation. And she was very curiously interested in that. And then also, you'll hear it in the response, but had told us to follow up with a few
countries, one of which is our ally so that's interesting.
COMER: And I think, I think Miss Luna brought up a good point about the Clinton Foundation. There are so many other examples in the evidence the
Department of Justice released in correspondence where Epstein bragged about how involved he was initially in setting up the Clinton Global
Initiative and the Clinton Foundation.
We asked those questions to Secretary Clinton yesterday, and she kept saying, well, she was in the Senate at that time. She wasn't focused on it.
You'll have to ask my husband. So a lot of the Clinton Global Initiative questions yesterday went unanswered because Mrs. Clinton deferred to her
husband. So we'll do one more question. Annie, Annie, go ahead.
[10:40:06]
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: It's our understanding that you guys asked Secretary Clinton yesterday about photos of her husband in the Epstein files. What
was her reaction when you showed photos, for example, her husband in the jacuzzi that we've seen?
COMER: I'm going to let --
REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Me.
COMER: I'm going to let Miss Mace answer that. We're on TV.
MACE: OK. I'm not going to say anything. No, she didn't want to answer any questions about any of that and deferred most of those, if not all of those
questions to her husband. And he will be thoroughly asked about that today. You know, what did he know, what did he see, because there are other people
who've come forward publicly, like Kevin Spacey, who thought all of this was very strange and actually a very high risk for president of the United
States or former president.
It's all very bizarre. But I asked her very pointed questions, and you'll see that in the transcript and the video that comes out, and you'll see how
she responded as well, screaming.
COMER: And we'll close with this. We're going to -- we're going to get the video out as quickly as we can get it uploaded and the sound and everything
from yesterday. So this is, for all practical purposes, a public deposition. The American people are going to see it. I heard C-SPAN is
going to air it wire to wire. So everyone is going to see what was asked yesterday. And I think that'll answer a lot of questions, especially with
Lutnick and other things like that.
Throughout the day, we'll try to send different members out to give you a brief updates. We don't want to disclose what's going on in the deposition
specifically until after, at the conclusion. But we'll keep you updated. And we appreciate everyone being here and look forward to updating you
throughout the day. Thank you all.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: What do you mean that Hillary Clinton was screaming?
MACE: She was unhinged. And I hope that President Clinton is less unhinged today than his wife was yesterday. You'll see it.
ANDERSON: Right. James Comer, the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, leading that short press conference ahead of the deposition of
the former U.S. President Bill Clinton. This, of course, follows his wife Hillary Clinton's deposition on Thursday.
Let's discuss now with Jeff Swartz. He's a former Miami-Dade County court judge and professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School.
What can we expect today? It's good to have you, sir. What can we expect today from Bill Clinton's deposition then?
JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE: Good morning. Thank you for having me. I would say that probably more contentious than Hillary
Clinton would be. There are pictures of Bill Clinton with Epstein. He did travel on the plane on numerous occasions. He has previously characterized
those all as trips that were taken in regards to the Clinton Foundation.
My understanding is when they first talked about him flying on the plane, they talk about 27 times, every single segment of a flight that he takes.
So he might go to Africa and have to stop four times. Each of those segments is a separate flight. So we're going to find out that there
weren't as many trips as they said there were when we take a look at some of the documents.
ANDERSON: OK.
SWARTZ: I think that Bill Clinton --
ANDERSON: Let me just jump in for one moment and just hear the Democrats on the same oversight committee ahead of them going into this deposition.
Let's listen in.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): -- is a serious deposition. We have real questions that deserve serious answers from former President Clinton. And
we have said from day one that Democrats want to talk to anyone, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat, no matter how powerful they are,
whatever position that they've been in, if anyone has information about Jeffrey Epstein, and certainly the horror that he inflicted on so many
women and children, we want to hear from them.
What we do not want today is a sideshow, and questions about UFOs or about conspiracy theories from decades ago, which is what unfortunately happened
yesterday when a series of bizarre questions were asked of Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Clinton was clear she never met Jeffrey Epstein. She
never went on the island. She was never on the plane, and she had no knowledge, of course, of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
Want to also add that there are a lot of questions today, whether they're about Epstein's finances, about survivors, about foreign intelligence, that
we look forward to asking in a way that's serious and dignified, and we hope Republicans do the same. I also want to add one other thing, which I
think is really important. Republicans have now set a new precedent which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we're once
again going to make that call that we did yesterday.
[10:45:00]
We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee. He appears in the Epstein
files next to -- next to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell almost more than anybody else. So it's time for the president to answer questions about
why files are missing from the DOJ, why there's been a White House cover-up and why we continue in that administration to call this investigation a
hoax.
And finally, I'll review the call that we made yesterday that we are demanding again that the press and the public be allowed inside the
depositions so that you can hear the answers and the questions directly. And if that's not going to happen, they need to release a full, unedited
review of the questions and video within 24 hours of the end of these depositions. That means that Secretary Clinton deposition needs to be
released immediately today. And with that, I'll pass it along to Mr. Frost.
Thank you so much. Today, we're here to conduct a serious investigation. And it is obvious that our Republican colleagues, at least yesterday, were
not here to do the same thing. We've said it many times and will continue to say it again. We will hear from anyone. We don't care who you are. We
just want the truth. All of us have met with the survivors. All of us looked them in the eyes and promised them that we would see this thing
through the end and do it in a serious way.
Asking questions about UAPs, UFOs, as interested as I am in the subject, too, it has nothing to do with this investigation. Don't waste our time.
Don't waste the time of survivors who have been waiting and waiting for justice. Now, finally, the government is paying attention. Members of
Congress are paying attention. Stay focused on the matter at hand.
We're also calling out the hypocrisy of our Republican colleagues who, yes, we're here to talk with President Clinton today, we'll talk with anyone.
But how come people like Howard Lutnick, see, it seems like they don't want to talk with him. They don't want to talk with the president. They want to
-- they don't want to call in Pam Bondi who has done everything that she can do to cover up and to slow down our investigation.
A law passed by congress damn near unanimously but she's done everything she can to slow down the release of the files. And even when they're
released, and they said members of Congress would be able to go to the Department of Justice to view them unredacted, I know all of us if not most
of us have gone in there and seen files that are still redacted and not given a proper explanation as to why we can't view them.
We know the Department of Justice has deleted things having to do with Donald Trump, has deleted things having to do with Howard Lutnick, and
people connected to the administration. We know that Pam Bondi has been spying on members of Congress, as we've been trying to conduct our
legitimate oversight responsibilities. So we're here to see this through. We're here because we know that this is about justice for the survivors but
justice also means that this never happens again.
That's why this investigation is so important. We don't want this failure of government, this failure of elite billionaires getting away with a
different system of justice. We don't want this to happen again. And that's why we're here today. We are serious about this. And my hope is that my
Republican colleagues who say they're serious about it, back it up with action, not just with the questions you ask here today, but what you do
from here on out.
It's not about party. It's about this nation. It's about protecting our most vulnerable people. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Garcia, we have a couple more.
REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): Good afternoon. I'm James Walkinshaw from Virginia's 11th District. I am glad that President Clinton is going to sit
down today with us and answer questions under oath. Anybody who had a significant relationship with Jeffrey Epstein should explain what, if
anything, and when they knew about the crimes that were being committed. President Clinton's sworn statement said that he had no knowledge of the
crimes that were committed, and I know that we're committed to asking tough questions about that today.
But President Clinton's presence here today under oath highlights the Donald Trump-sized gaping hole in Chairman Comer's investigation. President
Trump was mentioned tens of thousands of times in the files. We learned in recent days that files related to an accusation made against President
Trump have been removed, not released to the public in the files.
And this investigation will not be complete until we bring President Trump in to answer questions under oath. I'm hopeful that Chairman Comer will
have the courage to move us in that direction. Thank you.
SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): I'm Congressman Suhas Subramanyam from Virginia's 10th District. We're going to ask President Clinton the hard questions
today. We're going to get to the truth about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
[10:50:05]
But let's be real. We are talking to the wrong president today. President Trump is the one who has not released two and a half million files.
President Trump is the one who is blocking our investigation. President Trump is the one who wants this to go away, but it will not go away. And
so, yes, we will talk to President Clinton today. But moving forward, this needs to be not about party but about getting to the truth and getting
justice for the survivors.
REP. WESLEY BELL (D-MO): Congressman Wesley Bell here. I'm sorry these glasses go dark on me. First and foremost, I think what is getting lost in
much of this is that this is about justice for the victims and the survivors, and we can't forget that. This is not political theater, which
Republicans seem to be interested in. This is about getting to the bottom of exactly what happened and holding those responsible accountable, and
that's exactly what we're here to do.
And so we're going to continue to keep pushing Republicans to do the right thing. We need to see anyone who has information with respect to the
Epstein files or this sex-trafficking. They need to be brought before this committee, and we need to have a serious investigation. And I've said it
before, as a former prosecutor, I've led these types of investigations. And this has not been a serious investigation by any stretch of the
imagination. The American people want to see justice served. The victims and the survivors deserve justice.
REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ): Good morning. Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari from Arizona's Third District. I am grateful that we are here day two of
these depositions with Secretary Clinton and President Bill Clinton. We've always said we will take answers from anyone, and nobody is above
congressional oversight. But let's be absolutely honest about something.
If the Republicans want to be serious about this investigation and getting to the truth and accountability for perpetrators, then we have to look to
the most powerful person in the United States and the world which is President Donald Trump. He is mentioned in the Epstein files more than
almost anyone.
And just this week, incredibly damning reporting came out to say that there were credible allegations from a woman who said that she was abused by
Donald Trump when she was a minor. The FBI investigated this and interviewed this individual multiple times. You do not do that if it is not
serious.
Further, we need to investigate the ongoing White House cover-up. We know that the Department of Justice has been withholding files. They have been
making illegal redactions. The FBI and Kash Patel have been lying under oath. All of these people need to be deposed before this committee. We need
to take this investigation seriously. There are more than a thousand people who were harmed by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and many other rich
and powerful people.
Children whose lives were literally altered forever at the hands of this abuse. This is very serious. And I think the fact that some of the
Republicans on the Oversight Committee feel that it is appropriate to make statements to say that President Trump is somehow exonerated. Congresswoman
Anna Paulina Luna said this last night. That is the most outrageous thing that I have ever heard.
Donald Trump needs to come before this committee and we will not stop fighting until we get the truth and there's accountability and justice for
the survivors.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): I'm Ro Khanna from California. I want to echo what all of my colleagues said. A new precedent has been set in America today.
Before this, we had the Trump rule. Trump defied, as all of you know, a congressional subpoena with the January 6th Committee. He said presidents
don't have to testify. Now, we have the Clinton rule, which is that presidents and their families have to testify when Congress issues a
subpoena.
And that means that Donald Trump needs to come before our committee and explain what he knew about Epstein and explain why we have not had a full
release of the documents. We also need other people part of the Epstein class to come before this committee. If President Clinton can answer
questions, many others need to as well.
I was pleased to see Congresswoman Nancy Mace today calling for Howard Lutnick to come before our committee. I believe we will have the votes to
subpoena him, and we will work with Ranking Member Garcia to make sure that he comes before our committee next.
GARCIA: Couple questions. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mentioning foreign intelligence --
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: -- the BBC. Virginia Giuffre never accused the former President Bill Clinton of wrongdoing, but she did say that he
visited Epstein's island, that she saw him there.
[10:55:07]
But the former president say he never went. You mentioned Howard Lutnick several times. We know that he claims he cut off ties with Epstein, but
then was found to have visited the island. So who do you believe? Virginia Giuffre or President Bill Clinton?
GARCIA: Those questions are actually going to be asked today in his deposition. So we look forward to those questions.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Just a short time ago, your Republican colleagues have said that there was some type of exchange yesterday with the secretary
where she was screaming. What is your characterization of what happened?
GARCIA: I hope that the Republicans release the actual video, unedited, immediately because to say that the secretary was screaming I think is
beyond a mischaracterization. What happened yesterday was a disgrace to be asking about UFOs, Pizzagate conspiracy theories. You yourself are going to
see the types of questions that she was asked to defend her husband, not directly to her, not information about her.
I think it's -- I think they need to release the videos right now. You should all be let in, end this immediately.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You guys have talked often about the precedent being set by President Clinton appearing here today. Is the way that President
Clinton answers these questions today also setting a precedent if he invokes executive privilege or says he doesn't remember? Could that set the
stage for President Trump to do a similar situation?
GARCIA: I think -- I think it was telling that Secretary Clinton did not take the Fifth one time yesterday. She answered the questions. That
information needs to be released. I think it's important that President Clinton do the same. I think he will answer questions today. I think that
President Trump needs to man up, get in front of this committee and answer the questions and stop calling this investigation a hoax. And we've got to
go in. Thank you all very much.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You asked me to get questions. Congressman Khanna --
ANDERSON: Right. Some specific allegations made there as we listen to the House Democrats of the Oversight Committee ahead of the deposition of Bill
Clinton. Some specific allegations made against Donald Trump there. Worth noting that President Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing in
connection with Epstein. And, of course, he's not charged with anything in relation. Democrats say it's time to hear from Donald Trump. Unclear
whether that is likely at this point.
You've been watching CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Becky Anderson. We will take a very short break and CNN will pick this up with "ONE WORLD" after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
