Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Former Prince Andrew Arrested On Suspicion Of Misconduct In Office; Dems Press For Answers On Admin. Officials' Epstein Ties; Trump: "Bad Things Will Happen" If Iran Doesn't Make A Deal; Fine Arts Commission Approves Trump's White House ballroom Plans. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired February 19, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Dana Bash in Washington, and we begin with the arrest shocking the world.

As Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, former Prince Andrew, was taken into custody this morning on suspicion of misconduct in public office. It is an extraordinary downfall for the son of one monarch, the brother of the current monarch. He's the most prominent public figure to be held accountable for his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Accountability yet to reach Washington, D.C. We're going to get to that in a moment.

But first, I want to get to Max Foster who is at Buckingham Palace. Max, what do we know about Andrew's arrest?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: He was arrested this morning on the king's Norfolk estate. The king wasn't warned it was going to happen, and he's being taken into custody. We don't know where, but he could be held for, typically, 12 to 24 hours for questioning about his role as trade envoy.

So, there were allegations in the Epstein files that he shared private government information that he received in that role with Epstein could have been used because it was market sensitive information. This is being investigated by Thames Valley Police, and they are also searching Andrew's homes.

As we understand it, none of them, none of this detail has been explicitly published by the police because they have very tight rules here. But we know that Thames Valley Police were starting an inquiry and have formally started an investigation into Andrew. He hasn't been charged at this point. He could be held for up to four days, if they get the permission from a magistrate. But this is a very historic, complicated case, and this is a famously difficult charge to pin down, so we'll see how it goes. But they've clearly had some new evidence in that warranted such a high profile move.

BASH: And what's the royal family saying?

FOSTER: The royal family has issued a statement, and it's notable because it came out very quickly and it was written in the king's hand. So, he tried to get ahead of this, and this is what he said. I've learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office, notably not calling him his brother, trying to create that distance from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What now follows is the full and fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. Let me state very clearly, says the king, the law must take its course.

As this process continues, it would not be right to say any more. To be fair, they can't say any more, because they don't want to prejudice what might turn out to be a trial. And bear in mind, the king is the head of the judiciary, and Andrew is already being accused of abusing his position. If the king were to do so as well, it could be catastrophic for the monarchy.

Also bear in mind that the police will now have access to all of Andrew's communications. He had an office here at Buckingham Palace when he was a working royal. All of this applies to that time when he was very much part of the monarchy. So, the police could potentially get the other end of those conversations that appeared in the Epstein papers, which would shed a lot more light on exactly what was going on in Epstein's dark circle.

BASH: Max Foster, thank you so much for that report. Appreciate you being here. And I'm joined here at the table by a group of terrific reporters. And Nia, before we talk about the extraordinary events of this morning and about what it means for politics. I do want to bring it back to one of his alleged victims, Virginia Giuffre, who wrote about him in an autobiography that was published posthumously because she took her own life.

[12:05:00]

Her family put out a statement saying, at last. Today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty. On behalf of our sister, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, we extend our gratitude to the U.K.'s Thames Valley Police for their investigation and arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Listen, when you hear the stories of these women, they're really horror stories of these women now who were young girls when they were ensnared by Epstein, somebody who had the ear of very powerful people. Obviously, this is dealing with the former Prince Andrew. This has been a years' long fight from these women political figures are just now sort of getting the message of how terrible this was.

And with the release of these documents, you really get to see how wide a web that Epstein had. It was global in many ways. It touched on many different industries and very powerful and high-profile people. So, this is a day, I think, if you are a victim, a survivor of Epstein and the folks who were surrounding him, this is a good thing.

And I think they hope it's just the beginning right, that more people will be convicted, arrested, uncovered with these files. And of course, there's a push now in Washington for more files to be released and some justice to come to folks in this country as well, and possibly in the government, because so far, that hasn't happened.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR & WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: And it will be interesting to see if it's just the beginning for Andrew, because this charge is not related to Giuffre, as far as we know, right?

BASH: Yeah.

CHALIAN: It seems that the authorities there and the prosecutors have gotten him on some of the other issues with his relationship with Epstein, about trading on information and the like, and that that was a door in to arrest him. But now we're going to see like, does he actually -- is there accountability here? Are their charge -- charges brought when it comes to sex trafficking and these horrific stories that you're describing. That's not the case today. And I think that's something that we'll have to watch as this progresses with the former prince.

BASH: Right. Whether this is an (inaudible) was arrested on taxes situations. Let's bring it back to the United States for a second and just and talk about the difference between what we're seeing in the U.K., obviously with Andrew the former prince, and other political figures who are in trouble, obviously, not as much as Andrew seems to be versus what is happening here in the United States, where Jeffrey Epstein lived and had interactions with people across the board, in politics and business, in entertainment --

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: In the current administration.

BASH: In the current administration, we have seen a slew of resignations, not in politics, not in the administration, but elsewhere. And we'll just put up on the screen from Kathryn Ruemmler, who was a former White House counsel for Democrats. She was most recently at Goldman Sachs, Larry Summers, Peter Mandelson, who I was talking about. Brad Karp who is at Paul, Weiss, Casey Wasserman, talent executive, Tom Pritzker was, until recently, the -- I think last week, the executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels.

And you know, there are a few other examples. These are people who have lost their jobs. The question is now about justice.

MATTINGLY: I think that the point David makes is a really, really important one, which is, look at what happened this morning, and what it was tied to, and what it was not tied to. And to Nia's initial point, thinking about this from the lens of what the survivors have done over the course of the last 12 to 18 months has been nothing short of extraordinary. I've never seen an ability to take on this like Sisyphean task and actually get it across the finish line to the point where all these documents are released.

But there is, undeniably, when you talk to survivors' frustration that there has been no justice from a law enforcement perspective, particularly in the United States. It's almost as if the dominoes are going across the entire world and just skipping the United States as it goes over, particularly for public officials in the political realm, and whether or not that is going to change.

I don't know if you've watched any justice department or FBI officials weigh in on this in the last couple weeks, and it certainly doesn't seem like it. And that, I think, is going to be an enormous frustration and a genuine missed opportunity to do right by people who deserve it.

[12:10:00]

BASH: Yeah. I mean, you look at Pam Bondi's testimony, if you want to call it that, last week, and she definitely punted on the notion of anybody being prosecuted. Todd Blanche, her deputy, the same FBI director as well. Then you have Howard Lutnick, who is the commerce secretary, who had said previously on a podcast, before the documents came out, that he had nothing to do with him.

He was disgusted by him after he first met him as a neighbor, then it turned out that he was on his vote and went to meet with Epstein. He took his family and his nannies, and he said nothing bad happened, but he wasn't telling the truth when he said he had no interaction. This is just an example of the statement that he made and the incredulous response by one Democratic senator last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: Look, I looked through the millions of documents for my name, just like everybody else.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): You said casually. Well, I looked at my name and how it appeared in them, as does everyone. No, everyone isn't worried about their names being in the Epstein files.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Hannah.

HANNAH KNOWLES, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: I think this shows what a opportunity Democrats see this as, even though people from both parties have been pulled into this at this point. They think that they can tie Trump and the people in his cabinet, the people around him, to the so-called Epstein class, and that that's something that really resonates with people.

And like, just the other week, I was watching a forum in Marjorie Taylor Greene's old district, where there's now a race to replace her, and the leading Republicans who want to replace her. They were talking about how disappointed they were with how the federal government has handled this. And so clearly this is something that people are still talking about.

BASH: Yeah. And I mean, look, we'll see -- we'll see what happens. But the pressure has got to change in a dramatic way because it's already on. And so far, the --

MATTINGLY: I'll say Chris Coons' response was all of us.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: All right, everybody. We're going to sneak in a quick break. And when we come back, we are going to be talking about a lot more on this issue, and also Iran. What is going to happen with Iran? Is it possible that the United States is really edging closer to war with Iran, led by a president who promised no more wars? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Sources tell CNN, the U.S. is prepared to strike Iran as soon as this weekend, but that President Trump hasn't made a final call. As the Pentagon readies for a possible war, President Trump spent the morning at the inaugural summit of his board of peace. It's a new body he created with chair and he chairs that body. He bragged about all the wars that he claims to have settled and said Norway quote, screwed him by not awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize. And then mourned this for Tehran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Now is the time for Iran to join us on a path that will complete what we're doing. And if they join us, that will be great. If they don't join us, that will be great too, but it will be a very different path. They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region, and they must make a deal. Or if that doesn't happen, I maybe can understand, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, but bad things will happen if it doesn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The president suggested a decision on what happens next will come in the next 10 days. My smart panel is here, next. Phil Mattingly, he's at the Board of Peace, talking about all the peace. There have been negotiators, trying to get to some kind of deal with Iran, but it hasn't been fruitful like at all.

The question that I have, and I think most Americans have, is, why? What's your reason for it, if we -- if the U.S. does attack? And also, what's the goal? What's the end game?

MATTINGLY: I would actually step back a little bit further and say, most Americans don't even know this is happening right now, which is the most extraordinary part of all of it, beyond the irony of being at the U.S. Institute of Peace, talking about the Board of Peace, while also threatening imminent war in the Middle East.

And I think, to your kind of downstream questions, which I think are critical, is none of that has been outlined, and while they are in the midst of negotiations, and the president has been able to pull off negotiating victories in, as he's mentioned, many, many potential conflicts, or ongoing conflicts over the course of the last 15 months.

The idea that Congress is on recess and not involved in this process. The American public doesn't seem remotely aware that the potential for a war in the Middle East is about to begin again, after what we witnessed for 20 plus years in the Middle East and Afghanistan. And no one is entirely sure. One justification, authority. But also, to your point, what is the end game? What's the goal here for any type of kinetic action related to Iran? And I'm not sure anybody's given any type of a great answer.

[12:20:00]

CHALIAN: Or just what that kinetic action may be, even if we -- before we get to the end game, just like, what this is, because there was a lot of talk before the attack of the nuclear facilities in June. We heard from folks in his base of support, Steve Bannon and others, who were expressing real concern about that, but just the nature of what that attack was like, discrete and defined, the political fallout wasn't, I think, as robust as many people thought going in.

And so, I look at this in a similar vein, which is like, well, what is it that ends up happening here if indeed action is taken? Because that will determine whether or not the lack of selling it to the American people, the lack of going to Congress, which is clearly on display, actually has blow back for him or not, all will depend on how contained an action it is.

BASH: Let's listen to what Karoline Leavitt said when asked this very question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, there's many reasons and arguments that one could make for a strike against the -- against Iran. The president had a very successful operation as commander in chief with Operation Midnight Hammer. As you know, as you just said, totally obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities.

The president has always been very clear, though, with respect to Iran or any country around the world, diplomacy is always his first option. Seriously, he's always thinking about what's in the best interest of the United States of America, of our military, of the American people. And that's how he makes decisions with respect to military action of any kind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENDERSON: Yeah. I mean, it's vague word salad. There are many reasons, well name one for why this would be a good idea, why it's in America's best interest. None of which they are doing. This is incredibly serious to put Americans in harm's way. If that's, in fact, what they're doing, you would think there would need to be an explanation.

I do think the president is comfortable doing these kinds of actions, right? You saw obviously what happened with the nuclear facilities and then what happened with Venezuela, right? There is this sort of discrete action. They whisk the president of Venezuela away, and the American public just sort of shrugs and moves on, and Congress sort of does the same thing. And so, if that is the kind of template, then I imagine they're sort of comfortable going in and doing something, if it's kind of discrete, but we'll see --

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: --it seems as though you're looking at regime change, which is --

HENDERSON: What is soft of the regime change, like Venezuela's regime change.

BASH: Well, yeah. Except Venezuela, as to quote, Marco Rubio, back to himself. Venezuela is not and the Western Hemisphere is not the Middle East. There's a tweet for everything, Hannah. So, let's go back to -- because it was called Twitter then. Let's go back to September 25, 2013, Donald J. Trump. Remember what I previously said, Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.

KNOWLES: Yeah. I think this just encapsulates how Trump has been all over the map on this, and he's really taking a huge political risk here. He was with Venezuela as well, because the public has really soured on regime change over the years, and this is something that his base has warned him. You know, we're not totally on board with this.

And we saw his rationale shifting too with Venezuela, right? It was initially this sort of more limited strike, and then it was, we are running Venezuela now. And so, I think there's a lot of nervousness among Republicans about, how does this play out for them politically?

BASH: And then there are Democrats like Ro Khanna pointing out one of the main things that Donald Trump repeatedly campaigned on and even said in his inaugural address last year. Trump is positioning two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships and hundreds of fighter jets to prepare for a possible war with Iran.

Here it goes. I first got into politics the end -- to end the Iraq war. I won't let Trump launch a disastrous war without Congress voting to stop it. It is the president who also said that he wanted to end the war in Iraq and that he wouldn't start new wars.

All right, still ahead on Inside Politics. President Trump's ballroom proposal just waltzed ahead in the approval process. We'll explain after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: We're getting a brand new look at President Trump's plans for the White House ballroom. You see there a new model of the proposed nearly 90,000 square foot building that was unveiled during a meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, the commission appointed by the president himself. So, it's not a surprise given that that they green lit his pet project this morning.

I want to bring in CNN's Sunlen Serfaty. Sunlen, what exactly did they approve?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, they approved, essentially, from this committee, everything. It was really a green stamp. And that was unexpected today. This committee on fine arts, it's one of the two committees that has to formally approve this project. They not only voted on the concept of the project, but they went ahead and just skipped the next step and voted on final of approval of the project before it's complete.

Today, we did see, and you see some of the rough cut here from the zoom meeting that they had today, the first 3D renderings. We also saw some animated images, all things that we have not seen before. And again, this is happening over zoom. So, it really speaks to this moment that a lot of critics are saying that there's not proper time for the public to really weigh in on this design and the concept.

The chairman of the committee did note that they had received over 2000 public comments. 99 percent of those, he said, were negative. People speaking to the transparency of the project, people speaking to how the east wing was demolished in the first place.

[12:30:00]