Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Lawmakers Speak on Hillary Clinton Deposition; Cuban President Vows to Defend Against "Terrorist" Attacks; Rubio: U.S. Will Investigate Deadly Incidents in Cuban Waters; Iran: Talks with U.S. Have Moved Into "Elements of an Agreement". U.S. and Iran Engage in Rare Direct Talks As Washington Loads Pressure on Tehran to Accept its Terms and Agree to a Nuclear Deal; Former First Lady Hillary Clinton Testifies About Her Links to Jeffrey Epstein; Cuba's President Promises to Defend His Country from Terrorist Attacks After Security Forces Fatally Shot Four People on a U.S.-Registered Speedboat. Aired 2:00-3p ET
Aired February 26, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
ISA SOARES, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: A very warm welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Isa Soares. Tonight, the U.S. and Iran engage in rare direct
talks as Washington loads pressure on Tehran to accept its terms and agree to a nuclear deal.
We'll be live from Geneva in just a moment for you. Then, former first lady Hillary Clinton is testifying about her links to Jeffrey Epstein. She says
she never met the convicted sex offender, and is denouncing the proceedings as a Republican plot. Plus, Cuba's President promising to defend his
country from terrorist attacks after security forces fatally shot four people on a U.S.-registered speedboat.
All the details from that investigation and much more coming up ahead this hour. We do want to begin this hour, though, in Geneva, the city hosting
high level talks aimed at ending one war and preventing another as the United States engages separately in negotiations on conflicts both in
Ukraine and in Iran.
Sources telling CNN that President Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has held direct talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister. The U.S.
allegation in both cases is being led by Mr. Witkoff, a negotiator with more experience, let's say in real estate than in foreign policy.
Jared Kushner; the President's son-in-law also plays a central role in all talks, but is not officially a member of the U.S. government. And the
ominous backdrop for this diplomatic push on Iran, well, a massive U.S. military buildup that we've been telling you about in the region.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FAWAZ GERGES, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS: This is the most significant amount of American military power
mobilized in the Middle East since America invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. A third of the U.S. Navy has been deployed.
Hundreds fighter jets have been deployed. Fourteen American ships and billions of dollars are being spent. So, this is really real. This is very
serious.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: It is indeed, and we've got all angles covered for you. We have our Fred Pleitgen, as you can see in Geneva, Nic Robertson is here with me.
And Fred, let me go to you first. Of course, simultaneous meetings in Geneva, I'm just seeing now comments from the Foreign Minister of Oman.
I'm just going to read the tweet that he put out. "We have finished the day after significant progress in the negotiation between the United States and
Iran", he tweets. "We will resume soon after consultation in the respective capitals. Discussions on a technical level will take place next week in
Vienna.
I am grateful to all concerned for their efforts and negotiators, the IAEA", that's the International Energy -- Atomic Energy Agency, "and the
host of the Swiss government." It seems like it all went very well. What we don't have, of course, is the readout from the U.S. and from the Iranian
side. What are you hearing?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we certainly don't, and you're absolutely right that optimism being put
forward there by the Omani Foreign Minister. It's unclear what exactly the delegations will have to say about that.
We are hearing -- or we believe that we might hear something from the Iranians in the not too distant future from the U.S. side, that could take
a little longer because presumably, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will have to brief President Trump before making any sort of more public
comments.
One of the things though, that's happened over the past couple of minutes here, is that there was a lot of movement. You're absolutely right. The
Omani Foreign Minister there saying that the talks have ended, we saw the convoys of both delegations leave here.
I would say the U.S. delegation, maybe about half an hour ago, the Iranian delegation, I would say about 10-15 minutes ago. So it was the U.S.
delegation that left first. One of the things that we're hearing, though, from inside the talks -- and this actually comes from our own Kylie Atwood
speaking to her sources, is that, they say that apparently, there was a draft obviously put forward by the Iranians.
And there was some tweaking done from both sides to that draft which signaled that there was a good degree of seriousness to these talks that
they were trying to bridge some of those gaps between the positions of one another. There was also an Iranian source that I've been in contact with,
who once again claims that the Iranians are not going to stop nuclear enrichment for their own fuel production.
Who also says that none of the sites that the Iranians have had, of course, Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz will be destroyed as part of any nuclear
agreement. And the Iranians want broad sanctions relief as well.
[14:05:00]
That's always been their side of the bargain, where they say they want to make -- they're willing to make some compromises towards the United States.
Very big compromises as far as they are concerned. But they also do want sanctions relief, not just of U.S. sanctions, but of United Nations
Security Council sanctions against Iran as well.
So, as we stand right here, the positions seem to become more clear as far as the U.S. and Iran is concerned. It's unclear how much headway has been
made, but judging from that tweet or that message that was sent out by the Omani Foreign Minister, it appears as though the process at least is due to
continue with the two sides now consulting in their capitals, then meeting again.
The Omani Foreign Minister says, but technical talks also set to continue in Vienna next week, that obviously are very important as well. Isa.
SOARES: Indeed, stay with us, Fred, so the -- so, Nic, I mean, it is positive, the fact that they're still talking, and the Omani Foreign
Minister saying discussions on a technical level take place next week in Vienna. And meantime, we are seeing this huge armada right in the Middle
East.
Just speak to that mounting pressure on the Iranians, and how far you think they are prepared to go with those three things that the U.S. is calling
for.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: The talks today have been on the nuclear issue --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: And haven't got into ballistic missiles, which is something the United States has --
SOARES: Or proxies --
ROBERTSON: Said, or proxies. Which --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: They said that they want to do. The Iranians have said, let's deal with the nuclear issue first. Despite the positivity we're hearing
from the Omani Foreign Minister, it does appear there are still gaps in positions on the nuclear issue, as Fred was outlining there.
Fordow, Isfahan, Natanz, places the United States -- enrichment facilities the United States wants to see completely dismantled, and Iran says no, can
do. So, there really seems to be that gap there, and also to call for all U.S. sanctions to be lifted, and all U.N. Security Council Resolutions to
be lifted is a stretch.
It's very hard to know how much of the language that we hear is for positioning, for domestic consumption at home, for positioning for
international --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: Consumption. The big military build-up, it remains there. So --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: It is still a pressure point. And I think it's important, even though the Omanis are talking about technical talks next week, we don't
know what they would be at what --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: At what level, and we know that technical talks for the last big nuclear deal between the United States and Iran took several years, and
you had the U.S. Energy Minister minutes there, you know deputy Secretary of State there at a very high level.
And it took a long time. I think let's try to read what President Trump says next, to get a clearer understanding of where things move.
SOARES: On that -- on that point, I mean, we've been talking about what Iran is prepared to give right here. What is the U.S. prepared to accept in
terms of what can Iran, what kind of carrot can Iran dangle? This President, who is very transactional, that may make him actually waver in
some of those -- some of those red lines.
ROBERTSON: It's really hard to know, because President Trump wants to get a better deal than President Obama got back in 2015. So, there needs to be
something significant. And it seems unlikely that the Iranians would go further than they went then -- they even now, they're talking about, well,
we're not even going to offshore the highly enriched uranium that we have that, they actually agreed to do with the medium enriched uranium back in
2015.
So, their position seems even sort of tougher than it was. What's President Trump willing to accept, tangibly? I really don't think -- I don't think we
have an understanding. It's not something he's made clear. But there's a big bucket list of things. You know, when we talk, some of the things the
Iranians have talked about is the IAEA --
SOARES: Yes, I stumbled --
ROBERTSON: Inspection. And look, when Iran in the 2015 deal abrogated those agreements, those detailed agreements. Over time, some of it happened
before the U.S. pulled out of that agreement. More of it happened after. But you're talking about the access of inspectors they suddenly can't get
access to a certain site or areas in a site.
The cameras that are doing monitoring, suddenly they're disconnected and the monitoring goes away. Full and complete detailed readout of what sites
have been used for in the past, and soil samples to be taken weren't given. So, there's a huge amount of trust.
But as we've seen with President Trump, he does seem to like to learn things for himself even though, history is replete --
SOARES: Yes --
ROBERTSON: With where Iran has failed to live up to its obligations.
SOARES: And Fred, I mean, this is -- do we still have Fred, and hopefully he's listening. Can you hear us, Fred? Oh wonderful, you're still with us.
[14:10:00]
I mean, this is fiendishly complicated, right?
PLEITGEN: Yes, I can hear you --
SOARES: Having two diplomatic, two huge missions simultaneous in Geneva. What -- do we know what came out of the other diplomatic meeting with
Ukraine? And I think you were talking about a prosperity package.
PLEITGEN: Yes, absolutely, right. And the U.S. has said before these meetings took place, and the Ukrainians said exactly the same thing. There
were bilateral meetings between the United States and the Ukrainian delegation, or parts of what is normally the Ukrainian delegation, that
these talks were going to be a lot more informal than talks that we saw here in Geneva last week, which, of course, were those very big trilateral
talks, also involving a very large Russian delegation.
Of course, Isa, one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that, as the U.S. is trying to move forward some sort of resolution to the war in
Ukraine, that there's really three areas that they're talking about, possible territorial concessions, that the Ukrainians might have to make as
part of any peace agreement than the security guarantees that the United States would be willing to give to Ukraine, of course, in conjunction with
America's allies.
But there is also the topic of that prosperity package, where essentially what the U.S. side is saying is that if the Ukrainians accept those very
difficult things that they would need to do as part of any peace deal, those concessions, that then they would get prosperity, if you will, in
return, investment from the United States, international investment, investment from some of the U.S.' allies to make sure that Ukraine prospers
as a country once the fighting stops.
And that's apparently what these talks were about. The interesting things about it is, they involved the leader of the Ukrainian delegation, Rustem
Umerov, but they also involved the Economy Minister of Ukraine, obviously, to try and hammer out some of those details on how things could move
forward, if of course, more progress is also achieved or breakthrough is achieved to try and end the fighting on the ground in Ukraine. Isa.
SOARES: And again, I hear concessions being asked of Ukraine, not much being asked out of Russia. Fred, I know you'll stay across it for us, thank
you very much, Nic, appreciate it. We'll stay across this story. And we're going to continue the discussion on Iran.
I'm pleased to welcome in Nate Swanson, who is a Resident Senior Fellow and Director of the Iran Strategy Project, Atlantic Council. He served as Iran
Director at the National Security Council during the Biden administration, and was on the Iran negotiating team under President Trump last year.
Nate, great to have you on the show. Let me get, first, your reaction to what we've just heard from the Foreign Minister of Oman, basically sounding
rather optimistic, finished the day after significant progress, we will resume soon after consultation in the respective capital's discussions on a
technical level will take place next week in Vienna.
Like I said to my colleagues, we haven't heard from the U.S. side, we also haven't heard from the Iranian side. Just your initial thoughts.
NATE SWANSON, RESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW & DIRECTOR, IRAN STRATEGY PROJECT, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Yes, I mean, I am hopeful that there's something behind
these talks or behind this messaging from the Omanis, but I am pretty skeptical. I think it is there. They see it as their job is to try and
project confidence and keep the process moving forward.
And I think we have seen already, I think I believe out of, you know, maybe Barack reading "Axios", you know, saying that the U.S. side was very
disappointed, and that shouldn't be a huge surprise because both sides are basically talking past each other and talking completely different
languages at this point.
SOARES: Yes, and look, it's clear there was huge gap right between both sides. There's clearly a lack of trust, as we heard from our diplomatic
editor just now from our Nic Robertson. So, just let's lay out and talk us through what each side wants, and we heard part of this.
U.S. wants an end to Iran's missile to -- missile program -- they didn't discuss that today. Today was all about the enrichment. They want all three
nuclear sites destroyed, and all enriched uranium sent to the U.S. Just tapping into expertise here, Nate. How far in which of these areas do you
think is Iran prepared to budge on -- to budge on critically here?
SWANSON: I don't think they're prepared on to budge on anything that hasn't been already been done before. Basically, I think --
SOARES: Yes --
SWANSON: Iran is trying to negotiate a JCPOA 2.0, and I think the U.S. is looking for closer to surrender.
SOARES: Right, OK, so, what do you make of the tactic, the strategy, if you see a strategy by the United States, we have this growing armada close
to Iran, trying to put pressure. How effective do you think that can be, Nate?
SWANSON: Unfortunately, not very effective. I think, you know, the President's perspective on this is that, the more pressure we bring to
bear, the more likely Iran is to capitulate. And there's some logic to that. I mean, Iran is in a terrible position, so, in theory they should.
But I think Iran has calculated that these talks are going nowhere, and the conflict is inevitable anyway. I think, you know, the Israelis came out and
said just a few days ago that even if the U.S. were to make a deal on the nuclear program, that, you know, they would sort of strike the missile
program.
So, I think the Iranians know conflict is coming, and I don't see them being terribly flexible. In some ways, I think they actually have less
flexibility than they did a year ago.
SOARES: Oh, you really think it's that bleak then from the Iranian side, they're not, you know -- they're just playing a long game here.
[14:15:00]
SWANSON: Well, yes, sort of. And I think also partially because you know, we saw when these -- they announced talks a few weeks ago that, you know,
the U.S. tried to present a new formula, you know, having a foreign regional -- foreign ministers regional meeting in Istanbul.
I mean, this would have been not necessarily different substantively, but it would have been symbolically quite different and Iran couldn't even
agree to that. You know, they couldn't agree to the location. They couldn't agree to like this broader scope -- it was unlikely to come up with
anything significant.
But would look different, and could have given the President a symbolic victory, and then, you know, the Iranians wouldn't go for that.
SOARES: Let me -- let me just tap into your expertise because I wrote -- I read your excellent article that you wrote for foreign affairs. I'm going
to read part of it. "I spent 18 years working in Iran in various U.S. government capacities, including as President Joe Biden's Iran director and
on Trump's negotiating team in the Spring and Summer of 2025.
From that experience", you write, "I can see that Trump fundamentally fails to grasp that Iranian weakness will not lead the country to capitulate at
the negotiating table." So, I wonder, then, given what you've just laid out, whether you think that President Trump has boxed himself in
politically, strategically. I mean, how do you see this playing out then?
SWANSON: Well, I mean, unfortunately, yes. I mean, it's a false choice, right? I mean, we're talking --
SOARES: Yes --
SWANSON: About a potential war without an objective. And we're talking about a potential war that's coming on the heels of protests that have
nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program and missile program. But he has made it a situation where he feels like he has to do something big either,
you know, a massive deal or he seems to be very confident that he can have a war with minimal consequences.
So, yes, I do think he is kind of willfully boxed himself into this binary choice that did not need to be binary. There was --
SOARES: And --
SWANSON: Other ways, and it would have been better.
SOARES: And there's -- I mean, there's huge risk, of course, for Iran, no doubt, and for the Iranian people. But there are also risks for the United
States, aren't there?
SWANSON: Oh, yes, I mean, I think the administration is quite confident that they can get out of this with no real consequences. I mean, that's
what happened last June. It's kind of what happened with Venezuela. And, you know, the President has a pattern of just basically seeing risk and
plowing through with no consequences.
So, I think that is absolutely the calculation for what's happening right now. But yes, there is risk. I think Iran sees this conflict as an
inevitable and potentially existential. And I think unlike June, when they were very quick to seek an off-ramp, I don't think they'll seek one now.
And I think they have potential to inflict some real damage on the U.S., and I don't think that it's something that the American people want or that
the President really fully anticipates happening.
SOARES: Yes, American people, as we've seen poll after poll, in fact, we've seen in polling just this week, more concerned, Nate, about the state
of the economy.
They don't want wars, we heard, of course. We also know that any sort of attack on Iran, that would have a huge impact on the Gulf region, that
would have an impact on oil prices, and that would potentially have an impact on President Trump's midterms which are crucial.
But if the U.S. does attack Iran, would -- how do you see Iran retaliating? Because you write in your piece, "Iran may be weak, but it still has ways
to inflict real pain on the United States, and more incentive to try than it did before." So, how do you -- how do you see Iran then retaliating?
I mean, I didn't want to get to that point because I was hopeful --
SWANSON: Yes --
SOARES: And I'm still hopeful that potentially, the diplomatic channel will prevail here.
SWANSON: You know, I am too. I really do hope we don't get to this point, and nor do I advocate what I'm suggesting Iran might do --
SOARES: I hear you, yes --
SWANSON: I just think -- yes, I'm just thinking that Iran is probably looking -- I mean, the same leaders in place now, were in place, you know,
40 years ago in some ways. And so, I think Iran believes that if they can inflict true damage on America, that we will back down and we will pack up.
And they're looking at like 1983 Lebanon where, you know, Iran inspired bombing of the marine barrack bombing led -- you know, President Reagan to
pack up shop and move out. So, I think this is what Iran is counting on. So, I think they probably have three things they're looking at doing.
The first is just trying to kill American soldiers. You know, draw blood. And they are capable of doing that. I mean, we're very well postured and
hopefully we're in a good position to defend, but I think it's a distinct possibility. I think Iran will also probably increasingly target Israeli
civilian centers.
They've done this a little bit. We saw the -- you know, pretty significant damage they inflicted in June. I think we'll see more of that this time
around. And I also think, you know, Iran -- situation has changed. I think Iran will think long and hard about inflicting pain on energy markets.
And you can target shipping in the Gulf. You can target Gulf infrastructure, energy infrastructure. And they would really hurt everyday
Americans.
[14:20:00]
And I -- and I -- and I don't certainly -- don't advocate it, but I think Iran is probably thinking long and hard about those options.
SOARES: Yes, and we know that President Trump, and we've heard would prefer a deal, that makes perfect sense. Let's see if they achieve one.
Nate, really great to have you on the show. Your perspective is so crucial at this juncture. Thank you.
SWANSON: Thank you very much --
SOARES: And later in the program, CNN uncovers new details about the aftermath of brutal crackdown in Iran that killed thousands of protesters.
That is according to human rights activists. We hear testimony from families who say they were told by the regime to lie about exactly how
their loved ones died. Have a little look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): 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.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: And you do not want to miss our report from Jomana Karadsheh and team in about 50 minutes right here on the show. And right now, former U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is testifying in a congressional probe tied to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
She has repeatedly denied having ever met Epstein, and today told lawmakers she has no information regarding the criminal activities of Epstein and his
co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. In her opening statement, Clinton said she had, quote, "been horrified by what we'd learned about their crimes."
The former Secretary of State's husband, former President Bill Clinton did know Epstein and flew on Epstein's private plane at least 16 times, and he
testifies tomorrow on Friday. It is a stunning reversal for the couple who fought for months to avoid testifying in what they called a Republican plot
against them. But the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee pushed back on that claim today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): The Democrats voted to subpoena the Clintons. The Democrats voted with the Republicans to hold the Clintons in contempt. So,
the Democrats have just as many questions for the Clintons as the Republicans. So, this isn't a partisan witch-hunt.
This was a motion, a bipartisan motion supported by the Democrats to bring the Clintons in. So, I don't think it's any type of being unfair in any way
to the Clintons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: And the Clinton testimony comes as there are new questions about unreleased files from the Department of Justice, a lawyer for some of
Epstein's accusers calls today's proceedings a distraction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARICK FUDALI, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN ACCUSERS: And she might have some useful testimony perhaps when they're investigating money and where money
may have gone, and where money may have went, you know, referring to Jeffrey Epstein's money.
I think that's about it, though. For me, this seems like a little bit more of a distraction from what the documents actually reveal, and more
importantly, what the documents don't reveal, and what is still being withheld, what is still being redacted, what is still not being shared with
the public by this administration, by the Department of Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: CNN's MJ Lee is in Chappaqua, New York, with the latest. So, MJ, I saw from the statement right from the get-go, Hillary Clinton went on the
attack. Just give our viewers a sense of what she's been saying.
MIN JUNG LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's been about three hours since this deposition began here in Chappaqua, New York. And the former Secretary
of State has been getting questions from members of the House Oversight Committee and some of the lawyers that work for the committee about
anything she might know about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
But as you referenced in that opening statement, it kind of summed up the big picture where she is coming from. She said that she doesn't know
anything about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities, that, in fact she doesn't recall ever even meeting him.
She's never flown on his plane or been to his island or has anything to add, for that matter, about Epstein or Maxwell's activities. Now, she did
go on to say in those opening remarks that, if the committee were truly interested in getting to the bottom of the Epstein story, then one person
that should be deposed is the current President, President Donald Trump, who, of course, at one time was friendly with Jeffrey Epstein.
We have gotten a couple of threads too, from inside the room about what kinds of questions the former Secretary of State has been receiving,
including any conversations she may have had about Epstein with some of the people who are in his orbit, including Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, who
are, of course, the two co-executors of the Epstein estate.
She answered, no, she has not spoken with them. She also said at one point that she's not even familiar with some of the people that she has been
asked about.
[14:25:00]
One other detail to share, I am told that a Republican congresswoman asked Hillary Clinton, a couple of questions about Bill Clinton and his conduct,
including whether Hillary Clinton has any feelings about young women massaging her husband.
I'm told that she responded by saying, I'm not here to speculate, and I'm certainly not here to talk about my feelings. You can imagine, just even
from that example, that this is obviously not a pleasant experience for the Clintons, and certainly, the former first lady.
And we know for a fact that for a number of months, the Clintons team and their lawyers have been going back-and-forth with the committee, basically
resisting exactly this scene behind me and negotiating with the lawyers. But ultimately, when it came down to it, when they were facing the
possibility of being held in contempt of Congress, that's when they, I think, realized that this just had to happen.
That they had to answer these questions from the Oversight Committee. And again, all of this is setting up the former President's deposition
tomorrow. And that is going to be a totally different ordeal, given that he, in fact, has met Epstein, did have a relationship with him.
So, expect that to be a little bit longer tomorrow, I think would be -- would be a good guess. And the kinds of questions that he receives are
going to be altogether different than what Hillary Clinton is facing today.
SOARES: Yes, some fiery exchanges for sure. Thanks very much MJ. MJ Lee there for us in Chappaqua. And still to come tonight, a CNN review finds
several witness interviews appear to be missing from the Department of Justice's release of the Epstein files. We'll have that for you in about 15
minutes.
And Cuba's President vowing to defend his country after what he calls an attempted infiltration by U.S.-based Cuban exiles. We'll have details of a
deadly shootout at sea. That is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Well, we were just in Chappaqua. I want to take you there now. New York members of the U.S. Oversight Committee are speaking. Let's have a
listen.
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): Today. Who we should be talking to instead of people who are actually mentioned in the files, people who have made
misleading statements about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Earlier today, our Chairman Comer mentioned being open to talking to
Secretary Lutnick.
Well, let's get him in. Let's talk to Secretary Lutnick instead. Let's talk to someone who is neighbors with Jeffrey Epstein, who actually associated
with Jeffrey Epstein, not someone who had never ever met Jeffrey Epstein, to their knowledge.
And so, let's try to talk about people who will help us with our investigation. And let's release the 2.5 million files so we can know who
else to talk to, and so we can do right by the victims and actually bring justice. Thank you.
REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ): Thank you. I'm Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, representing Arizona's 3rd District. I am extremely, extremely appalled by
the Republican chairman's behavior today and by the behavior of the entire committee and how unserious they are about this investigation.
Let's remind the country about what we are actually talking about. Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and a list of many rich and powerful people
from around the United States and around the world abused and raped more than 1,000 people who were children, many of whom were children at the
time. And today we are sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition where members of Congress and the Republican Party are more
concerned about getting their photo op of Secretary Clinton than actually getting to the truth and holding anyone accountable.
I also want to talk about the reporting from this week and the fact that we now know that the Department of Justice, in their ongoing cover-up, the
most egregious cover-up in American history, intentionally seemed to have redacted more or withheld more than 50 pages of allegations from a minor
against President Trump.
Do not forget that Kash Patel went in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and said under oath that the FBI had no credible allegations of
any other people being involved in this child sex trafficking operation. These documents that the Department of Justice intentionally has withheld
from the American public in regard to the allegations against President Trump came from the FBI. The FBI had interviewed this witness four times.
You do not do that if it is not serious.
So, Kash Patel needs to be immediately brought back before the Oversight Committee. He needs to answer these questions again, and we need answers
immediately. Again, America is watching. Young people in this country are watching to see if powerful people will continue to protect other powerful
people and whether or not Congress will actually hold these perpetrators accountable. Thank you.
REP. WESLEY BELL (D-MO): Wesley Bell, Missouri's first congressional district, and as a former prosecutor, I've been involved in leading
investigations and serious offenses, and this ain't it. What we're seeing is political theater. What we're seeing is folks that are looking for
headlines and tweets as opposed to doing the business of going about getting justice for the victims in this case and survivors in this case, I
should say, as well.
And I think that that's what I think some of our friends on the other side are losing sight of, is that we are here to make certain that justice is
served. And it's important for us as oversight members to do our job to ensure that all the evidence, any information is heard and that any
victims, any survivors' voices are heard as well. And that's what we're supposed to be doing.
And so, what we're seeing today is we have not learned one new thing. The secretary is here. She is more than happy to have all of you come in there
and into this deposition and hear her out. But there are those on the other side of the aisle who do not want that for whatever reason. And so, we're
going to continue to push for justice. We're going to continue to work to make certain that the victims and survivors are given their due, and their
voices are heard, and that justice is ultimately served.
REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): Thank you. I'm James Walkinshaw from Virginia's 11th District. The Trump administration's treatment of the
survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes has been a callous disregard. We've seen that in his refusal to release the files. We saw that this week at the
State of the Union with his refusal to acknowledge the survivors who were in the chamber. One of the things that's been confirmed today is that in
addition to having no relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Secretary Clinton had, has no relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell.
But there are important questions we should be asking the Trump administration about Ghislaine Maxwell. And I hope that our Republican
colleagues will join us in asking these questions. Why is it that Donald Trump has refused to rule out the pardon, the clemency that Ghislaine
Maxwell is campaigning for? We held a deposition in this committee with Ghislaine Maxwell. She used that deposition as an opportunity to campaign
for a pardon.
[14:35:00]
Chairman Comer then walked out before many of you and gave her talking points as to why she should get a pardon. Donald Trump needs to direct
Attorney General Bondi to release all the files, to unredact the illegal redactions, and he needs to unequivocally rule out a pardon for Ghislaine
Maxwell, who is a monster, convicted of child sex trafficking. Why has he not ruled out pardoning her? Why did the Deputy Attorney General spend
hours with her? Then why was she transferred to a cushy, lower-security prison? Those are important questions we should be asking about Ghislaine
Maxwell. We no longer have to ask whether there's any relationship between Secretary Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell. There was not.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND REFORM COMMITTEE: I'm going to answer a couple of questions. Let me -- I'm going to answer a
question. One second. I'm going to make one statement and then one question.
Last thing I'm going to say, and then I'm going to begin with a question, is we want to make a very clear demand right now, which is that the full
transcript, unedited, of the secretary's questions and the answers need to be released by the majority in the next 24 hours.
We need -- the public and the American people have a right to know exactly what she said, what questions were asked of her, and how she responded.
That's transparency. She herself requested that the press and the public be allowed into the deposition. That was denied. And so, a very minimum they
need to immediately release the full transcript. And we're hopeful that tomorrow, for the former president, the press will be allowed in and the
public as well. That's been the request.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. How did that leaked photo get out? And do you believe there should be any repercussions?
GARCIA: Well, the repercussions should come from the majority and from Chairman Comer. I mean, it was very clear that that leaked photo was sent
out by a member. I think it's not -- hard to figure out what member that was by looking at the photo. And the fact it was not just one photo, it was
one photo and then a second post that also included a photo as well. And so, that was completely against the rules. We're grateful that the
secretary continued the deposition, but not acceptable.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The secretary has been clear that she has no relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. She said a few times that she has had
encounters with Ghislaine Maxwell. She clarified what those meetings were like. Did she talk about Ghislaine Maxwell attending her daughter's
wedding? Did you get any new insights of those interactions?
GARCIA: I think -- you know, obviously, we can't get into specifics about the answers, but we will get all those as soon as the video is released.
And so, we have to be very careful about giving specifics about what was actually said in the deposition per committee rules, which is why we're
demanding right now that James Comer and the Republicans release the full transcript, where all of the questions that were asked will be fully
answered by Secretary Clinton.
What I can say is that she, again, never met Jeffrey Epstein, never went to the island, never went to the plane, and had no knowledge of any of his
crimes. This is completely unacceptable.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- Howard Lutnick -- when Comer went in, he said it's a possibility when I asked him if Lutnick would be subpoenaed. Mace then
said she had an email printed out that she wanted to ask Clinton about. What was that line of questioning like in the room, and was there any
discussion about moving forward on a request or a subpoena for Lutnick?
GARCIA: We've made the request of Howard Lutnick. It is unacceptable that we have the commerce secretary, who has lied and lied and lied about his
relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, the fact that he went to the island, he went on the plane, he went into business with Jeffrey Epstein, and yet sat
there in a chair with a reporter and lied to the American people.
He should resign today. He should be removed from office, and at minimum, should come before the committee. I think everyone's been clear that we
need to hear from Howard Lutnick.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you give us a sense in the room, the questioning in the room?
GARCIA: I'm not going to -- I want all of the secretary's responses to be released immediately, or I want the press to be allowed in to get details
on that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you give us a sense of what it was like in the room? Is this a very tense deposition? And also, can you give a little bit
more color of what exactly happened when this moment on social media is shared? Was there back and forth about letting the press inside the room?
GARCIA: So, what I can say is, obviously, everybody was very taken aback by the committee rules being essentially not enforced and certainly just
broken immediately. That is not acceptable, especially when the secretary said from day one that she wanted the press in the room. When the incident
happened, I think this is something that can be reported, the secretary's team continued to demand, even after the incident, to let the press into
the room, because what was important for her is that her answers to the questions not be edited, that the video not be edited. And so, we
understand that and we're committed to getting this video transcript out immediately.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To be clear, she's answering every question?
GARCIA: To be clear, she's -- and answering all the questions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) at all?
GARCIA: To be clear, she's answering all the questions. I think I can safely say that she's not taking the fifth. Last question.
[14:40:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Garcia, in terms of her understanding of her husband's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, is that something that she's
been asked about?
GARCIA: I want the full transcripts to be released immediately. I think everything that she said in her testimony will be cleared. Thank you all
very much.
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Well, you have been listening to Democratic lawmakers in Chappaqua, New York. This follows, of course, the
hearing from the former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has been testifying in a congressional probe that tied the late convicted sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein. She has, as we've been reporting, repeatedly denied ever having met Epstein. It was held behind closed doors.
We heard there, and that was a top Democrat, the last person speaking in that, is Representative Robert Garcia, who's basically asking the reporters
be allowed into the room for the deposition. This follows a photo that was then put out on social media, going very much against committee rules. He
did also ask for the full transcript to be released immediately, all the questions, the video, and to be released within the next 24 hours as part
of transparency. Also calling for a request for journalists to be allowed in tomorrow when the former U.S. President Bill Clinton will be testifying
in that congressional probe.
We did hear from the other members -- lawmakers alongside Garcia there, saying that this was a cover-up by the Department of Justice, saying that
the Department of Justice, and I'm quoting them here, "intentionally withdrew 50 pages of a minor against Mr. Trump." President Trump --
important to point out that President Trump has denied all allegations throughout, saying that, you know, this is a political theatre, this is
looking for headlines or tweets instead of really getting justice for the victims, of course, of Jeffrey Epstein.
You heard their calls for Howard Lutnick, that's a Commerce Secretary, to also testify to also tough questions on him regarding his alleged ties to
Jeffrey Epstein. And there are other questions, bigger questions, that you heard from the Democrats today. Why President Trump, one asked, has refused
to rule out clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell, why is she in a cushy prison, and calling on Pam Bondi to release all the files.
So, you've seen the diplomatic pressure apply, being applied from the Democrats, as we hear, of course, today from Hillary Clinton, the former
first lady, the former U.S. secretary of state. We don't have the full transcript, but this is exactly what they're calling for, and what
Secretary Clinton had wanted all along. Any other developments, of course, we'll keep you posted, but this is happening in Chappaqua, New York. We'll
stay on this story. We're going to take a short break, be back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:00]
SOARES: Welcome back. Cuba's president is vowing to defend his country against what he calls terrorist and mercenary attacks, saying gunmen on a
U.S. registered speedboat tried to infiltrate the island. Cuba says the boat entered Cuban waters just south of Florida on Wednesday and fired on a
border patrol vessel. And it says Cuban forces returned fire, killing four gunmen. Six others were wounded and taken to a hospital. Cuba's interior
ministry says all were Cubans living in the U.S. who came armed with assault rifles, handguns, and Molotov cocktails.
While the U.S. says it's conducting its own investigation of the incident and won't rely on Cuba's version of events. Stefano Pozzebon has the
details for you from Bogota.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Still so many questions surrounding Wednesday's incident of the cost of Cuba. What the government in Havana is
saying is that an armed group, 10 people in total, tried to, quote, "infiltrate" the island nation with a speedboat here. This area is called
Falcones Cay and it's just over 100 miles from the coast of Florida.
Cuban authorities say when they approached the U.S. registered speedboat, one of the passengers fired at them and Cuban forces retaliated.
Four of the speedboat passengers were killed and the remaining six were wounded. Cuba says they are currently in custody and receiving treatment.
An investigation is ongoing, but the country's interior ministry has been quick to brown the group as terrorists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): According to preliminary statements from those detained, they intended to carry out an infiltration
for terrorist purposes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
POZZEBON: Cuba says it arrested an 11th man. They said he flew in from the U.S. to, quote, "guarantee the reception of the armed infiltration." Now,
Washington says whatever this was, it was not a U.S. operation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also seemingly skeptical of Havana's version of
events.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: It's not something that happens every day. It's something, frankly, that hasn't happened with Cuba in a
very long time. But we're going to find out. We're not going to base our conclusions on what they've told us. And I'm very, very confident that we
will know the full story of what happened here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
POZZEBON: The shootout happens as the U.S. is ramping up pressure on Cuba, the island nation facing severe shortages of basic food items, but also
fuel. And that's because Washington has blocked virtually all oil shipments to the country since it captured Venezuelan leader and Cuban ally Nicolas
Maduro in January. The U.S. stricter stance, part of a more ambitious goal for the country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: Cuba's status quo is unacceptable. Cuba needs to change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: And Stefano joins me now. And, Stefano, I know there's a lot we do not know at this hour. Who are these individuals, right? What their
intentions were. And I'm surprised also by the silence from the United States. Just your analysis here.
POZZEBON: Well, yes, the silence from the United States, it is interesting. We have asked the State Department multiple times whether any
of these 10 people involved in this incident. So, let's repeat. Four people have been killed. Six have been apprehended by Cuban authorities. They are
all Cuban citizens with permanent residencies in the United States.
We've also asked the State Department whether any of these people were indeed U.S. passport holders. You know, you can have two passports, of
course, be a binational, dual national. That would bring, of course, an extra element to the story.
We might have some of the answers to these questions in the next few minutes, Isa, because we've just learned that the Cuban deputy minister at
the Cuban foreign affairs ministry will speak to the press up there in Havana in the next hour or so. We'll be trying to bring you as lines as
quickly as possible, as we try to piece together the pieces around this situation.
[14:45:00]
But clearly, this is a situation that can escalate very quickly, indeed, if perhaps any of the people involved are United States citizens. And let's
remember, just for background and context, the dramatic humanitarian crisis that Cuba is going through these days. It's not something that we'll get to
a solution any time quickly.
SOARES: Yes, indeed. And we'll listen, of course, in the next hour to hear what the Cuban side is saying. But what we also need to hear from, and we
haven't heard in detail, like you said, is from the U.S. side and more details from Secretary Rubio. But this speaks, Stefano, to the rising
tensions, of course, between both sides. And maybe some Cubans in the United States who clearly or potentially want to see an accelerated version
of regime change.
POZZEBON: Yes, maybe people who have still families in Cuba, they feel that they understand that the Cuban government is under the most intense
pressure in recent history. And perhaps they've decided to take actions with their own hands and try to do one last shovel, one last push for the
government. We understand that the United States is adamant in willing the Cuban government to give way and to provoke, to trigger a regime change
essentially in Havana.
However, of course, we will see whether they are willing to push the last shovel. From what we're understanding here, perhaps somebody in the Cuban-
American community south in Miami will have decided to do so. And it's interesting perhaps also that these type of calls for further clarification
and investigations are being voiced, Isa, by both sides of the American politics. 2026 is a year where it seems like the Americans can't agree on
pretty much anything, Democrats and Republicans.
Well, on this one, we've had the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, of course, a voice for President Donald Trump, but also the mayor of Miami,
Eileen Higgins, who is a Democrat who just took office in early January. They're also calling for a thorough investigation and saying that what is
coming out of Havana cannot be trusted. So, asking for U.S. investigators to get involved to understand what really happened between the two nations.
SOARES: Yes, clearly lots of answers that we haven't had so far. Stefano, good to see you. Thank you. We're going to take a short break. We'll see
you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Well, some news just coming into CNN. In the past few minutes, Iran has said that talks with U.S. and Geneva had moved into, quote,
""elements of an agreement." If you remember at the top of the show, we heard -- we gave you what the Oman foreign minister said.
[14:55:00]
Now, the Iranian saying is, sources, there was no major breakthrough, but there are some signs -- U.S. sources, I should say, signs of progress.
That's from the U.S. And it would represent a significant milestone, of course, especially after a source said U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff
held direct talks with Iran's foreign minister. Now, the negotiations have generally been indirect, with Oman mediating. And Oman says both sides have
been showing unprecedented openness to new as well as creative ideas.
A source tells CNN that U.S. negotiation -- negotiators, pardon me, are insisting on limiting Iran's enrichment of uranium as well as making sure
Tehran's nuclear program can be verified in the long-term. Oman says technical discussions on Iran's nuclear program are set for next week in
Vienna. And this is what we're hearing as well from the Iranian side. The fourth round of talks will be held soon. There are a number of tasks that
both sides need to carry out. They prepare certain documents and actually hold consultations in their respective capitals.
Max Foster will have much more on this. Do stay right here. "What We Know" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
