Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Attorney General Bondi Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee; New Video Shows Individual Approaching Nancy Guthrie's Home; FAA Reopens Airspace Over El Paso, Texas; Israeli Prime Minister At The White House; Nielsen: 128 Million People watched Super Bowl LX Halftime Show. Aired 12- 1p ET
Aired February 11, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:45]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching the second hour of "One World."
ASHER: Screaming accusations and a lot of insults. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is on Capitol Hill right now, testifying before the House
Judiciary Committee. And it's been contentious from the very start.
The Epstein files, immigration enforcement, and concerns over the credibility of the Justice Department, all on the agenda.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. But at times, it sounded more like a shouting match than a congressional hearing. Bondi frequently went on the attack when facing
questions by democratic lawmakers.
At one point, she referred to one of them as a washed up loser. That is Representative Jerry Nadler of New York.
Here's what happened when democratic Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal asked whether Bondi would apologize to some of the Epstein survivors sitting
right behind her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who
are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice is.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Members -- members get to ask the questions. The witness gets to answer in the way they want to answer it. The attorney
general can respond.
JAYAPAL: That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman.
PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Because she doesn't like the answer.
JAYAPAL: So, Mr. Chairman --
BONDI: Why --
JAYAPAL: -- I have asked --
BONDI: -- didn't she asked Merrick Garland this to us when he sat in my chair?
JAYAPAL: I'm reclaiming my time and when I reclaim my time, it is time --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady has reclaimed her time.
BONDI: I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: CNN's Paula Reid joins us now on Capitol Hill with more.
And, Paula, that was much more of a performative display than any sort of insightful information or real grilling or accountability in terms of the
responses that we heard from the attorney general.
She came in prepared to have these types of debates and to fire back. And to turn this into a very politicized hearing which was expected.
Our previous guest in the last hour said this was mainly for an audience of one, that being the president of the United States.
You've covered these types of hearings before. Let's not lie, politics have always been involved, but have you ever seen quite like this?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: No. This is -- this is extraordinary. And yesterday, a former Justice Department official told me
that Bondi's job was to take the temperature down and convince lawmakers that she was committed to transparency on the Epstein files.
And instead, what we have seen is she has turned on that thermostat all the way up. She is throwing down with Democrats. This hearing frequently
devolving into shouting matches.
Let's take a listen to some of the things that she shouted back at lawmakers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: He is the most transparent president in the nation's history. And none of them, none of them, ask Merrick Garland over the last four years
one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that?
You know why? Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now is over. The Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock
trader as I hear, Raskin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: So historically, Attorney General Bondi has performed really well at these hearings because she has kept her composure. But she always comes
armed with those little one-line zingers that you just heard there.
Right now, though, her job is to restore the trust of the president and the White House in her. But also for the general public, restore their trust in
the agency that she is running amid questions that she's turned it into a clearing house for the president's grievances.
It's clear she made a choice today to play to that audience of one. I want to note, there was one, one, moment of bipartisan agreement, Representative
Swalwell, brought up the very serious issue of threats against lawmakers. She agreed to work with him on that.
But otherwise, anyone coming to this hearing hoping for more information about the Epstein files would leave sorely disappointed.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. It appears that the attorney general is trying to please one person in hopes of keeping her job. So many really important legal
issues still remain unanswered.
[12:05:05]
Paula Reid, thank you so much.
ASHER: Let's bring in CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero, joining us live now from Washington.
I mean, one of the things that is important to note, especially for our international audience, is that the U.S. Justice Department is supposed to
be completely impartial.
It's not supposed to sort of enforce the political agenda for the U.S. president. What do you make of the attorney general there, the sort of
positioning, just in terms of some of her answers, as the priority being to defend the president, to protect the president, and essentially almost
acting as though she is the president's lawyer, as opposed to enforcing the law completely impartially for the good of the country. Your take on that.
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Attorney General Bondi does take a different approach than I think all of the other attorneys generals that
I've seen in -- in our modern history in terms of her approach before congressional hearings.
She is politically combative. She comes prepared with basically what would be considered sort of political opposition research that she lobs back at
members. We saw her do this in a Senate hearing. And she tried to do that sort of same approach today, although House members of the Judiciary
Committee were on the democratic side, were a little bit more prepared for it this time.
So, she does take a more combative role than -- than I think other attorneys general or even other -- other cabinet members do generally.
That said, I've testified before the House Judiciary Committee before. It generally is a little more sporty than other committees in Congress. And so
it does have that reputation. And this hearing certainly had its moments where there was a lot of very aggressive back and forth between the
attorney general and some of the democratic lawmakers.
GOLODRYGA: And it's not as if, Carrie, there aren't really important pressing questions to ask her in developments as recent as overnight that
she should be addressing. And one of them is the federal grand jury rejecting the DOJ's attempt to indict democratic lawmakers for their video
about not having to obey what they described as unlawful orders.
How unusual is that? And do you view this as perhaps the DOJ saying to the president or signaling, yes, we will follow some of your wishes and that is
going after your perceived enemies.
But at the end of the day, it is the judiciary, the judicial, you know, system here in this country that ultimately holds the keys.
CORDERO: Well, there are a few things that are unusual. First, just the bringing of cases by a Justice Department against multiple lawmakers, not
for something that is public corruption, which from time to time in the U.S. justice system.
We do have cases that are brought against lawmakers, extensive investigations for public corruption. And those cases happen from time to
time.
But this particular attempted case on it -- on its own, just based on statements that lawmakers made in a video is unusual. What is also unusual
is the record that this Justice Department is developing in terms of rejected proposed indictments by grand jury.
So generally, by the time matters are taken by the Justice Department, and by the time they have met prosecutorial standards to take to a grand jury,
most often federal grand juries go ahead and approve that indictment.
So the fact that there are now several cases, which I think when we look at them, we can see that they are politically motivated, several cases that
have been rejected by grand juries.
On one hand, demonstrates the -- some resilience on the part of our justice system writ large, but also indicates the types of cases that this
particular attorney general and Justice Department are willing to bring.
ASHER: The president himself signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law just a couple of months ago. But obviously, accusations are swirling
since the release of millions of pages of files that the Justice Department went above and beyond just in terms of trying to protect likely co-
conspirators by redacting their names and essentially releasing private information, identifiable information around the victims.
Just talk to us about whether or not there is any kind of legal recourse if this is deemed to be the case for some of the victims here.
CORDERO: Yes. On this precise issue of whether there's recourse for victims who have now been identified through the files, I'm -- I'm inclined to
think there really isn't at this point.
What the attorney general has said and what she testified today in front of House Judiciary Committee was that if victims see that something was
inadvertently released that they can contact the Justice Department, and the Justice Department will fix it as soon as it is brought to their
attention.
[12:10:13]
It is a really high volume of materials that have been made public. The Transparency Act had timing requirements and so it required the department
to go through a high volume of materials very quickly.
And I think the department has admitted that they have made some mistakes. And what they've said publicly is that they are willing to correct them
when they're made.
But I -- I would note, you know, with respect to this Transparency Act that was passed by Congress and was signed into president -- signed into law by
the president, it is highly unusual just speaking from the perspective of how Justice Department operations normally would work to have investigative
files that are released publicly.
Generally, that type of information remains closed in files. And because information within those files can be revealing to victims, it can be
derogatory information about individuals who maybe were engaged in, unseemly behavior but not that rose to the level of criminal activity.
And so there are a lot of -- from my vantage, there's a lot of complications in terms of implementing this law effectively.
ASHER: All right. Carrie Cordero, live for us. Thank you so much.
CORDERO: Thank you.
ASHER: Epstein survivors and their family members are actually in attendance at the hearing.
Beforehand, democratic lawmakers and survivors of Epstein's abuse gathered on Capitol Hill to ramp up the pressure on Pam Bondi to answer questions
about those files.
GOLODRYGA: Survivors are again criticizing the Justice Department for the way it has released and redacted files and for a lack of investigation or
follow-up on some of the people named in them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need survivors to be taken seriously. There should be -- there should never be a time limit on Justice. And the DOJ needs to
do its job. Give us the rest of the files and start the investigations. Start the investigations on the things that are in the files right now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A partial release of these files by the DOJ riddled with improper redactions that expose the vulnerable and shield the powerful
from accountability is not justice. It is injustice.
As victims of this crime and citizens of this country, we will not stand for it and neither should you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Powerful words there from those survivors.
We'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:15:24]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively are inside of Manhattan courtroom today for a closed-door hearing on their messy legal
battle.
Lively has accused Baldoni and his production company of sexual harassment and smearing her reputation on the set of the movie, "It Ends With Us."
ASHER: Yes. Baldoni files a counter suit against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, accusing them of defamation and essentially of hijacking his
film. His suit was dismissed.
Today's hearing is a last-ditch effort to get the two parties to reach a resolution before a scheduled trial on May 18th.
All right. We are following major developments in the search for Nancy Guthrie, the mother of NBC host Savannah Guthrie.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. TMZ is reporting that it received what it called a bizarre letter via email earlier today from someone reporting to know who Nancy
Guthrie's kidnapper is and demanding a single Bitcoin in exchange for that information.
Here's Harvey Levin, the founder of TMZ.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARVEY LEVIN, FOUNDER, TMZ: We got kind of a bizarre letter, an email from somebody who says they know who the kidnapper is, and that they have tried
reaching Savannah's sister, Annie, and Savannah's brother to no avail.
And they said they want one Bitcoin sent to a Bitcoin address that we have confirmed is active. It's a real Bitcoin address. And as they put it, time
is more than relevant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: This is beyond grotesque and -- and just so cruel. And it all comes on the heels of Tuesday's significant new information in the case.
Authorities released video and images showing a masked armed person at Nancy Guthrie's door as the night -- the night she disappeared. Google was
able to recover the video from Guthrie's nest camera.
ASHER: All right. Let's bring in CNN's chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller joining us live now.
John, I have two questions for you, if I could ask them just in one go. The first is with the TMZ email, I mean, how on earth do you even begin to know
whether that is legitimate or real?
And the second is, I mean, obviously we're all talking about this chilling video outside Nancy Guthrie's home.
You know, what stands out to you with this masked man who really, to me, as a layman in terms of crime and investigation, really does appear to know
what he's doing, right? This doesn't seem like somebody who has no clue about this kind of stuff.
I would guess if this looks like a professional, but I'd rather leave it to you to tell us what -- what you think.
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, let's tackle them in -- in order.
On the demand or the request for Bitcoin, a single Bitcoin in return for information on who the kidnappers are. This is another effect of technology
or new technology on, you know, an old game, which is kidnapping for ransom. It's just a different twist.
If somebody has information to provide, there is a $50,000 reward for information leading to the kidnappers or for the recovery of Nancy Guthrie.
You could do that by calling that number and providing the information and qualifying for the reward.
By coming at the sideways and using the anonymity of an anonymous email and the anonymity of pay me and then I'll tell you, leaves no guarantee. Is it
worthy of discussion? Sure. If -- if that can be a two-way discussion and they say, you know, give us -- give us some evidence that you have
credibility and actually know something and we can talk further.
But there's no sense. It's very much like the ransom demand that the family receive, which is pay first and then on blind faith, you know, we'll
deliver.
On the second piece, Zain, what strikes me in the video is his head is not on a swivel. He's not looking all around. He's very confident about where
he is and what he's -- he's going to do.
Does that indicate he has a lookout in a vehicle who's doing all the watching for him? Or he's just very familiar with where he is. So there is
a level of confidence there.
And then, you know, going to get that shrub and putting it up against the doorbell, you know, my first impression about that, which is, was, you
know, amateur hour. Why not just tape the camera with a piece of tape?
But, you know, talking to some of my colleagues, they said, that would mean likely trying to manipulate the tape with those thick gloves or take the
gloves off, risk leaving DNA.
What he needed was something to obfuscate the view while he removed the camera from the wall.
[12:20:05]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And I know there had been a lot of questioning of where he positioned that gun. Many in the industry say that's -- that's just not a
normal holster to carry right in the middle of your belt. So that does raise the question of just how organized and professional this really was.
That's different from whether or not this is a person who's familiar with the home and the location.
John, let me just ask you. It is now day 10, a very high-profile case. Plenty of opportunity for somebody who is holding Nancy Guthrie to release
some sort of video, some sort of sign of life. We've heard the Guthrie's pleading directly with whoever may be holding their mother and also to the
public.
What does that tell you that we have not seen or heard of any proof of life at this point?
MILLER: More than what it tells you, it really raises questions. And these are the key questions which are, where's Nancy Guthrie? Nobody knows. Was
the ransom demand after significant publicity about the case really from the kidnappers? Or was it an opportunist trying to cash in on -- on an
opportunity to extort the family? These are still uncertain.
And part of releasing that video, even though that person isn't readily recognizable is really to stir the pot and have people thinking and to
reinvigorate those leads coming in because you never know where this will go. Someone may have seen a pair of gloves and a ski mask in a garbage can
a couple of days ago. And it didn't mean anything at the time, but it could be very significant now.
Some -- some vendor may said, you know, I sold that backpack and a pair of gloves to a suspicious guy.
Or more directly somebody may just say from the time this started, you know, the person that I know who's always out and about has been, you know,
at home and not leaving and acting strangely. So I mean, they're really reaching out for anything that comes in.
ASHER: All right. John Miller live for us. I mean this -- this video. We're actually playing the video as you speak and it's just so chilling.
GOLODRYGA: Still so many questions. What is in that backpack?
ASHER: What a nightmare. What an absolute nightmare for the family. My goodness.
John Miller, thank you. I really hope this -- this solved really soon. Thank you so much, John.
All right. There was confusion and travel disruption for people in West Texas today as the Federal Aviation Authority imposed a ban on civilian
flights around the city of El Paso, Texas only to lift it a few hours later.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Quite bizarre. Official statements don't make it clear what led to the FAA's actions, although the agency says that it was done for,
quote, special security reasons.
The last time the government closed airspace in the United States was in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Pete Muntean joins us now from Washington D.C. And, Pete, I know your sources have been giving you a little as we get that tight shot of you.
Hopefully, you can get that fixed.
Pete, if you're still with us.
ASHER: Real close-up.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Real close-up.
GOLODRYGA: You've got impeccable skin, Pete.
ASHER: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: So just doing --
ASHER: 4D friendly.
GOLODRYGA: Doing it dermatological check here. Your sources have given you a little bit more insight into what caused the FAA to make such an unusual
call. I mean, this is a populated city with one million residents or so.
A lot of people had their flights canceled, had no idea what was going on. Just tell us what your sources have informed you of.
MUNTEAN: You described this as bizarre and that it's totally right. And now the mystery here for why this was put into place overnight is now
unraveling.
The Federal Aviation Administration's now ended this eight-hour long restriction on all flights, including commercial flights, law enforcement,
Medevac helicopters in a 10-mile radius around the El Paso international airport.
It was to be a new effect for 10 days. And now multiple sources are telling me and our team here covering aviation and national security at CNN that
this was all related to a Pentagon plan to use a high energy laser for counter drone measures, meaning targeting drones.
This new explanation that we're getting from multiple sources really flies in the face of the White House explanation, really undermines that
explanation that says that this was all because a Mexican cartel drone breached U.S. airspace causing this airspace shutdown.
It now seems that the Pentagon did not clear this test with the Federal Aviation Administration. And the FAA put into place this ban out of fear
for an impact on civilian flights. That's why this was so sweeping.
[12:25:04]
You mentioned 9/11, this may be even more unprecedented than that. In 9/11, that was a nationwide emergency airspace shutdown. We knew the reason right
off the bat, it was obvious, because of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
But this was really without any explanation late overnight, Mountain Time in El Paso, is one that's initially popped up.
Also, there's never really been, with any modern precedent, a U.S. airspace closure over a specific area. There are restrictions over D.C. in New York
that followed 9/11, but never something like this.
So, this was really, really quite unique. And now, it's up to the federal government to provide a clear explanation of why this exactly happened.
Although, we now know it seems that the left hand was not talking to the right. The Pentagon wanted to use this technology. The FAA feared that it
could impact flights. And that's why it shut down this airspace.
Still not really clear if the Pentagon still plans to use this. We do know from multiple sources telling us there was a February 20th meeting planned
between the Pentagon and the FAA on mitigating the risks of flights because of this high-powered laser technology.
This plan, this planned restriction initially went into place for 10 days, which would have taken us to February 21st, just after that meeting was
initially slated to take place.
The Federal Aviation Administration still not really commenting here on -- to make it so that we can dig out of this confusion.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Not really instilling much confidence if you don't have interagency communication either on something that is so pertinent, like
civilian air travel.
Pete Muntean, thank you so much for breaking it down for us.
ASHER: Thank you, Pete.
All right. We are live at the White House and Jerusalem, as Prime Minister Netanyahu meets Donald Trump. We'll have more than that after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: Iran is first and foremost on the agenda for the meeting between U.S. and Israeli leaders today. That's the word from Benjamin Netanyahu who
is at the White House for talks with President Trump. This is their seventh meeting since Trump's second term began.
ASHER: The prime minister says he'll lay out Israel's view and essential principles for negotiations with Iran.
Sources tell CNN he'll also share fresh intel on Iran's military capabilities. For its part, Iran says it doesn't want war, but it's ready
for it.
GOLODRYGA: We've got Jeremy Diamond covering the story in Jerusalem, but we begin with Kevin Liptak at the White House.
And, Kevin, we never know what to expect with this president. Many times when he's meeting with foreign leaders, the meetings are closed to the
press until they are not. That was the case here as well.
Should we be reading anything into the fact that that hasn't changed and the press hasn't thus far been invited in for questions?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. You know, in my experience when the president decides to hold a meeting with a foreign
leader and not open it to the press, it's an indication that either he or his counterpart believes that there may be some disagreements at hand here.
And I think that that could be very much what's happening today. Certainly, you know, these two have made a very staunch effort to never put too much
daylight between themselves.
But this question of Iran and trying to pursue a diplomatic arrangement with Tehran is something that has caused a lot of skepticism, I think,
among Netanyahu and his government,.
You know, they are, I think, fearful that the president may sign off on something, that they don't necessarily believe will ensure Israel's safety
and security.
And to be sure, one of the imperatives Netanyahu will feel, as he's sitting down with the president, is to at least encourage him to expand these talks
with Iran beyond just the nuclear issue.
You know, that had been sort of a red line for the Iranians in these discussions, is that they only focus very narrowly on their enrichment of
uranium, on their potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
I think what Netanyahu wants to encourage is that this expands out to also include the ballistic missile program in Iran and its support for proxy
groups in the region. You know, Hamas Hezbollah, trying to encourage the president to include all of that in these discussions.
How much sway I think he's going to have with the president remains to be seen. You know, Trump is at least publicly very optimistic that this
diplomatic window remains open. You know, they had those discussions last week in Oman. They have agreed to talk again to keep these conversations
going.
And he seems, at this point, relatively hopeful that a deal can be struck, even as he amasses this military buildup in the region, as he talks about
potentially sending another aircraft carrier.
It seems, at least for now, that he's very committed to this diplomatic track.
ASHER: All right. Kevin, do stand by.
Jeremy, let me bring you in to the conversation. So as Kevin was just touching on there, you know, part of Netanyahu's goal is sort of to -- to
persuade President Trump to have a much more hard line approach when it comes to Iran's ballistic missile program.
And then on top of that, sort of raising questions about how much Iran has been supporting Hamas and also obviously Hezbollah in Lebanon as well.
To Kevin's point, how much influence is Netanyahu going to have over Donald Trump in this meeting? What is his strategy here?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Israeli prime minister's influence with President Trump has really ebbed and flowed over
the course of Trump's presidency.
We have seen moments where the two have been very close, where the Israeli Prime Minister has gotten what he wanted out of the U.S. president, and
then other moments where his influence seemed to be far less, and at times, where he even seemed to rub President Trump very much the wrong way.
But in -- in this case, it's clear that there is somewhat of a divergence between President Trump's goals here and the Israeli Prime Minister's
goals. And what the Israeli Prime Minister is seeking to do here is to get the United States back on the same page as him. And that is to not only
seek a deal with Iran that would address its nuclear program, but also to make sure that the two other tracks, ballistic missiles and support for
regional proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, that those are also included in an agreement.
And Netanyahu's decision to fly there this week, instead of next week as -- as planned, signals a sense of concern, perhaps, from the Israelis at the
pace of these negotiations at President Trump's comments, just a couple of days ago, indicating that he might be willing to strike a deal that only
addresses Iran's nuclear program and leaves those other two issues on the table still.
And so the Israeli prime minister is going to come armed with fresh Israeli intelligence, pointing to Iran's efforts to rebuild some of its ballistic
missile program since the United States and Israel carried out strikes in Iran back in June.
[12:35:11]
He will point, of course, to the threat that those ballistic missiles pose to Israel, but also to U.S. military bases in the region. And he will also
come with armed with potential military options for striking Iran.
One thing is clear, though, is that even as President Trump is engaging very seriously in these diplomatic negotiations led by Jared Kushner and
Steve Witkoff, his two envoys on this matter, and many others, we should note, he is clearly also keeping military options very much on the table
with this enormous buildup of U.S. military might in the region, with one, now maybe two aircraft carriers headed to the region, dozens of transport
planes carrying everything from air defense systems to other military equipment, fighter jets headed to the Middle East as well.
And so that credible threat of military action is clearly still on the table. And the Israeli Prime Minister is clearly going there to discuss
those military options just as much as he is going there to try and make sure that President Trump holds a hard line on those elements that we were
just discussing.
ASHER: All right. Kevin Liptak, Jeremy Diamond. Thank you both so much.
We're joined now by Nadav Eyal. He's an Israeli journalist and senior research scholar at Columbia University School of International and Public
Affairs. Nadav, it is good to see you.
So, as these two leaders are meeting right now, we know that Prime Minister Netanyahu's focus, even sort of a secondary issue, is the nuclear concern.
It really is all about the ballistic missile program that Iran has started to reconstitute after the 12-day war with Israel last year. Iran views this
as a lifeline, its last remaining lifeline for this regime to stay functional.
Just talk about the position that -- that puts President Trump in. How much daylight is there really between these two men? We know that that question
has been raised before and then only answered to see that they're more in lockstep than not.
Is that the case now or is this time different?
NADAV EYAL, ISRAELI JOURNALIST: Absolutely, Bianna. What we're seeing right now is an agreement between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu
Prime Minister's office that ballistic missiles are an issue, an important issue.
The United States has signaled that the Iranians, the Israelis are -- are saying that the bread and butter of the negotiations is going to be the
nuclear.
It's still the most pressing issue. And I think we should hear loud and clear what the vice president has always said this morning.
However, the ballistic missile is a strategic threat, not only for Israel but -- but to the region. This is how Israelis are pitching it right now in
Washington.
And for the Iranians, and this is interesting. They see this as -- as a red line of themselves because they're not signatory to any treaty that says
they need to limit the development of ballistic missiles. So they see this as a sovereignty issue.
But in terms of the understandings between Washington and Jerusalem, what we have seen in the past is that they are limited compared to the way that
they are sometimes reported.
ASHER: And obviously, Iran, is, of course, still reeling from the war, the 12-day war back in June, when obviously the U.S. struck and attacked
several Iranian nuclear sites.
We still don't know exactly how much damage some of those sites underwent, but just talk to us about what we know about how much Iran has tried to
salvage some of those sites.
EYAL: So that's a key question. First of all, there's the enriched material. Enrich material itself is -- is still being held by Iran, the
enriched uranium.
And one of the issues that has been discussed in the global sphere is the possibility that that enriched material will leave the country.
Not only they will stop enriching or they will enrich only in a very symbolic way, extremely limited but also that that enriched uranium will
somehow be imported out of -- of Iran.
Now as to the devastation of the Iranian nuclear program, there was a lot of discussion about that right after the June war.
And here's what I'm hearing from Western intelligence. The damage was extensive and severe to the nuclear program and that's one of the reasons
that for instance the Israelis are not only the Israelis, other regional players are focusing on ballistic missiles because they understand that
this devastation of the nuclear program is at this kind of a degree.
[12:40:05]
It would be very hard for the Iranians to rebuild. And they also understand that the red line made by President Trump as to the Iranians holding
nuclear weapons or nuclear capability, this red line is going to be kept anyhow by the United States as the president have said.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we're looking at, Nadav. I don't know if you have returned. We're looking at a new image that was just released by the prime
minister's office of the two leaders there meeting.
Obviously, this is an important meeting for Prime Minister Netanyahu. On multiple fronts, this is also an election year now, an important for him to
showcase to his constituents how close he is with President Trump.
Nadav, I think it would be very difficult for President Trump after saying that that nuclear program was obliterated just six months ago to somehow
view it as a win to walk away from this with yet another nuclear deal, especially given how much he opposed President Obama going forward with the
JCPOA, but we shall see.
Thank you so much, Nadav. We'll continue to follow lines out of these -- the meeting between these two men throughout the day.
And we'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: All right. We are keeping an eye on Attorney General Pam Bondi's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
And just moments ago, Republican Representative Thomas Massie, torn in this administration's side over the Epstein issue, grilled Bondi on the heavy
redactions in the Epstein files.
Massie is one of the members of Congress who has spearheaded the effort to release information and hold people to account.
ASHER: Yes. I want you to listen to Massie and Bondi's exchange from just a few moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Behind me, I have three documents from the DOJ production that are emblematic of the massive failure of the DOJ to comply
with the Epstein files Transparency Act.
To my right is an email that was sent by the victims' lawyers to the DOJ. It was a list of names not to redact -- or sorry, a list of names not to
release.
What did the DOJ do with this email? They released this email in the document production. Literally the worst thing you could do to the
survivors, you did. And they're getting phone calls. A lot of these people didn't want to be known. And we know you touched the document because you
redacted one name. And you redacted the lawyer's name, but you left the survivors name there.
[12:45:08]
The next document I want to show you. And that was in the title, the victim's survivor's names, right? The title of this one is child sex
trafficking co-conspirators. Fully redacted.
And, by the way, I'm going to redact them here. Les Wexner is in this. Now your assistant -- your deputy attorney general said, oh, well, he appears
hundreds of times in the files, but he doesn't appear in this file until I forced you to release it, where he's listed as a co-conspirator, not to tax
evasion, but to child sex trafficking, not to prostitution, not to money laundering, child sex trafficking.
And then finally, what we have here, the third exhibit that I have is emblematic of the FD302 release. These are the documents that we need that
you're holding on to and over-redacting because they have the names of the men who are implicated.
How do we know? Because the survivors gave testimony to the FBI, and it's in there. And what happens when you go to the portal at the DOJ to look at
what's behind this redaction? Another redaction. So we can't even see them.
And then there's some of these files you've pulled down from the website that we will never see because we can't search the redactions.
So I have several questions for you. Who's responsible? Are you able to track who in your organization made this massive failure and released the
victim's names?
Are you able to track who it was that obscured Les Wexner's name as a co- conspirator in an FBI document? Do you have that kind of accountability?
BONDI: I believe Wexner's name was listed more than 4,000 times about --
MASSIE: Yes. I already told you that.
BONDI: Can I finish --
MASSIE: This is where he's listed as a co-conspirator.
BONDI: Can I finish my answer? Come on. Let me finish my answer.
We corrected that within 40 minutes. He was already -- you're acting like everybody's trying to cover up Wexner's name.
MASSIE: I'm reclaiming -- reclaiming my time.
BONDI: He was listed -- I'm going to answer this question.
MASSIE: Reclaiming my time. It's -- Mr. Chairman.
BONDI: This isn't how this works.
MASSIE: Can I have my time back? Mr. Chairman --
JORDAN: The gentlelady can -- can give her answer. The time belongs to the gentleman from --
MASSIE: All right. I'm reclaiming my time.
BONDI: Can I give my answer?
JORDAN: Yes.
MASSIE: So I'm going to put the language of the bill up on the screen.
BONDI: Chairman, may I give my answer on that?
MASSIE: Here's -- here's the question.
BONDI: It's a political show. Can I need to give my answer on that?
JORDAN: Yes. Let -- let -- we'll let the -- we'll let the attorney general respond and then the gentleman can move to the next question.
MASSIE: Chairman, it's my time. Chairman.
BONDI: Within 40 minutes, you asked me a question. Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added --
MASSIE: Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed.
BONDI: Red-handed. There was one redaction of over 4,700.
MASSIE: He's listed as a co-conspirator.
JORDAN: OK.
BONDI: And we invited you in.
MASSIE: You know what (INAUDIBLE).
BONDI: This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to get -- you're a failed politician.
(CROSSTALK)
MASSIE: I want you to watch the video.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chairman, please restore his time and remind the witness of the --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Yes. Obviously, a really heated exchange there between a Republican, Thomas Massie and Attorney General Pam Bondi there. We'll keep an eye on
this hearing and bring you any updates that we have throughout the day.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come for us, the numbers, well, they speak for themselves. Bad Bunny's halftime shows scored a spectacular touchdown.
We'll have those numbers, just ahead.
Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM KING, REPORTER (voice-over): This is Bill Cain. And so is he. And he's also Bill Cain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Definitely a family affair. I love these guys.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Three generations all on the same court to bring you the bundling legacy of the Cains and what has drawn them all to the referee whistle.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:47]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Bad Bunny may have scored the biggest win at the Super Bowl with his halftime show.
ASHER: Are you going to rap in Spanish for us, Bianna?
GOLODRYGA: I have no time.
ASHER: Like -- like we did the other day.
GOLODRYGA: You rapped, not me. I just danced along.
Rating showing that about 128 million people across the U.S. tuned in to watch the superstar's performance, that is according to Nielsen ratings.
ASHER: Yes. The figure has actually make it the most watched program ever in NBC's a hundred year history.
And as our Brian Stelter reports, the numbers were not as stellar for Turning Point USA's alternative show
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Hey, there. Yes, the ratings report card is in and it shows that the NFL, NBC, and Bad Bunny were all big
winners on Sunday night.
The ratings from Nielsen showed that about 125 million people in the U.S. watched the Super Bowl. That makes it the number two Super Bowl in history,
only behind last year's Super Bowl, which was televised on Fox.
The reason why the numbers were down a little bit year over year probably has to do with the lopsided nature of this year's game. The Seahawks were
dominant the entire time. So some Patriots fans and others probably tuned out in the third and definitely the fourth quarters.
We know the second quarter was the highest rated overall. And a lot -- a lot of audience then spilled into Bad Bunny's halftime performance. About
128 million people in the U.S. watched the Bad Bunny show live or later in the night on their DVRs. That is an astonishingly high number, again, only
a little bit lower than last year's halftime show featuring Kendrick Lamar.
There was a lot of interest and also some backlash about Bad Bunny's performance, partly because he performed almost entirely in Spanish.
There were some MAGA media outlets, some Trump-aligned outlets that were deriding the show in advance and are now complaining about it afterwards.
And there was an attempt by a conservative group TPUSA to put on an alternative performance, an alternative halftime show.
That attempt at counter programming drew five to six million viewers live on YouTube. Decent number on YouTube, but again, much, much smaller than
the 128 million that watched Bad Bunny on television and streaming in the U.S.
There is no standard global metric for the global audience of the Super Bowl. But these Nielsen rating show that American football continues to
have a unique hold on audiences in the U.S. and a unique place in pop culture.
Back to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Also interesting, it appears President Trump as angry as he was, with the decision for --
ASHER: He watched the Super Bowl.
GOLODRYGA: -- Bad Bunny to be the performer, actually, watched as well.
All right. Finally, every family passes down its own traditions, but in this one they passed down the whistle as well.
ASHER: Yes. Three generations of one family officiated the same basketball game for the first time celebrating the close tie their family has to the
basketball court. Adam King has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ADAM KING, REPORTER (voice-over): These shoes have been up and down a lot of courts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It'd be right in the thousands.
KING (voice-over): That whistle made its fair share of calls.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The best seat in house.
KING (voice-over): But this night is decades in the making.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I saw on the schedule that we were all refereeing together, it just -- just melted my heart.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've been up and down pretty good, man. How do you feel?
KING (voice-over): And this halftime meeting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Understood, man. I got the -- I got the experience. I got the experience.
[12:55:03]
KING (voice-over): Oh, it's more of a reunion
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know you feel good. You always feel good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's me Billy and little Billy way back in the day.
KING (VOICE-OVER): This is Bill Cain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, hands off.
KING (VOICE-OVER): And so is he. And he's also Bill Cain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Definitely a family affair. I love these guys.
KING (VOICE-OVER): Junior the third and the fourth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is me here. And this is Billy there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He kind of taught me everything I know. And, you know, and it came full circle. Because now Billy is the same way. And he
prolonged my referee career too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good call, good call, good call.
KING (VOICE-OVER): Every family passes down traditions. Here, they pass the whistle.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First time we worked together too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was wondering, yes. When -- I you saw a three on there, I was like, whoa.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it's awesome. I mean, he started a long time ago. It's awesome that it's gotten to me. I'm really honored that he brought
both of us into it.
KING (VOICE-OVER): These are old. It's been a career of constant achievement for Junior. But his favorite moment reffing --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was it what we just did. That one was just touched my heart from, you know, smiling from ear to ear.
KING (VOICE-OVER): There is no question in this family. Reffing, it is much more than just paying the bills.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, just super-duper proud. I mean, you know, it's -- it's a once in a lifetime achievement. And just to see their development
and how they've kind of taken the ball and ran with it.
KING (VOICE-OVER): And as for the next generation --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE : For it to go full circle like that, and -- and with the possibility of maybe Bill Cain the -- the fifth coming along. You never
know.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Keeping it into family.
ASHER: Adam King with that reporting.
All right. That does it for this hour of "One World." I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. Thanks so much for watching. "Amanpour" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
