Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
FBI Calls On Public To Help Find Nancy Guthrie; Ossoff Dubs The Trump Administration "The Epstein Class"; Judge: Admin. Has Until Thursday To Resume Gateway Funding. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 09, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Riddled with spelling errors, they read, After two to four days, we'll inform you where to deliver the money.
Months later, the boy is found dead. A man named Bruno Hauptmann eventually executed for his murder. His conviction partially secured based on handwriting analysis from all those ransom notes.
Randi Kaye. CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Well, that's it for us. The news continues. I'll see you, tomorrow night.
"THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: And we start with breaking news tonight, because we are now in day nine of the search for Nancy Guthrie, with authorities making clear tonight they have no major leads, as of this moment.
The FBI is now seeking the public's help in the search for the TODAY show host, Savannah Guthrie's mom, issuing a direct appeal tonight that says, someone has that one piece of information that can help us bring Nancy home. The FBI also adding in this new statement tonight that they are, not aware of any continued communication between the Guthrie family and suspected kidnappers, nor have we identified a suspect or person of interest in this case at this time.
It is a remarkable statement, this many days in, and it shows just how much this search is very much still underway tonight.
It also comes as we are hearing from Savannah Guthrie herself, making a similar call to action, more than a week after her mom went missing from her Tucson home. In a new video that was posted online today, the TODAY show anchor described this as her family's hour of desperation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, CO-HOST OF NBC NEWS' TODAY, NBC NEWS CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: We believe our mom is still out there. We need your help. Law enforcement is working tirelessly, around the clock, trying to bring her home, trying to find her. She was taken, and we don't know where. And we need your help.
So, I'm coming on just to ask you, not just for your prayers, but no matter where you are, even if you're far from Tucson, if you see anything, if you hear anything, if there's anything at all that seems strange to you, that you report to law enforcement. We are at an hour of desperation, and we need your help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Two hours have now passed since that final deadline that was set in that still unverified ransom note that was sent shortly after Guthrie disappeared.
And according to our CNN affiliate, KGUN, which is one of the three outlets that got that first note, the person or people here demanded $6 million in Bitcoin by 05:00 p.m. local time today, and threatened Nancy Guthrie's life if that deadline was not met.
Now, this evening, neither the authorities in Arizona, nor the Guthrie family, have confirmed that any ransom has been paid.
Of course, the horrific ultimatum appears to have led the Guthrie family, though, to tell whoever it is that has their mom, that they would be willing to do so.
A second unverified note, related to Guthrie's disappearance, was sent to a Tucson news station, last week. One of the anchors who read that second note, that I spoke with on Friday night, said it did not appear to be a ransom note, that there was no demand, explicitly, that was made in that letter.
A day later, the Guthrie family acknowledged that they had gotten a message.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GUTHRIE: We received your message, and we understand. We beg you now to return our mother to us so that we can celebrate with her. This is the only way we will have peace. This is very valuable to us, and we will pay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source tonight got the initial unverified ransom note for Nancy Guthrie. TMZ founder, Harvey Levin, is here.
And thank you, Harvey, for being here.
Because, I mean, when you read this new FBI statement tonight. It's very lengthy. But the line that stood out to me was them saying, they're not aware of any continued communication between the Guthrie family and suspected kidnappers, and that they don't have a suspect or a person of interest in this case.
And just given that you got the first unverified ransom note, I wonder what you make of that statement tonight?
HARVEY LEVIN, FOUNDER, TMZ; RECEIVED RANSOM NOTE: Well, I think it aligns with Savannah Guthrie's desperate plea today.
We checked this Bitcoin address. Because, in the first note, they give this Bitcoin address to send the money. And we have been checking it all day long. You would be able to see if money was deposited. We are not seeing anything deposited.
[21:05:00]
So, when I watched Savannah Guthrie talk today, it felt like, figuratively, a Hail Mary, saying, We are getting nowhere with these alleged kidnappers, and we need the public's help.
If they -- if they paid the money -- I will tell you this, Kaitlan. The letter says that if they pay the money, Nancy would be returned within 12 hours of the time they get -- they receive payment, returned to Tucson.
So, you would think that if they paid it, and everything was working properly, they would be biting their nails, but not saying anything publicly. It's almost as if everything just collapsed, and they are just begging the public because they are not in contact with the kidnappers.
The only thing that -- the only part of this that I'm thinking, maybe they did pay money, is in that second ransom note. The reporter from KOLD said that it wasn't a ransom note. It's possible that there is a new Bitcoin address on that. I have no idea. But that's the only way money could have been paid, where we wouldn't be seeing it, because in the -- in the ransom note that we have, we've been checking that link, and we're not seeing it.
COLLINS: Yes. Did that original note say that if the family did pay, how they would confirm that they had gotten the money?
LEVIN: No, it does not say that. It's very direct to the point, and they made it clear. I'll even read this to you. It says, It is in the best interest of everyone to have this completed as soon as possible.
And so, now it's been a week, and they've gone back and forth with proof of life and all that. And I do think there was something cryptic about Savannah talking about celebrating with their mother. It's almost as if maybe in that second note, they did show some kind of proof of life, and the word, celebrate, was used. Because otherwise, it's out of context.
But it is direct to the point. They don't talk about how they will acknowledge payment. They just are saying, Send it to this Bitcoin address. And presumably, if they did, these people would see -- would see that the money was deposited.
COLLINS: I imagine you probably have reread that initial note a million times since you got it.
LEVIN: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, just especially given it's been so long now and still no major leads tonight.
Has anything stood out to you in hindsight, given now what you've heard from Savannah and from her siblings, when you look at that again?
LEVIN: Yes. Yes. It is a very well-written note. It is structured properly. The grammar is perfect. This is somebody who is intelligent, and somebody who is tech-savvy, for sure, because this seems untraceable.
And so, our IT team has been looking. I know the FBI, obviously has been looking, and they haven't been able to find who sent this. That seems to be what they're saying today, when they say, No suspect, no person of interest.
So, to me, this is somebody in the Tucson area. Because why else would they be sending these notes to a local -- to two local television stations in Tucson? And they seem to have a connection there. They would send it to NBC, if they're from, I don't know, New York. You would send it to Savannah Guthrie's employer, NBC. But they are really focused -- I know they sent the first one to us. But they're focused on these television stations in Tucson. So, to me, it stands to reason somebody in that area.
And I can tell you, it's definitely somebody within a 700-mile radius, because the note says that, we will return her within 12 hours of receiving payment.
COLLINS: Yes.
LEVIN: And that's 700 miles. So, I think it's somebody in the Tucson area. So to me, it's sort of like, who's gone MIA, who's really intelligent and tech-savvy, over the last week? Unless it's some left turn that nobody knows, that would seem to me to be at least some tenable clue.
COLLINS: Has the FBI reached back out to you? I mean, they've gone like back to Nancy Guthrie's home multiple times. We saw them looking at the septic tank over the weekend. Have they reached back out to y'all with any follow-up questions?
LEVIN: No. No, they called us a couple hours after we received the note, and they had a lot of questions, and I brought my IT team over to the phone, because I couldn't answer a lot of them. They were very technical. But nobody got anywhere during the call, and that's the last we heard of them -- from them.
COLLINS: Harvey, thanks for joining us tonight. I really appreciate it.
LEVIN: Sure. COLLINS: And I've got a team full of experts here as well.
Our CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst, John Miller, is here.
Our Legal Analyst, Joey Jackson.
[21:10:00]
And also the Vice President of Intelligence at SentinelOne, Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, who is a cybersecurity expert. We're going to call him JAGS tonight. Thank you for being here.
John Miller, we've spoken every day since Nancy Guthrie has been missing. When you see this lengthy and new FBI statement that comes out tonight, nine days in, saying, no major leads. I mean, what's your reaction when you read that statement tonight?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: My reaction is that the FBI is bouncing off of Savannah Guthrie's statement, to support it, by saying, it may appear to people who are watching this on television news that there's a ransom demand and there's a Bitcoin drop, and that they got this new note with special instructions, and they say, We got your message and we understand. And that somewhere behind some curtain, there is a smooth transfer going on of money, and that Nancy Guthrie is being released, and this is all happening quietly, and nobody needs to get involved.
The Guthrie statement and the FBI statement both say, Everybody needs to be on the lookout. We need those tips. We basically are saying, we don't know if these people are who they say they are, or if they really have her. And we don't want people who may know something, who thought they knew something, and then said, Well, I'm not going to come forward, because it looks like this is all working out, to not come forward.
And the FBI goes further. They say, There's that one person out there who knows. And I think what they're talking about, and we find this in a lot of cases, just to close, is there's that accomplice who decided not to join the plot. There's that accomplice who didn't like it and walked off the plot. There's that girlfriend or spouse or roommate or brother--
COLLINS: Yes.
MILLER: --who actually knows what's going on. And they are pushing them to come forward with a tip as to the who, and the where, and what's real.
COLLINS: Well, John, can I also ask you, what do you think of what Harvey just said there that -- and it's still unverified, so I just want to make that clear to everyone. I know we've said that day in and day out, but just to reiterate. But when he says that, it was a well- structured note that they got, good grammar, someone intelligent, he believes, from reading it, and he's read it a couple times. And also that they said that she would be returned to the Tucson area within 12 hours.
Do you agree that that means this is someone in that 700 square mile radius, potentially?
MILLER: It could be. But I mean, when you get down to the things that are closers on these deals, you know, did they come up with a proof of possession to show they really had her? If so, we haven't heard that. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Did they -- did they proffer an actual proof of life to show that she is still alive and well and that they can produce her? We haven't heard that either.
Was it a well-written note both times? Yes, we are dealing with someone who is tech savvy -- and JAGS will get into that -- and sophisticated.
But we also may be dealing with someone who just put it through ChatGPT to make sure that it didn't have their personal touches on it--
COLLINS: Yes.
MILLER: --to disguise it further and to make it clearer.
COLLINS: I had the same thought about using A.I. here, potentially, to try to kind of remove anything on that.
I mean, and JAGS, to that point, I think that is the question of -- you know, Harvey mentioned they've been monitoring the Bitcoin address that they got. He says the initial one, there's no payment been made. Just looking at all of this, what stands out to you tonight?
JUAN ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE, VP OF INTELLIGENCE, SENTINELONE: I mean, the difficult thing here, and as you mentioned, is sort of unverified, but without seeing any movement on the Bitcoin wallets themselves, we're just sort of staring at a static target, right?
If the wallet has been used before, if it has some kind of history, then we could work with that. If there's a transaction, then there's movement on the ledger, and we can sort of work with some of that.
But in the meantime, it's sort of staring at just a static target of not knowing just what kind of actions the criminals would take once the money reaches the wallet.
COLLINS: And there's a -- I mean, as you noted last week, it's not untraceable, as some people might suspect. You can trace it. It's just anonymous, and you don't know who it is that's technically running it. Or, to Harvey's point, there could be a new Bitcoin address that was provided in a subsequent letter.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: Yes. I mean, the difficulty here is essentially, we can see everything. The whole ledger is completely traceable. The difficulty is going to be determining who actually owns the wallet. And what's usually important in these investigations, my team at SentinelOne, when we work on ransomware, what you want to see is essentially, once the money gets to the criminal's account, to the wallet, how do they cash it out? They're going to need to be able to transfer that somehow into real currency. Otherwise, what's the point of committing the crime? And that's usually where you see either a level of sophistication that entails, that these people know how to do these movements, that they've done them before, or perhaps a level of amateurs.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:15:00]
Joey Jackson, I mean, you look at this. It's now four videos that the Guthrie family has posted. Every single one of them is just difficult to watch, and heartbreaking, because you can hear the pain in their voice about their mom.
When you look at this from your perspective, with nine days, no suspects, no major suspects, according to the FBI tonight, and now they're asking the public to please help. What does that tell you?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it could tell me a couple of things.
The first thing it could tell me, Kaitlan, is that certainly the public is a wealth of information, right? People have neighbors. We don't live in isolation. People have certain movements. We expect certain patterns from other people around us. And so, certainly, if you keep your ears to the pavement and you know movements, perhaps there is someone out there who could be helpful. The public, we know, is a major partner, and they essentially, in many instances, give information to law enforcement that could be really game-changing.
The other thing is, is law enforcement not telling us everything, or misleading the public in some way, such that they're lulling this person or these people into a false sense of reality, by giving the indication that they don't know where these people are, but potentially, they may know more than they're suggesting to us.
The other thing, Kaitlan, is that there is reason to hope. At the end of the day, look at what they want. If the motivation is money, they know and understand, or he or she knows and understands, that in the event they do something to the mom, there will be no money. And therefore, would it not be in their interest to continue to keep her and keep her safe?
And the final thing I'll say, Kaitlan, is that listen, the most -- the most intelligent and the brightest amongst us, make mistakes. Was there a mistake in the planning? Was there a mistake in the execution? Was there some other mishap that they can make, or did make, right, that the police are on to, or that they can grab, such that they can break this case open?
So, when I think about it, when we talk about, Hey, the mom needs this medication. Did they plan that far out, that they know this? Did they plan that far out that they have whatever life-sustaining medication she needs, on hand? I don't know.
But the fact is, is, if they want $6 million, they're going to take every precaution to get it. And if they harm the mom, in any way, or don't keep her safe? That's a lost proposition. And so, that continues to give me hope that she's out there, and they just need either the public's help to bring her back. Or, they know more and are lulling these people into a false sense, or person, security, and they're on their trail much more than they're leading us to believe.
COLLINS: Yes.
And we'll continue to follow it, obviously, closely.
Thank you all for being here.
And I just want to note, given these pleas, not just from Savannah, but also from the FBI, if you have any information about Nancy Guthrie's disappearance, you can call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI. Tonight, as we are every single night, we are keeping the Guthrie family in our prayers. We'll continue to follow that case.
And up next here, also, here in Washington, I'm going to speak with a Republican lawmaker who went to the Justice Department today, to see the unredacted Epstein files. You can see all the redactions here that's public. What is not public.
Also, the Epstein files have been rocking the rich and powerful. One vulnerable Senate Democrat is using this moment on the campaign trail.
Also, later, Democrats say that the President is blocking billions of dollars for New York and New Jersey, unless they put his name on a train station and an airport. New Jersey's new governor, Mikie Sherrill, is going to join me ahead.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: An attempt by Congress to depose Ghislaine Maxwell under oath went nowhere fast on Capitol Hill today. That's because Maxwell's virtual deposition before the House Oversight Committee ended, unsurprisingly, with her pleading the Fifth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ACCOMPLICE: I therefore invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Maxwell's attorney, David Markus, did say that she would speak if granted clemency by President Trump, while dangling the possibility of clearing both President Trump and President Bill Clinton.
While that was playing out today on the Hill. It was also the first day here in Washington, for lawmakers to be able to see the unredacted files, what the Justice Department did not put out as a result of the disclosures following that law that the President signed.
Keep in mind, when you look through what the public can see, there's a lot of black ink, as you can see here. This is just one section of the files that were released, back in December, by the Justice Department. In some cases, page after page, are fully redacted and hidden from the public, not always with explanation as to why. In some cases, the DOJ has said it was to protect victims or survivors.
We saw members going in, to visit the Justice Department, though, to see what is behind those blacked-out pages. At least a few Democrats, as they came out, said they saw this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Donald Trump's name is all over these files, all over it. I mean, thousands and thousands of times.
REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): There are clearly co-conspirators in here that they can name. OK? I mean, in the documents I saw, we got pictures and their names, they're talking about sourcing girls.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: One Republican who saw those unredacted files today is one of the lawmakers who actually wrote the law, forcing their release, ultimately. Kentucky congressman, Thomas Massie, is my next source here tonight.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
[21:25:00]
That was Jamie Raskin and Jared Moskowitz's takeaway. Obviously, we already knew Trump's name was mentioned in the files. You can see that publicly.
What was your takeaway from what you saw behind there?
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Well, Jared is right. There are co- conspirators named in these files that have been redacted. And so, I was surprised to find the names of six men in there.
One is a Sultan. He is -- he may not be a co-conspirator, but he's the one who sent the torture video. Another is a high-profile CEO, retired, who was listed as a co- conspirator, literally listed as a co-conspirator on FBI documents, and he had been redacted, and his picture and his name.
And then there were four men that are kind of in a list of 20 that includes Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein, and some victims. And I was able to find those four names.
So, six names in there, I'm asking the DOJ, to unredact.
COLLINS: So, you had said that on Twitter.
Todd Blanche, who is the Deputy Attorney General, on the Sultan part, responded tonight, and said -- he quote tweeted you and said, you looked at the document. You know it's an email address that was redacted. The law requires redactions for personally identifiable information, including an email address, and he said, The Sultan's name is available unredacted in the files. He says, Be honest, and stop grandstanding.
MASSIE: No, they redacted the email. Now, it may be a mistake on their part, or maybe they didn't intend to redact the Sultan's involvement in this torture video. But it is the Sultan's email. And then I put the Sultan's email back into their computer, and found the Sultan's name. This is something you can't do at home, you can't do on the internet. And so, I had to go in there and find it. This is an example of something, maybe it wasn't intentional on their part.
I'd like to hear his take on the redaction of the CEO who's listed as a co-conspirator in the 2019 child sex trafficking case.
COLLINS: So, can I ask you, because -- and I want to ask you, this is the same person. Todd Blanche also said about that tonight, that the document you're citing there has victim names in it.
MASSIE: Correct.
COLLINS: Seeming to say, that's why there are redactions.
He said, We have just unredacted Les Wexner's name from this document, but his name already appears in the files thousands of other times. And he says the Justice Department is hiding nothing.
Is that the retired CEO that you're referencing?
MASSIE: It is. He unredacted it after I found it. That's a problem. And I'm glad they have admitted they made a mistake by redacting that.
COLLINS: So, you're saying it was redacted when you went in there today, and after you tweeted that, they unredacted it?
MASSIE: Correct. Now he's got four other names he needs to unredact. Did he respond to that? There's a list of 20 people, and there's four men in there that need to be unredacted.
Here's another troubling thing that I found-- COLLINS: Can you say who those four men are tonight?
MASSIE: I don't think they're well-known. And so if I did, it wouldn't matter. But I could probably say them on the floor of the House. But I'll give the DOJ a chance to do what they did in these two examples, where I've discovered something and now they've responded. I want to give them a chance to respond and unredact those four names.
But here's another problem, big problem that I discovered. There's big black screens of complete redactions, and you go in there and look on the computer, sometimes you lift off the black ink, and there's white ink redacting files.
And so, when we asked the people in the room, who weren't responsible for the redactions, they said, Oh, we think those are how the files were given to us. Now those are 302 forms that come from the FBI. And the FBI--
COLLINS: Which are witness interview--
MASSIE: Correct.
COLLINS: --forms, basically.
MASSIE: Witness interview forms, which would have the names of people who are implicated in crimes by the witnesses and the victims. We can't see those.
Now, the DOJ can say, Well, this is how the FBI gave those to us.
Here's the problem with it. The legislation that Ro Khanna and I wrote makes the DOJ responsible for producing the documents, but it compels the FBI and U.S. Attorney Generals to turn over those documents. So, they don't have the authority to just make random redactions.
Here's another problem with the redactions. You know the DOJ put up files and then they pulled them back down. And in December, they pulled them back down, redacted a little more, and put them back up. In some cases.
Well, in this latest tranche, they've pulled files down. They haven't put them back up. And when I go over to the computers, I can't see the files they've pulled down. I have hard copies from where they were up on the internet.
COLLINS: But they're not even available internally to you--
MASSIE: They're -- correct.
COLLINS: --from what you can see.
MASSIE: As far as I can tell.
COLLINS: And you don't know why that is?
MASSIE: I have no idea why that is. And I would hope that when I go back to the DOJ, tomorrow, they'll make those files available.
COLLINS: You mentioned that you may be able to say these names on the House floor. For people who don't know, that's because you're protected by a clause, basically, that provides immunity to representatives and senators for things that you say in your legislative sphere, for those actions.
Are you willing to say those names on the floor?
MASSIE: Oh, absolutely I am. If that--
COLLINS: When?
MASSIE: If that will serve the survivors. If the survivors want me to, I'll do it.
[21:30:00]
But in the meantime, this is the kind of progress we need to make. We need the DOJ to admit that these men were listed as co-conspirators in their own files, and then to release their own files, which it looks like Todd Blanche just did tonight. He admitted that -- and there's -- this is a very significant admission on his part. Because, you have the FBI director, Kash Patel, who came to Congress and told us, there was nothing in these files that implicates any other men in sex trafficking of minors.
Yet, we've got a document now that Todd Blanche just unredacted tonight, because I found it, that shows that Les Wexner was a co- conspirator, according to the FBI, in 2019 when Trump was president.
COLLINS: And he's the former CEO of Victoria's Secret--
MASSIE: Correct.
COLLINS: --that was known to have been in Epstein's circle.
That moment, when Kash Patel testified previously, he said they uncovered no credible information about Epstein trafficking underage girls to anyone besides himself. I want to play that moment of what he testified.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to, besides himself?
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Himself. There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday, that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited.
KENNEDY: So the answer is no one?
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): I'm asking you. In that stuff, there's nothing that's related to any other sex trafficking -- any other people engaged with Epstein in underage sex?
PATEL: That's correct. To my knowledge, no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Given what you saw today, does that testimony ring true to you still?
MASSIE: No, the FBI's own documents from 2019 list Leslie Wexner as a co-conspirator in a child sex trafficking case. So, they've got some explaining to do.
COLLINS: Does that mean you think Kash Patel perjured himself?
MASSIE: You know, I thought when he said that, maybe he -- what he's -- the trick he's using in his mind is that, well, he's considering it prostitution, and maybe what they have is evidence of sex trafficking of people who weren't minors.
But what we see tonight is the charge that Les Wexner -- Wexner was a co-conspirator to was child sex trafficking, and it's on the FBI's own documents from 2019.
COLLINS: So, you're saying that should be investigated, basically--
MASSIE: Should absolutely be investigated.
COLLINS: --by the Justice Department?
MASSIE: The other problem with what Kash Patel said there, is we got -- I believe his name is Leon Black, is implicated in these files too, as somebody that -- and these are the attorneys at DOJ, and in the New York courts, who were referencing a case on Black to the DOJ. They say that Epstein trafficked women to Leon Black.
COLLINS: The Justice Department previously said, We did not redact any names of men, only female victims.
You're saying you saw men's names redacted today, though?
MASSIE: I did. I saw four in a list of 20. The other people on the list were Maxwell, Epstein, and mostly survivors that I recognized. And then four men who weren't trafficked because their date of birth predates 1970, like they were all born in the 60s.
COLLINS: And you see no reason why those men's names are redacted in these files?
MASSIE: No, unless they were in some random lineup.
But this requires the DOJ to respond to it, just like they responded to my two tweets tonight, about the Sultan who had heretofore not been known, and about Les Wexner, who is in the files listed as a co- conspirator on the file that they unredacted tonight.
COLLINS: And you're going back tomorrow to view more documents. Is that correct?
MASSIE: If I can just look at 40 documents and find six men, I'm going to go back and look at more of these millions of documents.
COLLINS: Congressman Thomas Massie, please keep us updated on what you see.
MASSIE: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Thanks for your time tonight.
Up next. A Senate Democrat is also talking about what he calls the Epstein class, and accusing the administration of corruption.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Now, you remember, we were told that MAGA was for working-class Americans.
You remember that?
But this is a government of, by, and for the ultra-rich.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSSOFF: You see the President and his family rake in billions while Americans struggle to make ends meet.
Now, you remember, we were told that MAGA was for working-class Americans.
You remember that?
But this is a government of, by, and for the ultra-rich. It is the wealthiest Cabinet ever. This is the Epstein class.
(CHEERING)
OSSOFF: Ruling our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was Democratic senator, Jon Ossoff, invoking Jeffrey Epstein as he was campaigning for reelection in his home state of Georgia this weekend.
He's the only Democratic senator up for reelection in a state that the President won in 2024. He's arguably the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate. So, that message there, where he's not only leaning into affordability, but also Jeffrey Epstein here, as he's attempting to turn the President's own appeals to voters about rooting out the ruling elite on itself.
Joining me tonight are my political sources.
Van Jones, who is a former Obama administration official.
And David Urban, a former Trump campaign adviser.
And it's great to have you both here.
[21:40:00]
Because Van, first off, I'm just curious what you make of the argument there from Senator Ossoff. Do you think that that's going to break through with voters, in terms of, he's basically saying, Here's a permission structure for powerful people who were in Jeffrey Epstein's circles.
VAN JONES, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think it's a powerful line of argument. I do think that Donald Trump is assuming that nobody is going to notice that he's making billions of dollars, that he has all these billionaires in his Cabinet, all this permission structure for data centers across the world that turn billionaires into trillionaires and drive everybody's energy costs up. They're very -- I think MAGA is very vulnerable now.
And it looks this -- but by the way, this whole Epstein thing is so disgusting because it looks like there's a system, where there are no rules for the rich, and no rights for the poor. There are people who are in jail doing 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, for way less than the stuff that's coming out now. And somehow, these people are still walking around with their yachts and stuff like that.
So, I think it's a very strong argument for him to make, and I hope that other Democrats make it as well.
COLLINS: Well, and David, I mean, obviously people could say, Well, the Epstein class includes Bill Clinton as well. As Republicans are trying to get him to testify about why he's in these pictures that have surfaced as well. He's denied wrongdoing.
But when you hear what Thomas Massie was just saying there, that the Justice Department unredacted one person's name, Les Wexner, after he asked why it was redacted in a certain document today.
I mean, what do you think people believe -- people think about how the Trump Justice Department has handled the revelation of these files.
DAVID URBAN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Kaitlan, I do agree with Van that more -- more disclosure is needed. People need to be brought to justice, in this case. There is a morass that is it's hard to unwind millions and millions of documents.
But what is clear by some of these documents that have come out recently is that Donald Trump, as early as 2006, informed the police department that he thought Jeffrey Epstein was a bad seed, and that Ghislaine Maxwell was evil. He's on record, in these files, saying that.
One of the victim's lawyers, early on in 2009, said that Donald Trump was one of the only people that cooperated without a subpoena when he was -- when he was investigating and trying to get to the bottom of some of these things.
So, what should be clear to Americans and is not, perhaps because of this, how it's convoluted, and you hear from people like Senator Ossoff, is that Donald Trump was at the forefront of calling out Jeffrey Epstein. He was banned from his Mar-a-Lago estate.
But I agree with Van. We need to get to the bottom of this. It is, you know, I've said this over and over, Kaitlan. I don't know why they don't bring the entire Southern District of Florida in, and put them on the stand in Congress, and ask them exactly what happened, why they cut a sweetheart deal, why these names were redacted, why we don't know who these co-conspirators are. That should all be out there.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, Van, obviously on that front. Trump has denied knowing anything about Epstein's wrongdoing.
But the fallout of this is so widespread. Speaking of Trump's Cabinet. People like Thomas Massie are saying, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, should resign. Because, he said before, We didn't have any contact after 2005, we thought it was creepy. Emails showed they were in contact after that. Not that there was any wrongdoing, but they were in contact.
Chappell Roan, the singer, says tonight she has parted ways with her agency because the CEO, Casey Wasserman, was found to have emails between -- racy emails between him and Ghislaine Maxwell.
She said today, As of today, I am no longer represented by Wasserman, the talent agency led by Casey Wasserman. Chappell Roan says, I hold my teams to the highest standards and have a duty to protect them as well. And she says, No artist, agent or employee should ever be expected to defend or overlook actions that conflict so deeply with our own moral values.
I wonder what you make, Van, of how widespread this is.
JONES: Well, I mean, it's huge. And, by the way, even in the U.K., I mean, this may actually bring down the government in the U.K. So, this is a very big deal.
And if the only thing in here is that Donald Trump is a good guy, who called the cops? Why did Trump wait so long, and have to be pushed, to release all this stuff? I think that's why people are very, very doubtful about what's going on here. Because, there were just so many opportunities, before Donald Trump, for this guy to get the book thrown at him. He should have been under the prison.
URBAN: Yes.
JONES: And yet, somehow he kept getting away with it, kept getting away with it.
And so, I don't think anybody is safe yet, as far as the American people coming to final judgment on this.
And I do think it -- I do think it looks like there are -- there are two different classes of people. If you, or anybody you know, was doing anything remotely like this, you would be never heard from again. And yet, there's a group of people that apparently can get away with this stuff, and they thought they were going to get away with it forever.
COLLINS: Yes, and--
[21:45:00]
URBAN: Yes. Listen, I agree with Van. More disclosure -- more disclosure is needed. We had four years during the Biden administration where nothing was accomplished. We've had more disclosure in this Trump administration than we had in four years of the Biden administration. So, I'm for more transparency. I'm for more victims being compensated and taken care of them, for getting to the bottom.
If you were associated with Jeffrey Epstein, shame on you. There's lots of names in there, people who knew about this, his plea deal, and yet still continued to associate themselves. And I think they'd be record -- there are Democrats, Republicans, the list is long.
COLLINS: Yes.
And I should note, Casey Wasserman hasn't been accused of criminal wrongdoing, but he is one of those people whose name surfaced, as among others did, as David noted.
David Urban. Van Jones. Thank you both for joining here tonight.
We'll stay on top of that, of course, of the developments, as we hear more from lawmakers going behind closed doors to see what those documents say.
Also tonight, there are Democrats who accuse the President of extortion. A major airport. A major train station. Is that a demand to be renamed after him in order to release this funding? We're going to hear from New Jersey's new governor, Mikie Sherrill, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, one of America's biggest infrastructure projects is at a standstill, after the President and the White House conditioned federal funding, according to reports, on Dulles Airport and Penn Station being renamed after him.
When the President was asked about that reporting, last week, he said it was others who had suggested it, in regards to Penn Station. He said, Dulles Airport was something different.
A federal judge, I should note, has given the Trump administration until this Thursday, to resume payments for the Gateway Project, it's $16 billion, after the administration appealed her ruling, as you saw and heard about here on Friday night.
It's funding for the massive rail tunnel that would connect New York City and New Jersey. It was approved by Congress under President Biden.
The White House, though, froze those funds, back in October. And last Friday, that led about a 1,000 workers being laid off after there was no funding, of course.
My source tonight is the new Governor of New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill.
And thank you, Governor, for being here.
I think a big question people have is whether or not this project, given what's playing out in the courts, and how this is being battled and appealed by the administration, do you think this project is going to be up and running anytime soon?
GOV. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): I do. I took the President to court -- New Jersey took the President to court, along with New York. On Friday, we won. The judge said, it was time to get the funds back to work. The President's still illegally withholding these funds.
As people know, these are -- this is money in an account waiting to be put to work. But every time the President gets involved in a project, working men and women suffer, and we're seeing that right here at the Gateway Tunnel Project.
COLLINS: I mean, the administration had argued, they wanted to review, make sure federal funds weren't being used fraudulently. That was the reason we heard back in October.
I mean, when you heard this reporting about the demands that he made, and when he spoke to Schumer about this, saying he'd unfreeze it, if they named Penn Station after him. What did you make of that reporting?
SHERRILL: The President moves the goalpost every time he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. So, he was upset about some DEI stuff, he said he was going to investigate something, or is the administration. Then we heard the reporting that he wanted the Dulles or the Penn Station named after him.
None of this matters. This isn't a negotiation. This is an illegal act. He is illegally stopping these funds from being put to work. Almost a 1,000 jobs now, but it could be about a 100,000 jobs in the future. And with jobs numbers, like this President has, I would think he would want people to get back to work.
COLLINS: You are a new governor, as I mentioned. We've learned that the White House is excluding two of your Democratic colleagues, Wes Moore of Maryland, Jared Polis of Colorado, two people who are known to our audience, from the National Governors Association's annual White House summit.
Traditionally, it's a bipartisan gathering of all 50 governors, regardless of who's the president. Last year, we saw Janet Mills of Maine and the President getting into it while they were there.
We asked the White House about this, and they told CNN that, Many Democrats were invited to dinner at the White House, and others were not. These are White House events and the President reserves the right to invite whomever he wants.
Do you agree with that?
SHERRILL: This is the National Governors Association, a group that gets together to solve major problems across the country, to engage with people at the White House, and at the Cabinet level, on issues ranging from infrastructure projects to how Medicaid funding may or may not be flowing, and what we can do to work together. Gathering not just ideas from other governors across the country, but certainly from, as I said, members of the White House.
And so, for the President to pick and choose who he's going to have, to sort of undermine the very focus of this, of coming together, to get stuff done for the country, just seeds more -- you know, it's more seeds of chaos.
Again, like I said, every time he gets involved in different aspects of running the government, people suffer. And so, without this event, without people coming together on some of the hard things, we're going to see worse decisions made. And that's not surprising, given where this President is taking this country.
COLLINS: Are you going to still attend?
SHERRILL: I won't be attending, if we're not having a bipartisan group of all of the governors invited to the event.
COLLINS: So, if he doesn't invite Jared Polis and Wes Moore, you're not going?
SHERRILL: No, I will not be going. This is ridiculous.
COLLINS: Governor Mikie Sherrill, thank you for joining us tonight.
SHERRILL: Thanks.
COLLINS: Up next here. Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that Halftime Show. What about a fake plant? The internet is going crazy after finding out about who was actually responsible for what you saw last night during Bad Bunny's performance.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Bad Bunny's Super Bowl Halftime Show has certainly given people a lot to talk about. I'm sure many of you have today.
But it might have been the dancing foliage that actually stole the show after the internet realized it was actually people who were performing as those bushes that you saw on your TVs last night. That's right. Hundreds of real performers in these costumes. And it's rumored that actually 40,000 people applied for this gig. Who can blame them, after watching that last night.
CNN actually spoke to someone who applied and got the job, and it turns out there were some pretty strict requirements.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW ATHIAS, SUPER BOWL HALFTIME PERFORMER: You had to be between five-seven and six foot, no bigger, no smaller, and you had to be somewhat athletic, and marching band experience.
And also, comfortable with wearing a 45-pound costume, and not claustrophobic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: They say, Dress for the job you want.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
