Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Glove DNA To Be Sent For Genetic Testing In Guthrie Case; Hillary Clinton Accuses Trump Admin Of Epstein Files "Cover-Up"; Colbert: CBS Scrapped Interview With Dem After Trump FCC Threat. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 17, 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]
DAVID URBAN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: And I know that this most recent revelation, it's going to push that boat even further away from this administration.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes, again, we'll have to see if the President has asked in any detail about this. But that comment about the 25th Amendment. It was 2018. It's hard to imagine what was going through Bannon's head at that point.
URBAN: Yes.
BERMAN: David Urban, thank you for explaining the discussions that are taking place.
URBAN: It's not going away, John. Not going away.
BERMAN: Doesn't appear to be.
David Urban, thank you.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, investigators searching for Nancy Guthrie are now turning to cutting-edge technology that has cracked some of the most mysterious cases they've ever seen.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, hopes that DNA testing would lead to a major breakthrough, in the Nancy Guthrie case, have so far come up empty.
But hope is not lost. That's because CNN has learned that investigators are now turning to a cutting-edge technology that has helped solve some of the hardest cases authorities have ever faced, including infamous cold cases, notorious serial killers. It even actually helped catch the University of Idaho killer, Bryan Kohberger.
Here's where things stand at this hour in Arizona. The Pima County Sheriff says the DNA that was found on those black gloves, a few miles away from Nancy Guthrie's home, do not match -- does not match anyone in the FBI's database. Now, that's one piece of DNA, and this is notable, it also does not match other DNA that was collected from Nancy Guthrie's property that authorities say did not come from her or her family.
So, it's two sets of DNA, and two mysteries still tonight. As authorities say that the gloves look like the ones that masked armed individual was wearing at Nancy Guthrie's front door, the night she was taken. But as of tonight, it's still unclear if they are, in fact, the same gloves.
Here's where that cutting-edge technology, though, comes into play into all of this. That's because a source tells CNN, the DNA from the gloves is now being sent for investigative genetic genealogy testing. Whoever's DNA that is, be it her kidnapper's or someone else's, if their DNA isn't in any of those ancestry testing databases, genetic genealogists can still track them down by painstakingly mapping out their family.
As the Sheriff here has continued to stress, the DNA is just one of the many leads investigators are chasing right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF CHRIS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY, AZ: One is, of course, the pacemaker, we'd like to find that, and we're working with that pacemaker company, and other experts in that field, as we speak, to explore all ways possible.
We're working with Walmart management. We believe that backpack is identified as a specific backpack that Walmart exclusively handles and sells. So, we're working with that management to try to isolate. Maybe we'll --maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe we'll find somebody purchasing it, and we'll be able to identify that person.
But those things are what we do. We follow leads.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: This also comes as the Sheriff that you heard from there has ruled out Nancy Guthrie's family as possible suspects in her disappearance. He says authorities thoroughly investigated her children, their spouses. And told People magazine in a statement, We talked to them. We took their phones. We took their computers... We processed their vehicles. We processed their homes. As the Sheriff says, that they are also victims in this case.
Over the weekend, we heard from Savannah Guthrie, in a heart-wrenching video, as she appealed directly to the person who took her mom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NANCY GUTHRIE'S DAUGHTER: And I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is, that it's never too late, and you're not lost or alone, and it is never too late to do the right thing. And we are here. We believe. And we believe in the essential goodness of every human being. And it's never too late.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It's hard to hear that statement and even think about the nightmare that Savannah and her siblings and her whole family is living through right now.
As this investigation is playing out, and they are hopeful for any developments, my legal and investigative sources are joining me for what we do know so far.
Former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.
Top criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson.
And also, the former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
[21:05:00]
And Andrew McCabe, the fact that there were no matches in this FBI database, that obviously everyone was so hopeful that there would be something that could help investigators here. What do you make of the fact that, that there weren't any?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Yes, it's obviously not -- it's not the result that anyone, from the family, to the investigators, the general public, wanted.
In a dataset that includes the identities of, I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of about 20 million people. It's already provided identities to, I think, 700,000 or so samples. You know, it's still -- it's still always a long shot when you put a sample into that system. It's not the end of the road for that piece of evidence, however.
As you talked about in the intro, the kind of next level, the latest and greatest successes we've had in DNA technology have really come from that genetic genealogy approach, where you have the sample, and then you test for anyone who might be a relative, no matter how far out from that sample, you identify who those people are. And from that, you basically can walk back to identify the suspect themselves.
So, that takes some time. But it's been getting better and better and more -- and faster and faster, as they've used it successfully in several cases. So, I expect that we'll all be waiting the results of that.
COLLINS: Yes, we have a top expert on that, because I have so many questions about what exactly that -- how that works.
But Elie, the other part of this, when this came out today, was one, that it didn't match anyone in the FBI database. But also, we learned that the DNA from her home that they found, and the DNA from those gloves, don't match.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right. So, it's really important to keep in mind, there's two different DNA samples. There's the one sample that was recovered from the home that they know is not a known person, it's not one of the family members. If you can get a match, whether through the CODIS database, or through this genealogy, to that DNA sample from the home, then you have your guy. That's it.
The gloves really require a double hit, because you have to both tie the gloves to the home, and then you have to tie the gloves to a specific person. If you only tie the glove to the home, then you know the glove was used in the home, but you don't know who. And if you only tie the glove to a person, then you know that glove was owned by John Doe, but you can't put him in the home.
So, it's a more likely scenario that they get a hit on the DNA from the home. It really requires two strokes of luck to hit on the DNA from the gloves.
COLLINS: I mean, that was obviously the key part here that people have been looking for. I mean, the Sheriff has said, This isn't just the only lead that we're following. Joey. But I wonder what you what you make of what stands out today?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, I think it's a broad-based approach. And let's talk about that, right? It's not only the DNA, which is very significant. It's not only CODIS.
CODIS is a federal database, very important database. But there are various state databases. In fact, once you commit a state offense, there are certain things that are state-eligible, which a given state will take your DNA. That state DNA may not necessarily be in CODIS.
But let's talk about some broader things--
COLLINS: So there could be DNA in Alabama in that state database, but it's not actually in the national database?
JACKSON: Correct. Right. So, you have a situation where different states have laws, where if you commit an offense that's DNA-eligible, the state takes that DNA. And certainly, for uniformity, and you want to make sure that you do your due diligence, you check the CODIS DNA. But various state databases have their own state DNA. Very significant.
But I think what the Sheriff is talking about in terms of the broader approach, and he also talked about the pacemaker. There are reports that they have this sweeping device that they're putting on drones that literally could identify the pacemaker, kind of like Bluetooth technology, what it does when it captures your device. Oh, I'll have my phone out, and it'll say, I'm on Kaitlan's device, I'm on Elie's device, and it could literally identify the specific pacemaker within a certain radius. So, they're doing that. That's what he's talking about.
But in addition to that, they've identified, for example, he's had the gun on him, right? They're going now that is it -- authorities, to various gun stores, to determine when there were purchases made, et cetera. They're doing the same thing with the backpack. So, I think it's a uniform approach. You look at what they're doing, Kaitlan, with respect to asking people in the neighborhood, to provide the surveillance data. So, I think what they're doing is a very systematic, orderly approach, to really go through everything, DNA, and those things that are not DNA, to get this person.
COLLINS: But it also concerns me about the timing here, because obviously that's always been of the essence. But the things that you -- everything you just listed, the gloves, the backpack, the gun. We didn't know about any of that until this video, luckily, was able to be recovered to -- I mean, it just kind of speaks to--
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: --the pace of the investigation.
HONIG: Well, timing is vital, especially these first few days. But as Joey said, it's important to remember, the DNA is the gold standard. It's the best thing you can get, if you're an investigator or a prosecutor. But the vast majority of all criminal cases in history have been made without DNA evidence.
And I think a good example here of a way you might be able to piece this case together. Think to the pipe bomber case, right? The arrest was made a few months ago, the person who planted pipe bombs the night before January 6th in D.C., outside the DNC and RNC.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:10:00]
HONIG: It took them five years and -- essentially. And the way they made this case is they figured out that he had purchased some of the implements at a Home Depot around his area, and then they tracked the general area of his phone, and then they picked him up on a license plate reader.
JACKSON: Yes.
HONIG: So yes, DNA would be everyone's best scenario. But you can still put this together through hard work, through footwork on the streets.
COLLINS: Andy, what did it say to you that they had to come out, and for the Sheriff to say this, that none of the family is a suspect here, they are victims here. Because obviously, so much has been circulating, so much speculation and conspiracies and unfounded guesses. Was it unusual for the Sheriff (inaudible) that, in your view?
MCCABE: It's a little unusual, but I think under the circumstances, it was definitely called for. The family, I think, has been just persecuted by this onslaught of social media-generated speculation, just, just based on nothing, and that's got to wear the family down.
The Sheriff needs that family to be pumped up, to be engaged, to be cooperating at a high level. They also want to maintain a high level of trust between the investigative team and the family. So, stepping forward and doing something to protect the family, to clear their name, I think, is good on all those grounds.
The place where I get kind of concerned, Kaitlan, is we have really not seen any sort of a joint press release, joint press opportunity, from the leadership, over the investigative team.
Now, of course, you don't want investigators doing that. They have more important work to do to try to figure this case out. But I don't really understand why we haven't seen the leadership of the Sheriff's office, and the leadership of the FBI, speaking together, with one voice, and answering some of these questions.
And there are things that they could be sharing with us right now. We know from other interviews we've seen today that they have gone out to gun shops, for instance, and asked questions of gun shop owners about the holster that appears in the video. Once you start doing things like that, that's no longer a secret investigative lead. You're sharing it with members of the public in these gun shops. They're now being interviewed by the press.
So, instead of just doing it with those people, why not get out and make a press moment out of that, and use these opportunities to galvanize eyeballs to the investigation, to get people thinking about it, to drum up more tips, and to project a sort of, you know, level of -- high level of cooperation between the Sheriff's office and the FBI office. I think that would help at this point. So, a little curious that they're not doing it already.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point, and we'll see if that changes.
Great to have you. Andrew McCabe. Elie Honig. Joey Jackson.
My next source, as I mentioned, one of the country's leading genetic genealogists, a pioneer in investigative DNA analysis. CeCe Moore is here with us.
And thank you so much for joining, because I have a ton of questions. I'm sure our viewers do as well.
And can you just kind of explain -- I mean, Andrew McCabe mentioned it a little there. But can you just explain, for a lot of us who are unfamiliar with this technology and how this works, how does genetic genealogy work? How are they kind of piecing this together behind the scenes?
CECE MOORE, GENETIC GENEALOGY EXPERT: Well, we're basically reverse engineering someone's identity through their family tree based on their DNA alone.
So, when that DNA profile is created and uploaded to the genetic genealogy databases, which we're allowed to use, it's compared against everyone who has agreed to let their DNA be compared against law enforcement samples, like this one. And from that, we get a list of people who share DNA with that unknown person. And it can be as little as 1 percent or even less. So, we're typically working with very distant relatives, second, third, fourth, fifth cousins and beyond. We can sometimes get lucky and get a closer relative. But because we're limited to the two smallest genetic genealogy databases, we only are able to compare against less than 2 million profiles. So, that's why we don't typically find someone really closely related.
Now, we're hoping to connect to both of this individual's mother side and there's father side, so we can zero in on just one immediate family. Now, the only reason that two people share these significant amounts of DNA, and again, significant for us can be very little, is if they have a common ancestor in their family tree. And these are known people that are -- it's being compared against, so we can build their family trees.
And I'm looking for patterns, commonalities, overlaps, triangulations, and eventually piecing together this person's family tree, ancestor by ancestor, based on those people that are sharing DNA with them.
COLLINS: Obviously, that sounds incredibly painstaking.
MOORE: Yes.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: So, I just think in general terms, when you're doing this, and putting this together, what is the timeline, in your view? Or does it kind of depend on how easily available their family tree's DNA is?
MOORE: Yes, it's really based on population group, and whether that person has a lot of cousins in the database.
So, people who have deep roots in the United States tend to be able to be identified much more quickly, especially if they have primarily Northwest European ancestry. And that's why, when you look at the people who've been identified through investigative genetic genealogy, you're mostly seeing white people with deep roots in the United States.
And so, that brings up an important point in this case. Because Nancy's home is so close to Mexico. So, if this is someone who was born in Mexico, or even if their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents immigrated from Mexico or any of Latin America, it's much harder to identify them, because we don't have as much representation in the databases we're allowed to use.
So, it can go anywhere from 20 minutes, that's the most quickly I've been able to identify--
COLLINS: Yes.
MOORE: --a suspect. And I have some cases I've been working on for seven and a half years.
COLLINS: Can I ask you, well, given-- MOORE: So, we're going to hope--
COLLINS: Given how big that timeframe is, one thing you -- I mean, you mentioned how long someone's family has been here. But with the rise of 23andMe, and Ancestry, and all of these companies that people use where they are giving them their DNA. Obviously, you can opt in or not. Some people might look at that and say, Well, that should be pretty helpful here.
But what would you say to that?
MOORE: Well, there's a big misconception about that. Because despite the fact there's over 50 million people who have taken direct-to- consumer DNA tests, the three largest databases, Ancestry, 23andMe, and MyHeritage, have barred law enforcement's use. So, we actually don't have access to all those profiles.
We only have access to profiles that are in GEDmatch, FamilyTreeDNA, or DNA -- sorry, DNA Justice. DNA Justice is a new database that's just getting going. GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA have been working with law enforcement for a few years now. And there are only, as I said, less than 2 million people that have opted into allowing law enforcement in those databases to compare against their DNA.
If I was the Guthrie family, I would be begging AncestryDNA, and 23andMe, and MyHeritage, to allow this profile to be compared against their databases. I don't believe they will allow it, unless they are served with a warrant. And then, I think there's going to be a knock- down drag-out fight between the deep pockets these consumer DNA testing companies have, and law enforcement, in the courts.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good question of whether or not we'll see that play out.
CeCe Moore, it is so great to have your expertise here. So, thank you for explaining all of that to us. I really do appreciate it.
MOORE: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next. We're going to continue to follow the latest investigative leads out of the Guthrie case.
Also, in Washington, there's a new accusation from Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, going after President Trump, when it comes to the Epstein files. What she said.
Also, CBS is now out with their version of what happened, after that remarkable statement from Stephen Colbert, last night, saying that they pulled one of his interviews fearing backlash from the FCC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": Do you mean to cause trouble?
JAMES TALARICO, TEXAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I -- I-- (LAUGHTER)
TALARICO: I think that Donald Trump is worried that we're about to flip Texas. And--
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Just days before a closed-door deposition in Congress' Epstein investigation, the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is accusing the Trump administration of orchestrating an ongoing cover-up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: A law was passed in Congress to require that all the files that have anything to do with them be released. And what we're seeing, I think it's fair to say, is a continuing cover-up by the Trump administration.
We have nothing to hide. We have called for the full release of these files repeatedly. We think sunlight is the best disinfectant. Get the files out. They are slow-walking it. They are redacting the names of men who are in it. They are stonewalling legitimate requests from members of Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So that last comment there comes, as the Clintons are calling for their scheduled depositions, which are going to be held behind closed doors, to be made public next week.
And we're also hearing from the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who informed lawmakers this weekend that there will be no further releases from the Justice Department of any of the Epstein documents. She wrote to Congress and said quote, In accordance with the requirements of the [Epstein Files Transparency Act] ... the Department has released all records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department.
Joining me tonight is the lawmaker who co-authored that Act, forcing the Justice Department to release these files. Democratic congressman, Ro Khanna of California.
And thank you for being here.
First off, in your view, is what the Attorney General Pam Bondi there, what she said, is that true?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): No. I mean, look, Secretary Clinton is just speaking the facts. She's not making any allegation. She didn't even mention the word, Donald Trump.
[21:25:00]
She's a brilliant lawyer. She read the Epstein Transparency Act that Thomas Massie and I passed. And she's simply stating that they're filled with redactions, what they're releasing. They're protecting people who have actually committed crimes, or who allegedly abused some of these survivors. They failed to protect some of the survivors. And they should come clean, just have a full release of these files.
And even the Republicans don't believe Pam Bondi. Ask Congresswoman Nancy Mace, or Congressman Massie, there's talk of doing a subsequent bill to strengthen the Epstein Transparency Act.
COLLINS: Do you think that could actually happen?
KHANNA: I hope it doesn't take that, because the law is already clear.
But remember, Kaitlan, we passed the Epstein Transparency Act, 427 to one in the House, and a 100 to zero in the Senate. We had veto-proof majorities. That's why President Trump signed it. And I have not met a single person who have worked on this, who believes that they have been transparent in the disclosures.
The problem is they've already released so much, that is leading to international scandals, that is leading to France to say, We're going to have a prosecuting committee. The British monarchy is having to answer questions. The British government is in trouble. Here, you've had resignations at Goldman Sachs' lawyers, powerful law firms. And so, the American public want more information.
COLLINS: Yes. Well, I mean, and part of what's happening here is mainly Congress, when it comes to who they're investigating.
The Clintons are going to be testifying in separate closed-door depositions that's scheduled for next week. She was asked about pictures of the former President, Bill Clinton, obviously her husband, that were released in the Epstein files, and this is what Hillary Clinton told the BBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you know the context surrounding some of those images?
CLINTON: Absolutely. And it wasn't a hot tub on a plane. It was one of the stops they made to look at philanthropic and charitable work that my husband has done, saving literally millions of lives around the world. It turned out, that was done long before there was any public awareness and certainly any conviction of any crime by Jeffrey Epstein.
If Bill and I had a penny for every person we've taken pictures with, we would be extremely rich today.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Do you think that's, I guess, a sufficient answer? Or do you feel like you still have more questions for the former President about what has surfaced in the Epstein files?
KHANNA: We have more questions for President Clinton. He needs to be fully transparent, and he needs to explain the extent of his relationship with Epstein.
He needs to explain whether he knew if other rich and powerful men were visiting the Epstein island. Did he know if other men were abusing girls? He needs to answer about how Epstein made all this money. Why is it that Epstein is frequenting with world leaders?
So, of course, he's going to have to be fully transparent. And that's why I and others, who are Democrats, have said, we want transparency.
But here's what I will say about President Clinton. At least he's coming and he's going to answer these questions. I mean, what about Donald Trump? What about Lutnick? What about a lot of the other rich and powerful people who are ducking any accountability?
COLLINS: Can I ask you about one person? Because, I know the House Oversight Committee, members of it, are going to Ohio, tomorrow, to speak to the former CEO of Victoria's Secret. That's Les Wexner. His name had been in the files. Was redacted in one piece. Then unredacted, last week, after Thomas Massie had called it out. He had a long financial and personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He's denied wrongdoing.
What information are you hoping to gain from him in this deposition?
KHANNA: What was his financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? Point-blank, did he ever abuse young girls, and did he know of other people who were abusing young girls? How many times did he visit the island? How did Epstein make his money? So, he has a lot to answer for.
But it's not just him. My view is every single person who has emails showing that they visited the island, especially after Epstein was a convicted pedophile, should be coming before the Congress and answering questions and be investigated, and the Justice Department should start a special prosecution investigatory committee into this issue.
I mean, I get texts from survivors. I got one today with a name of someone in the file saying, What's happening? Send this to Justice. Why aren't they doing anything? The survivors didn't just want these names out there. They wanted action. They want investigations. They want accountability. And it's happening in so many other countries.
COLLINS: Yes, and major questions about what will happen here next.
Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for joining.
KHANNA: Thank you, Kaitlan. COLLINS: Up next. As I mentioned, Late Show host, Stephen Colbert, went on CBS and on his show and talked about the relationship with CBS, the FCC, and an interview that he says the network attorneys advised him not to run. CBS is pushing back on that. My legal and entertainment sources will be here next to weigh in.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, CBS is responding to its own Late Show host, Stephen Colbert, after he said he was barred from airing an interview that he taped with the Texas Democratic Senate candidate, James Talarico.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLBERT: We were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then--
(BOOING)
[21:35:00]
COLBERT: Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
COLBERT: And because my network clearly doesn't want us to talk about this, let's talk about this.
(LAUGHTER)
COLBERT: On January 21st of this year, a letter was released by FCC chairman and smug bowling pin, Brendan Carr.
(LAUGHTER)
COLBERT: In this letter, Carr said he was thinking about dropping the exception for talk shows, because he said some of them were motivated by partisan purposes.
Well, sir, you're Chairman of the FCC. So, FCC you.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
COLBERT: Because I think--
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE) COLBERT: Because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He was referring to the FCC's equal-time rule that requires talk shows to offer equal airtime for political candidates. Though, for decades, late night and daytime talk shows have been exempt from that rule.
And after Colbert said that last night, on his show, CBS pushed back today, in its own statement, that said [The Late Show was given] legal guidance... the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.
As you heard there, obviously, Colbert said in no uncertain terms he was told, could he air that broadcast -- that interview on his broadcast. And instead, they put the interview up on its YouTube channel, and has since racked up more than 2 million views since it's been online.
The question is, how will Stephen Colbert respond to that CBS statement? Well, I happen to be pre-scheduled to actually appear on his show tonight, before all of this happened. So, I can tell you, he will directly address what CBS said in that statement himself.
And it comes as he is getting support from the FCC's lone Democratic Commissioner. That's Anna Gomez. She says, this is just the latest example of what she calls corporate capitulation to the Trump administration.
And FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, is my source tonight.
Along with our Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter, who's been doing some excellent reporting on this.
But first, let me start with you, because obviously Commissioner Gomez, Brendan Carr, we have not heard, I don't believe he's put out a statement yet, since we've asked for him to respond on this front. What is your reaction to just what has played out over the last 24 hours alone though?
ANNA GOMEZ, FCC COMMISSIONER: I think that what we have seen in the last 24 hours is a direct result of the FCC muddying the waters about what the equal-time rule means.
What the FCC did was it put out this advisory where it said, Look, we know we have this long precedent for newsworthiness. It's called the bona fide news exemption. And what that means is, if you have a talk show, for example, have a legally-qualified candidate on its show, then you don't have to provide a equal time to other legally-qualified candidates, because it is an exemption based on newsworthiness.
Broadcasters do this all the time, where they have candidates on their shows, and they have to make a determination, do they have to provide equal time to other candidates or not? And there's a test for that.
The test is very simple. Is this a show that's an ongoing series? Is the content determined by the broadcaster or an independent producer? And is the content format and participation done based on the newsworthiness of that particular show? Or is it animated by the desire to help a candidate or not help a candidate?
But the FCC put out this advisory, and really muddied the waters, which is so now we're seeing this confusion. I don't know what the actual facts are. But I do know that you're seeing self-censorship, one way or another, based entirely on this pattern of threats from the FCC.
COLLINS: Brian, when you listen to that, and as Anna is putting it, muddying the waters. I mean, did the CBS attorneys, were they rightfully confused about what actually the guidelines are here, even though nothing's changed? Or how do you see it?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: I think the CBS executives were looking at this and saying, they don't know what the new normal is. There's a big unknown now.
Because, it is true, the FCC has been looking into ABC's "The View." "The View" had a couple of these candidates on. There are questions about whether the equal-time laws might have been violated. The FCC doesn't really have enforcement power here. There's very little the government can actually do against the stations. But it can make some noise, it can send some letters, and that's what the FCC has done in the case of ABC.
So, CBS looked at that and said, Well, we don't really necessarily want that problem. Let's have Colbert be especially careful here.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, I think the question here is, is people are looking at this and saying, Well, I mean, how is this playing out? If this rule actually does change and go through, I mean, wouldn't that change talk radio, Commissioner, as you're looking at this, and seeing how this plays out? I mean, what do you -- what do you -- what are you going to be paying attention to, going forward, of what could happen next?
[21:40:00]
GOMEZ: Yes, you're exactly right. The equal-time rule actually does apply to talk radio. But somehow, this FCC has decided that that's not an issue. It's only going to look at broadcast television.
And that's a real problem, because what that's telling me is that they're happy with the content on talk radio, but they're not happy with the content on broadcasters. And that's been this administration's goal, is to go after any broadcast that it does not agree with, and to get them to cover them in a way that they want, and to not have any content that they disagree with. And that's a problem. It is unconstitutional.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, Brian, even when you look at it from a political perspective--
STELTER: Yes.
COLLINS: --and how many views that interview has gotten. That probably wouldn't have gotten that many if it hadn't generated this much attention. I mean, it might actually end up helping him in a political sense.
STELTER: Yes, this is probably the best day of his campaign, just as early voting is beginning in Texas. The actual primary is a couple weeks from now.
And I've heard some people on the right say, Hey, this was cooked up by Colbert and Talarico, trying to help his campaign. There's no evidence that's actually true. But there has been a Streisand effect, where Talarico has benefited enormously from this, and been able to raise money off of it.
We're talking about, ultimately, this Trump pressure campaign that's happening in so many ways. Feel like we've covered this a dozen different times in the past year, where you're seeing government intimidation, using all the tools, all the levers of power the government has. Even if those levers are kind of weak, even if they're kind of toothless, they're still being applied against broadcast networks, applied against media companies, applied against individuals who are speaking out.
But Americans, in our bones, like, we're fundamentally opposed to government censorship. You saw that from conservatives, when they spoke out against the Biden administration jawboning social media companies. Well, honestly, the Trump administration, they're looking -- thinking the Democrats look like amateurs. We've seen so many different examples of the Trump administration trying to target critical speech. And today, it's Tuesday, it happens to be an episode involving CBS.
There's been a bunch of these episodes involving CBS. Why? Because CBS is really uniquely vulnerable right now, because its parent company, Paramount, wants to do a mega-merger. Paramount's trying to buy this network, CNN, and the rest of Warner Bros. Discovery. So, all of Paramount's behavior is being viewed through a lens of, Is Paramount trying to appeal to President Trump, knowing that M&A runs through the Oval Office right now.
COLLINS: Yes.
Brian Stelter. Anna Gomez. And also everyone. You can see how Stephen Colbert himself responded to this interview--
STELTER: Yes. Can see you.
COLLINS: --to the comment with -- from CBS. He is going to address it. I promise you. You'll want to see that.
There's also a preview of my own interview with Stephen Colbert that happened to happen tonight. We talked about that interaction with President Trump in the Oval Office, from a few weeks ago, where he asked why I never smile, when we were asking questions about the Epstein survivors and the accountability that they'd like to see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I don't think it surprised me in the moment of the attack. I mean, the President has called me a lot of names. He's gone after me and tried to deflect from the questions that we're asking.
But in that moment -- you know, he is someone who is often politically savvy or tied in with what his base wants. In that moment, I was thinking, you know, if he had said that to -- in response to a different question, I think it would have had a different reaction. I mean, I don't think any woman -- I think a lot of women can identify with that moment and that feeling.
COLBERT: Yes.
COLLINS: But I think it was actually the question that is, what generated so many headlines out of that. Because my question was about sexual assault survivors. And it wasn't even accusatory of the President. It was what these women, many of whom I've interviewed and had on my show often, have said to me. And I don't think it's a controversial opinion, that you shouldn't smile when you're asking questions about a sex trafficker and sexual assault victims.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You can watch the rest of the interview tonight at 11:35 Eastern on CBS.
Up next here for us on THE SOURCE. Key Republicans were seen tonight after reports that the party is searching for ways to win the midterms without the President on the ballot. What those conversations entail? That's next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump's Chief of Staff is convening members of his Cabinet, and senior Republican political strategists in Washington, to talk about a major political threat that's been looming over the White House. That is, this November's midterm elections.
Politico, which first reported on this meeting, says those Cabinet officials are being called to serve as more active surrogates for the President, as the White House wants them, and Republicans, to all be on the same page.
Maintaining control of Congress is obviously of the utmost importance to this White House, because a Democratic majority, they believe, would change the rest of the President's time in office and what that looks like.
Those are the stakes that were laid out by the Vice President, JD Vance, today, where he also criticized, in an interview on Fox News, Fox News' polling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS HOST: So, we just mentioned the midterms. So, I want to just put up a poll. This shows congressional vote preference. This was at the end of January, so just a few weeks ago. Of all voters, Democratic candidate preference at 52, GOP candidate at 46.
We've got a long way to go. But obviously, that number would not be good for the majority.
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: That would not be good.
I will say, as much as we love Fox News, we always think Fox News has the worst polling. Me and the President agree on that. I'm sorry. It's true.
MACCALLUM: I can show you other ones that are very similar. But since they're ours.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me tonight is Republican congressman, Mike Lawler of New York.
And Congressman, you're someone who is up for reelection. Do you think the administration is taking those polls, not just Fox, but other ones, seriously enough?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Of course they are. Obviously, the midterm elections are always important. No matter which party is in power. It's about the direction of the country.
[21:50:00]
And I think when you look at the issues facing the country, obviously, my focus is on the economy and the issue of affordability. It's why I fought so hard to lift the cap on SALT in the Working Families Tax Cut bill. And the average New Yorker, for instance, is getting a $4,000 tax cut as they're going to file. And so, I know in my area, which is among the highest taxed areas in the country, people are seeing the benefits of the tax bill that we were able to pass, last year.
And so, I think as the economy improves, as we see people feeling more confident about it. Obviously, the stock market is at record highs. We want to continue to bring costs down. The cost of housing is down significantly. Mortgage costs down with interest rates coming down. We want to continue to bring down grocery prices. Gasoline is below $3 per gallon for the first time in five years.
So, there's a lot of progress, but a lot of work ahead, and that's what we're focused on. It's why my priorities, in the remainder of this Congress, center around housing, health care and energy, and what we can do--
COLLINS: Yes.
LAWLER: --to bring down costs for Americans.
COLLINS: But everything--
LAWLER: And I think that's where the administration is focused as well.
COLLINS: But everything you just mentioned is about affordability. I mean, right now, that poll, the same one that was cited to JD Vance, says, on preferred party to handle affordability and helping the middle class, Democrats have a 14-point margin there.
I mean, you talked about the progress made. But that doesn't seem to be resonating with voters.
LAWLER: Again, I don't -- I don't spend my time focused on polling. I focus on my district. And I can tell you, in my district, people understand what I am doing to represent them, and to actually address the issues facing the country.
It's why I did break with my party and pushed to get a vote on the ACA enhanced premium tax credit. It's why I did champion the tax cuts bill, because we wanted to provide real tax relief to seniors. $6,000 tax credit, first time ever to offset Social Security taxes. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime.
These are things that are taking effect, right now, as people are going to file their taxes. And so, they are going to see the benefit of that, which is different from the 2018 midterms, when the tax bill did not take effect immediately. Here it is. And so, I think you will see a shift in the general public mood.
I also think the economy is making marked improvements. The jobs numbers surpass expectation. GDP growth in the third and fourth quarter surpass expectations, significantly, in the revision. So, I think things are moving in the right direction.
COLLINS: Yes.
LAWLER: We just need to continue to focus on the issues that matter to people, whether it is cost of groceries, cost of living, bringing down the cost of housing--
COLLINS: Yes, but obviously with these polls, I mean, that is something that--
LAWLER: --energy, and health care.
COLLINS: --that is something that right now, it's not resonating with voters. We'll see if that changes, obviously, over the next few months. But can I ask you. One thing that we have talked about repeatedly with you here is this Gateway Tunnel Project. It connects New Jersey and New York City. It's described as critical to the Northeast. The funding has been halted by the Trump administration. And I know you wanted to change their minds on that.
But last night, the President said that he is opposed to the future boondoggle known as 'Gateway,' in New York/New Jersey... It is a disaster. And it will likewise be financially catastrophic for the region.
Do you believe the President is wrong?
LAWLER: Well, first of all, what he went on to say in that statement is that the federal government will not be responsible for cost overruns.
The project has been funded. The funds have been allocated for it. I have disagreed with the administration's withholding of that. I also disagreed strongly with Chuck Schumer shutting down the government for 43 days, which is really what was the catalyst for this dispute. The fact is that this is a critical--
COLLINS: But that's not what I asked, respectfully.
LAWLER: --this is a critical infrastructure project that I have been long on the record in support of. It directly impacts my district. With respect to a one-seat ride from Rockland County and Orange County, just north of me, into New York City. There are thousands of jobs at stake. And so, I have publicly and privately been pushing for these funds to be released. And I do support this project.
The President made the point that the federal government will not be responsible for cost overruns. We have seen in New York--
COLLINS: But that's not even the dispute.
LAWLER: --in New York--
COLLINS: The dispute is just the funding for it, period, and a 1,000 people who got laid off, basically, because the funding was halted by the administration.
LAWLER: Right, and I -- and I--
COLLINS: I mean, Governor Hochul's office has said--
LAWLER: And I've pushed -- yes.
COLLINS: --there's no cost overruns.
LAWLER: Yes, Governor Hochul has said a lot of things, over the years, including that she wouldn't have implemented congestion pricing, and then she did. She says she won't raise taxes. But mark my words, come March, she will.
[21:55:00]
The fact is that New York has seen with these major infrastructure projects, including the East Side Tunnel access, and with respect to the East Side Subway Tunnel, major cost overruns. So, the argument that Governor Hochul says--
COLLINS: Right.
LAWLER: -- there are no cost overruns, you and I both know that's bonkers (ph).
COLLINS: Yes, but the point was, that was never the issue. Initially, they were just saying they were pulling the funding. Now, he's saying he won't cover the overruns.
LAWLER: No, but you only -- you only read a--
COLLINS: Congressman Mike Lawler--
LAWLER: --you only read a snippet -- you only read a snippet of his statement. I was pointing out, he was saying, they will not fund any cost overruns, which makes the point that ultimately, the funds for this project that have already been allocated will be released.
COLLINS: Yes, after they were frozen, of course, and after a huge fight with a court over this.
LAWLER: After Chuck Schumer shut the government down for 43 days--
COLLINS: Congressman Mike Lawler.
LAWLER: --and caused the problem to begin with.
COLLINS: Thanks for joining us tonight.
LAWLER: Thank you.
COLLINS: We'll be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, the word is remembering an iconic leader of the civil rights movement. The Reverend, Jesse Jackson, passed today at the age of 84, leaving behind a legacy that changed the Democratic Party, reshaped U.S. politics, and also expanded the modern movement for racial justice. May his memory be a blessing.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
