Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Hillary Clinton Testifies In House Epstein Investigation; Mamdani Wins Trump Over At WH Meeting With Props And A Pitch; Paramount Emerges Victorious Over Netflix In WBD Bidding War. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired February 26, 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]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --and my full interview with Erin and more is on in 15 minutes, "All There Is Live." Watch it only on CNN.com/AllThereIs. I hope you join me for that.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Hillary Clinton faces off with Republicans under oath. What she said about Jeffrey Epstein, and why she says she was asked about UFOs. My source tonight was inside the room for her deposition.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
For more than six hours today, House Republicans had their dream witness in front of them for a sworn deposition. As to whether it yielded anything of substance for their Jeffrey Epstein investigation, the witness herself, former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who says she never met the man, had this assessment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, LAWYER AND FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: I thought it was very repetitive. I thought that they asked literally the same questions over and over again, which didn't seem to me to be very productive.
I don't know how many times I had to say, I did not know Jeffrey Epstein, I never went to his island, I never went to his homes, I never went to his offices. So, it's on the record, numerous times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The Republican chair of that committee, who was in the room today, James Comer, says that the public may be able to watch what happened behind closed doors, Secretary Clinton's full testimony, as soon as tomorrow.
And that means we'll be able to all see the moment that her deposition was actually brought to a screeching halt today, after a right-wing podcaster posted a picture from inside the room of what was supposed to be a closed-door testimony, despite Clinton's own attempts to have it done in public.
This image that you see here was given to the podcaster by, you can see here, Republican congresswoman, Lauren Boebert, who said this, when my colleague, MJ Lee, questioned her about what happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL ENTERPRISE CORRESPONDENT: What stood out to you, Congresswoman, from the deposition so far?
REP. LAUREN BOEBERT (R-CO): Well, I mean I really admired her blue suit. So I wanted to capture that for everyone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: She admired her blue suit.
Now Boebert had started -- Boebert had started the day with this photo of herself and the other Republicans who were going into question Clinton. She wrote the caption, Game on.
Though I should note, none of the lawmakers you saw there actually showed up to question other witnesses in this case, at times, including Epstein's former billionaire ally, Les Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria's Secret, whose testimony we talked about here on THE SOURCE, last week.
Secretary Clinton had this to say about the so-called game that she thought Republicans were playing with their questions for her today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet, that was serving as the basis of a member's questions to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now tomorrow, her husband, the former President, Bill Clinton, will also sit for his own deposition. He is known to have traveled on Epstein's private plane at least 16 times with staff, and was also photographed with women in a jacuzzi in images that were released by the Justice Department.
Bill Clinton has not been accused by law enforcement of any wrongdoing. But it is safe to say lawmakers will likely have a lot of questions for him regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
As for what he plans to say, Secretary Clinton offered this preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I think the chronology of the connection that he had with Epstein ended years, several years before anything about Epstein's criminal activities came to light.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My first source tonight is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. California congressman, Robert Garcia, who was there today.
And thank you for joining us tonight.
Would you say that you learned anything helpful or significant to the committee's investigation, inside that room today?
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Look, I mean, I think today we didn't learn a lot of new information. The reality was that Secretary Clinton was very clear. She had never met Jeffrey Epstein, never been on the island, never been on the plane, never been to his homes. She had no knowledge of any of his crimes prior to them being public. And so, I think she was cooperative with the committee.
[21:05:00]
I think it's unfortunate that House Republicans chose to immediately break the rules at the start of the committee, ask questions about UFOs, and odd right-wing conspiracy theories, and not really focus on the investigation at hand.
But look, we've said we'll hear -- House Democrats, we'll hear from anyone. We want to hear any about -- information about anyone that's actually had any interaction with Jeffrey Epstein. And so, we're glad she testified. We're glad she set the record straight.
But we were also very clear, in our conversations, and I think the Secretary also said, earlier today, in her deposition in her -- that she released to the public, is that we also want to hear from other folks, whether it's Howard Lutnick, who, of course, we know had lied about his relationship with Epstein, in many interviews, or whether it's from Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has appeared in the Epstein files almost more than any other single person. And if they're going to set a new precedent of now talking to former Presidents or current Presidents, it is time for Donald Trump to come before our committee, under oath, and testify.
COLLINS: On the questions themselves. Obviously, Democrats also voted to subpoena Hillary Clinton here. Obviously, you all were in the room today.
When -- you mentioned the UFO questions. And she mentioned Pizzagate. I mean, was your sense that Republicans had run out of questions on Jeffrey Epstein for her, and that's why they turned to those subjects?
GARCIA: Look, I think they -- well, one, let's start here. We actually wanted the public and the press to be in the room during the deposition. Hillary Clinton was very clear. She wanted it to be a public deposition. She wanted the media. She wanted the public, inside the room, so that all of her comments on all the questions could be out there live, as it happened. Republicans refused to do so. We thought that would be a great idea and great for transparency. But they refused.
And so, what we saw inside the room was essentially Republicans asking the same questions over and over. I don't know how many times they asked her if she'd ever met Jeffrey Epstein. And she, of course, answered it multiple times, that she'd never met the man.
And it's just so interesting that Republicans were so obsessed with being there today, not making it public. Yet, not a single Republican, not a single one, would join us, last week, at the deposition of Les Wexner, who was the largest financier, the person that provided Jeffrey Epstein with almost all of his wealth. Not one could attend that deposition.
COLLINS: Yes.
GARCIA: Yet they all came today to answer the questions over and over again.
COLLINS: As Secretary Clinton was answering questions, did she plead the Fifth at all today?
GARCIA: She did not plead the Fifth at any time today. She answered every single question that she was asked, which I think is appropriate, and we're glad that she did.
I just think it's unfortunate that we began asking her questions about UFOs and aliens. I mean, let's be -- let's be serious at this moment. We have survivors that need answers. And the truth, that's where the focus should be.
COLLINS: I guess that one question people might have is if Hillary Clinton is someone who says she's never even met Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, I could see why you're questioning the former President tomorrow. He met him. He flew on his plane.
But what is the bar for this committee for questioning people? Because there are other people mentioned in these documents that had much closer relationships with Epstein. We can -- we can read it from his emails and their correspondence. I mean, what is the bar for questioning someone here?
GARCIA: Well, I mean, I think the bar for House Republicans has been whoever Donald Trump views as an enemy.
I mean, look, let's be really clear. Hillary Clinton testified, and was forced to testify, even though she could have submitted questions she wanted to -- she was negotiating a deposition. Yet Republicans chose to dismiss a numerous long list of attorneys general and FBI directors that could have actually given us real information.
For example, we want to hear from Merrick Garland. We want to hear from Alberto Gonzales. We want to hear from Robert Mueller, all of those individuals. James Comer allowed to basically send a one-page response, and that basically said that they don't have any information, they're not going to testify. They didn't give the same ability for the Clintons to do so.
And we think that all of them should have come in to testify. Why are they being so selective? I mean, apparently it's because whoever Donald Trump thinks is an enemy of his, they should have to come in and testify.
And so, I think it's -- we need to be serious about this investigation. It should be non-partisan. We should ask questions of everyone, and that includes folks like Donald Trump, like Howard Lutnick, who clearly has been lying to the public, about his relationship with Epstein, about when he went to the island, about going into business with him. Those are the folks that need to be in front of our committee.
COLLINS: On that front, I mentioned the former President, Bill Clinton, has been on Epstein's plane, I think, 16 times, judging by our analysis of the flight logs. We've seen the pictures of him in the hot tub.
[21:10:00]
I mean, what questions do you have for him, tomorrow, when he is testifying under oath?
GARCIA: I mean, first, which is important, I think, we have said from day one that we have questions for the former President. We're glad that he's coming in. Think Democrats are going to be -- we're going to be in the room, ready to ask those questions.
Any information he can provide about Jeffrey Epstein, what he may have seen, what he may have known. We have questions about foreign intelligence issues. I mean, there's been a lot of questions about whether Jeffrey Epstein was involved with any sort of foreign intelligence or gaining wealth or resources from foreign governments. Those are all legitimate questions.
And we agree that anyone that spent time with Jeffrey Epstein, of which the former President did, should be in front of the committee. But that also means that we should be deposing Howard Lutnick. That also means that President Trump should be in front of our committee. That also means that all the people that have been around, when you talk about Leon Black, people that have been involved in the financing, getting additional financial documents.
If we're going to have a serious investigation, then Republicans shouldn't pick and choose who should be in front of the committee. We should be deposing and sending subpoenas to all of them, and that's just not happening right now.
COLLINS: Congressman Robert Garcia, keep us updated on how tomorrow goes. Obviously, we'll be following this closely.
And also here with me now is our CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And Elie, just first off, I want to ask about a few things that the Congressman said there. But if you were conducting this investigation, if you're a lawmaker, which you're not, I'm sure you're grateful for, would you put Hillary Clinton on the list of people that you would want to question if she had never met Jeffrey Epstein?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY: Absolutely not, because you have limited resources, limited focus here. Hillary Clinton had said in advance, she knew nothing. It was zero surprise today to learn that, in fact, she knows nothing.
And the way you know that they knew that, is that the only specific fact that James Comer could point to, in advance, was that Hillary Clinton had hired Ghislaine Maxwell's nephew to work on her 2008 presidential campaign. If that's all you got, you'd be much better off spending your time with some of the subpoenas that Representative Garcia just laid out.
COLLINS: Yes, and she was asked today by reporters when she came out about -- I think Ghislaine Maxwell attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding. She said that she was a plus one of a guest who was invited.
I mean, but the questions delving into UFOs and Pizzagate. That is obviously not related to Jeffrey Epstein. I just think some people who actually were hoping real answers might come out of this, might have been wondering why questions like that would get asked today.
HONIG: Well, this is what happens when you subpoena someone, make a big deal about it, and are determined to fill up six hours of time. When it becomes apparent quickly that this person has no relevant information, then you end up running in circles.
And I saw a member of the committee earlier say that there was endless repetition. She was asked countless times about things she answered, and then they resorted to these wild conspiracies, Pizzagate and other things. And that's what happens when you misallocate your subpoenas.
COLLINS: Congressman Garcia said that by having Bill Clinton come tomorrow, a former President, I think, for the first time, testifying against their will, to Congress. Tell me if that's wrong, Elie, based on what you know. But he said, that sets the precedent for someone like President Trump to come.
Is that the same from your perspective, legally, a former President and a sitting President, I mean? Or do you think Robert Garcia has a point there?
HONIG: Well, so first of all, you are historically correct. The last time any president or former president testified in Congress was Gerald Ford in 1983, but that was just a ceremonial thing. And before that, in 1974, after he pardoned Nixon, but that also was voluntary.
Now, Representative Garcia is correct. This does set a precedent. But of course, precedent in the House only goes as far as whoever holds the majority. But I think Republicans would be wise to remember that midterms are not far away. The House could definitely flip. Now, there's an important distinction here, that Representative Garcia said they might want to hear from Donald Trump. The Republicans on the committee have said, Sitting presidents do have more protections, more privileges than former presidents. And that's correct.
So, if it comes to this, if the Democrats flip the House, subpoena Donald Trump? Look for that to go to the courts, and that will be hotly-litigated up, potentially, to the Supreme Court.
COLLINS: What's one question you would ask Bill Clinton, if you were in that room tomorrow?
HONIG: Oh, boy, look, he -- I would -- the first thing I would do would be to slide those photographs in front of him. You showed them earlier, him in a pool with Ghislaine Maxwell, and a woman whose identity has been redacted. And I would grill him on every ounce of information about those photographs, the one you see right there. I think it's going to be really difficult for him.
Now, we've seen Bill Clinton under intense questioning before in history, we've seen him testify under oath, in front of a grand jury, back in 1998, in the Ken Starr investigation.
COLLINS: Yes.
HONIG: Bill Clinton is savvy. Sometimes too savvy. He infamously uttered the phrase, Depends on what the meaning of is, is.
[21:15:00]
But those photographs are going to be really difficult for him, and I certainly look for the Republicans, and maybe the Democrats, on the committee, to demand answers.
COLLINS: Yes.
Elie Honig, always great to have your analysis. Thank you for joining us tonight.
HONIG: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. My new reporting on New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani's surprise meeting with President Trump at the White House. The story behind these two papers that you see there, we'll tell you everything right after this.
Also, there's new early voting data that shows there's a surge of Democratic voters ahead of tomorrow -- Tuesday's primary, I should say, in Texas. We have the latest numbers for you, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani showed up here at the White House today, he had a gameplan in mind, and props in hand.
The last time the Mayor had met with the President, here at the White House, back in November, they had agreed on at least one thing. Let's build stuff together.
So today, when Mamdani showed up with what, was told to me by sources, was a plan for the biggest federal investment in housing in 50 years. He didn't just bring a pitch for the President, he also brought these props.
One was a real copy of the New York Daily News front page from 1975. It had President Gerald Ford's face on it with that famous headline, Ford to City: Drop Dead.
Then they created a mockup of what Trump's version of that could look like. It had Trump's face on the front page with the headline, Trump to City: Let's Build.
I'm told that Mayor Mamdani basically wanted to illustrate to the President, what it looks like when the President invests in the biggest city in the country, and what happens when they don't.
I'm told the President was enthusiastic about the Mayor's proposal, though we don't know a lot of the specifics of what exactly is in that proposal. And you could kind of see that enthusiasm on his face in this picture that Mamdani posted, where Trump is smiling from ear to ear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Back here in the newsroom, I am joined by my political sources tonight, including:
The former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod.
Former Obama administration official, Van Jones.
And the former Republican congressman, Charlie Dent.
I mean, I just really want to know what all of you think about how this relationship is developing.
Van, I mean, you go first. What do you make of how this has played out between--
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I love it. I love it. I love it. Because, first of all, there's a political genius here, on both sides. It is very, very smart for Mamdani, who people were terrified he was going to bring the wrath of Trump down on the city and be a disaster, to go and figure out a way to play this game to appeal to his ego.
But the reality is, these are both two guys from Queens, and they're both populists. And so, I like it. And I like it. Listen, if Mamdani and Trump can get along to figure out something positive to do, you can get along with your relatives and your friends from high school. OK? So, who knows what's going to come of it. But anytime you see people getting together to try to help folks, I'm for it.
COLLINS: Charlie Dent, when you look at this. I mean, these are two things Trump loves. New York development. Good press with the paper as he -- they made this mockup of the New York Daily News. I mean, he's speaking Trump's love languages, basically.
CHARLIE DENT, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-PA): Yes, he is. But, you know, I served at the state level and the federal level for a combined 28 years. And one thing I learned that mayors have lots of big plans, but they don't have lots of money for capital projects, infrastructure, all sorts of things that they really want to do.
So, they see -- they see the federal government, in many cases, as free money. So, they have a Gateway Tunnel they need. There are all kinds of housing needs, a million types of infrastructure projects that Mamdani needs. So, he really does need Trump.
And I'm convinced, too, that there are a lot of psychologists working in New York City, in the city government, the intelligence unit, the police department, and they're analyzing it, What's the best way to ingratiate yourself with the President? Well, they've been pretty successful so far.
JONES: So far so good though.
DENT: But just remember that mayors need money. They need money, and it's in his -- in Mamdani's interest, really, cozy up to Trump, and he's been successful so far.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, David Axelrod, you are--
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes.
COLLINS: --intimately familiar with the workings of the West Wing, people coming to the President and needing something. I'm not sure when Mamdani got elected, given what we heard from Trump going into that election, that anyone envisioned it playing out quite like this.
AXELROD: No, I agree with that. But you know, the President is -- he can be very mercurial in these relationships. And if he's approached in the right way, he responds. And so, this was a bit of brilliance. From the first meeting to now, Mamdani approached him. He didn't come and confront him on things on which they disagreed. He approached him on something that he knew the President had an interest in.
And Charlie is right. Cities are constantly in need of resources. But Trump loves to build, we know that. And now you're talking about 12,000 units of housing in his beloved Queens. I mean, this is like, this is really tickling his funny bone. It may turn out that his name is on that housing development, that wouldn't shock me.
But Mamdani, he has set aside what perhaps some in the Democratic base would have liked, which is for him to light Trump on, you know, on fire every day. And instead, he's saying, Where can we work together? And I think that's not only good government, but it's really good politics.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Well, and Van, we were at the White House today. We get the schedule the night before. This meeting was not on the schedule. We found out that Mayor Mamdani was coming to Washington today, started phoning up everybody we knew in both camps about what the meeting was about.
And not only did they talk about housing, I was told that Mayor Mamdani brought a list of detained students to the White House. People have been detained by ICE, including one Columbia student. And basically asked the President to consider releasing them. He gave it to the President. He gave it to Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff.
And not long after Mamdani left this meeting, I was told, Trump called him, and at least one of those students, who is initially from Azerbaijan, was released by ICE. She'd been being held in her dorm.
JONES: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, so there may be some progressives who don't like his approach here. But it's working, at least in that regard.
JONES: Hey, look, man, freeing the captives. I mean, this is all -- look, if you don't like this, I don't -- go see a heart doctor. It shouldn't -- there should not be so many people locked up by ICE, and you shouldn't take a special invitation with the President to get something done. But he got something done. He got something done. There's somebody who's home.
Look, every now and again, something good happens in America. So, when the most left-wing Mayor can go sit down with our very right-wing President, free some captives, get some housing going. Every now and again, you just have to take a yes for an answer from the Good Lord above. Today's a good day, at least along those axis. There's 20 other things I'm not happy about, but I'm happy about this.
DENT: Yes.
COLLINS: Charlie Dent, I do think there's a question of, you know, people might look at, Well, look what happens to Minnesota. Just yesterday, they were freezing Medicaid and Medicare funding amid investigations over fraud there.
JONES: Terrible.
COLLINS: We've seen how certain mayors have approached this. But they may say, Well, I don't have the luxury of approaching it in that way, because I've got 3,000 federal ICE agents in my city. I mean, I do think that's a question of what the lessons are to come out of this.
DENT: Yes, and no question about that, that yes, if you're the Mayor of Minneapolis, for example, you have a completely different set of issues to deal with the President than, in this case, Mayor of New York. But just remember, mayors must be ruthlessly pragmatic. I mean, luckily for them, most of the time, they don't have to deal with some of the most contentious federal issues that we dealt with in Congress. They can focus on things that matter to their constituents. Delivery of services, property protection and make sure the fire department, police department are funded, the garbage is getting picked up, all the things that people really care about at the local level.
And so, mayors have that -- well, I guess it's a luxury. They can be focused on those issues, and avoid dealing with these very contentious issues that we all talk about on the shows at night, and what they talk about in Washington every day, where they -- in Washington, where they really don't get a whole lot done.
But at that local level, these guys have to get things done. They have to deliver. And so, that's why it's in Mamdani's interest to be so pragmatic and to be frankly, carrying on the way he is with Trump. And as I said, so far, he's been pretty successful.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, David--
AXELROD: The thing about -- the thing--
COLLINS: Go ahead.
AXELROD: The thing about that -- the thing about that, Charlie, is that everybody, those who feared Mamdani, predicted that he would govern in a very ideological way, that he would not be pragmatic. And he's defying those expectations.
DENT: Right.
AXELROD: He's really focused on the day-to-day concerns of the city, and he's setting aside the impulse to fight. And I think it reflects the kind of pragmatic campaign that he ran. It's the reason that he's mayor. I just don't think the rest of the country was paying attention.
DENT: Yes.
COLLINS: Yes, but David Axelrod, for all the Republicans who tried to say Zohran Mamdani is ruining New York City already. He's doing all these things. All of their -- they were going to make him the face of the Democratic Party ahead of the midterms. I mean, that makes it harder when there's a photo of him, with President Trump, and who -- he is grinning from ear to ear in that picture. Does it not?
AXELROD: Well, yes, it does. And you saw in the State of the Union, he brought up Mamdani, and he said, I kind of like that guy.
COLLINS: Yes.
AXELROD: That was not one of his applause lines, OK? You did not hear the Republicans cheering that, because he was going to be a device for them in the midterm elections. Well, it's harder when the President is embracing him and working with him on some issues. It's really such an interesting story.
COLLINS: Yes, always be prepared to be surprised.
I want all of you all to be prepared to stick around. We have another race to talk about. That's because the President is headed to Texas tomorrow. There is a pretty ugly Republican Senate primary fight that's playing out there. We've been talking about the Democrats here. We'll talk about them as well as what's going on with the GOP, as they're all going to be with President Trump tomorrow, with no endorsement.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It is getting downright ugly, in the Texas Senate Republican primary. That's because ahead of Tuesday's election, the incumbent Senator John Cornyn released this scavenging ad against one of his opponents in this race. That's Ken Paxton, who is the State's Attorney General.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): It's voting time. So let's cut through the bull (bleep). Crooked Ken Paxton cheated on his wife. She's divorcing him on biblical grounds. So now, Paxton's wrecking another home, sleeping around with a married mother of seven.
Paxton gave millions of Texas tax dollars to left-wing organizations, including the Montrose Center that hosts drag queen shows and performs gender-affirming services to kids as young as 7.
[21:35:00]
Now think of the Paxton dirty deeds we don't know about, yet.
The wife cheater and fraud? Or the Texas workhorse?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Can you tell they don't like each other?
I should note, we have not independently verified any of the claims that you just saw there being leveled at Ken Paxton by Cornyn's campaign.
Paxton himself did respond, saying, When you have no record to run on, you run the campaign that he's running. He says, The difference between us and our campaigns could not be any more stark. I'm running because I love my family, my state, my country, and I think they deserve a far better Senator than John Cornyn.
Now, this comes as President Trump is involved in this, but not too involved. He has not endorsed. He is going to Texas tomorrow, and he's got all the Republicans that you just see here going with him.
Joining me tonight is CNN's Chief Data Analyst, Harry Enten.
And Harry, I think, I mean -- I know. That was brutal.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, there's a lot of ugly ads out there. That one, I think, is one for the books.
Can you just tell us, though, what do the numbers say about where this race stands.
ENTEN: Yes, if you ever run an ad like that against me, Kaitlan Collins, we are no longer friends.
COLLINS: I never would.
ENTEN: Thank you. Thank you.
Look, there's a reason why the incumbent Senator is running that type of ad, and that is because he is running scared. He's running scared because just take a look, right now, at the choice for Texas senate GOP nominee. Look who's out and ahead. Look who's out and ahead. It's within the margin of error, but it's Ken Paxton. The incumbent John Cornyn is actually trailing at 34 percent. Wesley Hunt in the race as well, 26 percent.
Now, I should note, in Texas, you need 50 percent plus one, in order to win the primary. And right now, nobody is close to a majority of the vote. That means that two top vote-getters would advance to a runoff later this year. And at this point, that seems more likely than not.
Of course, you want to be the ultimate top vote-getter. And at this point, to me, it looks like Ken Paxton. Looking at some other data as well, it seems to confirm that Ken Paxton is the frontrunner, as well as the fact that you look at that ad, it seems to me that John Cornyn thinks that Ken Paxton is the frontrunner.
And this, of course, worries not just John Cornyn, but establishment Republicans as well. It worries Washington Republicans. Why is that? Because looking ahead to the general election, Texas has not elected a Democratic senator since 1988, when it was Lloyd Bentsen who won. In fact, he was the last non-incumbent to also win, and that was in 1970.
But look at the polling. Look at the polling right now. Choice for Texas Senate, Paxton versus the Dems, versus Jasmine Crockett. Look at this. Paxton is ahead, but only by two, well within the margin of error. How about Talarico? Again, Paxton ahead, but only by two, well within the margin of error.
The bottom line is this. Washington Republicans fear that Ken Paxton could be the nominee, because that could lead to a very competitive general election. And based on the polling data, they have a lot to be worried about, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes, and I've been talking to White House aides about this. They are all worried about those exact numbers. Because each of these candidates is saying, I'm better-suited to beat the Democrat in this race. The White House, I think, isn't really sure which of that is going to bear out. What does the early data say to us, though, about how Democrats are faring so far in Texas?
ENTEN: OK, this is not the only good news that Democrats are looking at this general election polling that suggests they could be quite competitive, regardless who their nominee is, wins the primary next Tuesday, if, in fact, they're able to win without a runoff.
But it's also the turnout right now in the primary. Hello, these are shocking numbers. Take a look here. Share of the Texas midterm primary ballots at this point pre-primary. You go back four years ago. There were a lot more people choosing the Republican ballot than the Democratic ballot. Look at that. 62 percent chose the Republican ballot, compared to just 38 percent who chose the Democratic ballot.
Now, in deep-red Texas, which has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate -- a Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter, all the way back in 1976, look at this. Democrats are actually out-voting Republicans in deep-red Texas, a state that Donald Trump won easily last time around by double digits, 53 percent to 47 percent.
And I went back through the history books, because I could not believe these numbers. Not just compared to four years ago at this point. But when was the last time that Democrats actually out-voted Republicans in a midterm primary? You have to go all the way back, since 2002. Since 2002, the beginning of this century. No other primary was even close to this.
So, when you put together the general election polling, with the primaries voting right now, you can see why Democrats are giving two thumbs up and Republicans are quite worried, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes, and that is why we'll be watching all this closely, this coming Tuesday, to see how this shakes out and whether there is a runoff.
Harry Enten, we will have you on Tuesday night to talk about these numbers.
I've also got my political sources back here with me.
[21:40:00]
I mean, Van Jones, when you look at this race and how this is playing out. We focused a lot on the Democratic primary that's happening in this race. But this Republican one is quite ugly. And I mean, it is safe to say Republicans are freaking out over this, because if they have to spend a ton of money on a runoff, that takes away from what they're spending in North Carolina or Georgia or Michigan.
JONES: Look, I mean, all of this could be resolved if Donald Trump would just say he wants Cornyn. That would be the normal thing to do. But Trump won't do it, because Cornyn hasn't kissed the ring enough. And so, you have a president that's willing to risk his Senate Majority, just playing pettiness with the incumbent.
And so, what it does for Democrats, it gives us a chance. These are two very talented politicians on either side. Both have a decent shot, which is surprising, because one is an African American female with as decent a shot, as this young white rising star. So, you can pick your flavor, you can get your chocolate, your vanilla, and still beat the Republicans.
And so, this is all Donald Trump's fault. He's just petty white (ph), petty whop, just petty, petty, petty, and it's going to cost him possibly.
COLLINS: I mean, Charlie Dent, how do you see this, I mean? And the White House seems to say we don't know really, who's going to come out here. And so if there's not a clear winner, Trump sometime is hesitant to endorse. They're all going to Texas, I believe, with him tomorrow to Corpus Christi. I mean, what do you -- what are you hearing from people about what you're seeing in Texas?
DENT: Well, first, let me say that that ad is about as subtle as a crow bar across the bridge of the nose, and I think it's actually pretty effective.
What Republicans want -- what Republicans want? They would like to have a Cornyn-Crockett matchup. That's what they would prefer. They would most definitely dread a matchup between Paxton and Talarico. I can tell you that right now, they do not want that.
These turnout numbers that Harry just laid out are really alarming to Republicans. There's been a turnout problem for Republicans, well, ever since -- well, since last year. We saw it in all those special elections, and most recently in Fort Worth. We just saw a deep-red seat just go to the Democrats by a big margin.
So bottom line is, Republicans, they're going to go into a runoff. They know that. They're going to -- they're going to waste millions of dollars on that. And the Democrats will already have their nominee, whether it be Crockett or Talarico.
And right now, it looks like Crockett has a slight edge. But I think Republicans would prefer to run against her, as opposed to Talarico. But if you get a Talarico-Paxton matchup, I think that would be a -- that could cost Republicans the state--
COLLINS: Yes.
DENT: --and, of course, the Senate.
COLLINS: David Axelrod, what do you -- what are you looking out here?
AXELROD: Well, look, I think that Charlie is right, that that is the -- that is the magic matchup, I think that Democrats see as well. Because Talarico is a guy who really is running on sort of character and on deep faith.
And Paxton is kind of a dumpster fire when it comes to sort of the character issues. I mean, that commercial was close enough. And just think about it. There'll be two months more of these, if he loses.
But I will point out that he has not spent -- he has spent a fraction of what John Cornyn has spent, and he's still ahead, because he speaks more faithfully to the MAGA base. Turning Point endorsed him.
He -- and the reason -- I mean, I hear what Van's saying. I don't know that it's all about pettiness. I think he also recognizes that Paxton has been one of his most faithful supporters, and he's worried about turning on him, and he probably has some concern that Paxton will win. So, we'll see what Trump does.
But I do think that, Texas has been fool's gold for Democrats for a long time. There's always this hope that Democrats can win.
COLLINS: Yes.
AXELROD: This is a year where they really may, if they get the right -- if they get the right matchup.
COLLINS: I mean, that's what has prompted the freakout from the Senate Republicans, is they're having to put so much energy, it seems like, into this, they feel like. I mean, that ad was not just from the Cornyn campaign, Van. It also came from the Senate Republicans' campaign wing as well, as they are obviously trying to keep John Cornyn here, but worried about what this could end up looking like on Tuesday.
JONES: Yes, look, I mean, they should be.
Look, I am proud of the Democratic Party in Texas. I agree with David. We prayed many a night and come home crying, because we just -- people put a lot of money into Texas, organizing money, ad money, and it usually comes up short. There is a chance for something to happen here. And I'm proud of both of these candidates. They are not turning on each other, the way these Republicans are.
DENT: Yes.
JONES: They don't seem to like each other very much, but they're not making that the cornerstone of their campaign. They have different approaches to how you fight. I think more fire from Jasmine Crockett. Talarico has a little more of a lighter touch. But they are conducting themselves in ways you can be proud of.
And the Republicans are not -- they're not turning to each other. They're turning on each other, and it's ridiculous.
[21:45:00]
But I think the President is -- the reality is the math is the math, the matchup. Everybody knows what the right matchup here is, and Trump won't do it for whatever reasons, but some of it just seems petty to me.
COLLINS: Well, we'll see what happens.
AXELROD: Hey, two things before we--
COLLINS: Go ahead, Axe.
AXELROD: --before we go -- before -- I know you have to run.
But what's interesting is both Cornyn and Paxton have spent money, attacking the third candidate, Wesley Hunt, because there's a fear on both parts that they could slide out of the runoff. So, that was job number one. And now they're going after each other.
The reason, Van, Democrats aren't going at each other like this is they don't have a treasure trove to use, like the Cornyn people do against Paxton.
COLLINS: Yes, that's true.
JONES: Well said, sir.
DENT: I mean--
COLLINS: That's a good point.
DENT: And remember, the party bases always prefer purity over victory.
COLLINS: Yes.
DENT: And that's what every strategist worries about.
COLLINS: Well, it's safe to say, it's going to be a little awkward--
AXELROD: Yes.
COLLINS: --in Corpus Christi, tomorrow, when they're all three there.
DENT: Yes.
COLLINS: David Axelrod. Van Jones. Charlie Dent. So great to have all three of you here tonight. Thank you for joining me.
JONES: Thank you.
DENT: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And up next. We do have some breaking news that hits here at home. On the long corporate tug-of-war that has been going on for CNN's parent company, that's Warner Bros. Discovery. Brian Stelter has his latest reporting, right after the break.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There's big entertainment and media news that is breaking tonight, as Paramount has emerged as the victor in the months-long battle for Warner Bros. Discovery, after Netflix has backed out of the bidding war. This means that Paramount is poised to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery's vast media empire, that includes movie studios, streaming platforms, and TV networks like CNN and HBO. That's because Netflix declined to outbid Paramount's latest offer, shortly after WBD and the Board determined that Paramount's bid was what they describe as a quote, Superior offer.
CNN's Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter, is here to break it all down with me.
Brian, can you just kind of walk us through what happened? Because obviously there's been a lot of incremental developments here. What happened today and what comes next?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: A lot of people are really surprised today. There is an element of whiplash.
But there is some logic behind this series of events. Because it was not until the last week or so, that Paramount made an offer that the WBD board took very seriously and believed was superior. Paramount did not just raise the price from $30 per share to $31 per share, it also offered another -- a number of other sweeteners to make the deal more attractive, and that was critical for the Warner Bros. Discovery board.
Furthermore, for Netflix, it was becoming more and more apparent that the regulatory environment was difficult, and frankly, Netflix concluded that Paramount was going to overpay for these assets.
Now, it all came to a head this afternoon, coincidentally or not, at a time when Netflix's Co-CEO was in Washington. He had meetings at the Justice Department in the morning, and then he headed to the White House. And by the time he was walking into the White House, it was evident, according to my sources, that Netflix was leaning away from this deal, was thinking about withdrawing, was thinking about not countering Paramount's bid.
But look at the photos of Sarandos, when he leaves the White House. He does not look like the happiest camper. We do not know what happened inside these meetings. Netflix is not commenting.
Netflix does say that it thought it would be able to get the deal approved through the regulatory review system, but has decided to walk away for financial reasons. So, that's the word from Netflix.
But here's what Senator Elizabeth Warren said on X, this evening. She said, What did Trump officials tell the Netflix CEO today at the White House? She said, this Looks like crony capitalism with the President corrupting the merger process in favor of the billionaire Ellison family.
And CNN viewers might recall that back in December, President Trump said very vocally he believed it was imperative for CNN to be sold as a part of this deal. And now, Paramount has emerged victorious. And unless there's some other surprise coming, Paramount is likely to take control of CNN and the rest of WBD, although not at least for a period of months.
COLLINS: Yes, and I should note, you talked about everyone being in Washington this week. The Paramount CEO, David Ellison, was also here. We saw him at the State of the Union, on Tuesday night. He was Senator Lindsey Graham's guest, I believe. What do we know about how that could be a factor here?
STELTER: That's right. Paramount is led by David Ellison, backed by his father, Larry, one of the richest men in the world, and a Trump ally.
The regulatory process, though, will take months at a minimum. CNN will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. But in the future, Paramount will likely try to bring CNN and CBS News together. After all, CBS News and CNN, they have explored mergers in the past. And now, that is closer to happening as a result of this deal.
Changes to CBS News have drawn a lot of unflattering attention in recent months. New CBS News Editor-in-Chief, Bari Weiss, has privately admitted to some early missteps, but she rejects the common liberal charge that she's moving the newsroom to the right. She says she's trying to appeal to the big, wide middle of America, the 70 percent or so of people who are on the center-left and the center-right. That's the kind of strategy that sounds a lot like CNN's.
COLLINS: Brian Stelter, thank you for always bringing us your latest reporting.
Up next here for us on THE SOURCE. It has been nearly a month after her mother disappeared. We have new reporting on Savannah Guthrie, and whether or not she returns to -- plans to return to the TODAY Show and when.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight as the search for Nancy Guthrie is getting close to the one-month mark with still no promising development. We are hearing from sources telling CNN, her daughter, Savannah, does plan to return to anchoring the TODAY Show at some point. Now, when that might happen is obviously highly uncertain. It's completely up to Guthrie. That's according to what an NBC source told my colleague, Brian Stelter. We are told, her TODAY Show family plans to welcome her back with open arms on her timeline.
[22:00:00]
This comes as in Arizona, the authorities are still on the lookout for any credible leads related to the masked suspect who was seen at her door. If you have any information that you think might be helpful, please contact the Pima County, Arizona Sheriff's Office. You can do so at 520-351-4900. Or just call the FBI, 1-800-CALL-FBI.
Thanks for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
