Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
NY Times: Iran Rejects U.S. Ceasefire Proposal; House Introduces AI "Kill Switch" Bill After OpenAI Incident; Report: Chilling Details Of Nancy Guthrie Ransom Notes Revealed. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 23, 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]
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: --they have already laid out a very aggressive timeline. The plan will be to work 20 hours a day, two shifts with 10 hour each on those shift, seven days a week, 20-hour workdays year-round to get this done before the President leaves office.
John.
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Fascinating piece, Sunlen. Kudos to the graphics team. And thank you very much.
In this quick programming note, after being derailed in April by a gunman, the White House Correspondents' Dinner back on tomorrow night. Join host John Berman and Laura Coates for CNN's special coverage. That's Friday night, 08:00 p.m. Eastern, here on CNN, or you can stream it on the CNN app.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: U.S. and Iran trade escalating threats as a new report says Iran rejected a ceasefire proposal from President Trump.
I'm Jim Sciutto, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We begin with the breaking news, as The New York Times is reporting that Iran rejected a ceasefire proposal from President Trump. According to The Times, it was the Iraqi Prime Minister who personally carried the offer directly to the Iranians in Tehran.
It comes, as U.S. forces are bombarding Iranian targets for a 13th straight night, and once again runs counter to the President's description of the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We're doing very well against the Islamic Republic of Iran. We're doing extremely well. They would like to do something, but I say they're not ready yet. They need more of the same.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: More of the same, which is not the same thing he's been saying repeatedly for months now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We've won, let me tell you, we've won.
I mean, I view it as very close to over.
We are likewise winning big in Iran.
We have many ways we can win, but we've already won militarily.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: In fact, sources say even the President's own experts have concluded more of the same is unlikely to shift Iran's negotiating position in any significant way.
According to two U.S. officials familiar with those intelligence assessments, both the CIA, and Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, recently determined that the kind of bombing campaign will not be enough to bring an end to the war, which has gone on far longer than the President boldly promised when it began.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.
REPORTER: Are you thinking this week it will be over?
TRUMP: No, but soon.
REPORTER: Are you talking about days?
TRUMP: I think soon.
REPORTER: OK, and -- and with respect to--
TRUMP: Very soon. Look.
And I don't think it's going to be long.
PETER DOOCY, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Can we wrap this war up this week?
TRUMP: Yes, sure, yes.
REPORTER: Will we?
TRUMP: I don't think so, but it'll be soon. Won't be long.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It would take approximately four to six weeks to achieve this critical mission. TRUMP: So, we estimate it would take approximately four to six weeks to achieve our mission. 26 days in, we're extremely, really a lot ahead of schedule.
LEAVITT: Four to six weeks estimated timeline for Operation Epic Fury.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You know, he's said four to six weeks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Here we are months later, and instead the war appears headed toward yet another escalation, driving oil prices back above $100 a barrel for the first time in two months.
As President Trump tells our colleague, Barak Ravid of Axios, that he is, quote, "Considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it." End quote.
All set for the biggest attack yet. But is the U.S. public all set? Polling overwhelmingly shows otherwise.
As the Secretary of State laid out an ominous new Trump doctrine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The President's policy is a head for an eye. I mean, honestly, that's what it's going to be. I mean, they will pay a very heavy price for the things they do. They're already paying a very heavy price.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: A head for an eye instead of an eye for an eye.
My lead sources are:
CNN Global Affairs Analyst, and former Middle East and North Africa Coordinator for the National Security Council, Brett McGurk.
As well as CNN National Security Analyst, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
Good to have you both here.
So, you read The Times story here. The Iraqi leader goes directly to Iran, delivering a peace proposal -- ceasefire proposal from the President. Iran says no. Brett McGurk, does that indicate to you that Iranians, in fact, are in no rush to reach a ceasefire and don't feel this enormous military pressure?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, FMR. MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA COORDINATOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: You know, Jim, I come back -- I mean, given everything going on, I think we have to -- we have -- we have Americans -- we're at war. We have Americans over Iran tonight, men and women in combat. It's extremely serious. I'm sure there are channels open. The Iraqis -- the Iraqis tend to try to be a mediator with the Iranians, not always the most effective.
[21:05:00]
I don't see -- I don't see an off-ramp here, and I think -- I mean, Beth and I were talking. If we were in the Situation Room and Beth was from the intelligence community, I was on the policy side. I said, What are we trying to achieve? What's the objective? And then what are -- what tools do we have? What are the ends, ways, and means?
The objective here, I'm sure, was in that offer, was delivered, is to have the Strait of Hormuz, have ships be able to go across the Strait of Hormuz. If that happens, I think this all dies down. And so, then you have to think: What are all of our tools, military, economic, diplomatic, with allies, to try to put pressure for that objective? That is the objective. Be clear on the objective we're trying to achieve. Right now, this seems to just be a spreading--
SCIUTTO: Right.
MCGURK: --cascading crisis.
SCIUTTO: And the trouble is, you arguably have another pressure point that's been opened up in the last 24 hours, which is the--
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Right.
SCIUTTO: --Houthis in Yemen attacking shipping in the Red Sea--
SANNER: Exactly.
SCIUTTO: --which some analysts have described as sort of a sum of all fears scenario when it comes to oil markets.
SANNER: Yes, exactly. And I think that this is, you know, we're trying to fix this Strait as step one, and you know, we can't forget we're actually trying to get to step two on a nuclear agreement, and it is getting out of hand.
And so, the real question to ask is, is doing more of the same, is doing a bombing that's bigger than ever before? This is not for free. So, you have to weigh. If I was sitting in the Sit Room, I would be asked, Will the Iranians come to the table? Is that what we want? You know? But I don't even know if that's what we want. Are we trying to kill them? Are we trying to get them to the table? Are we trying to get them to capitulate -- I have no idea.
And so, I think that the idea that this is going to have Iran capitulate is like very low, but it is not cost-free.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Yes.
SANNER: The Gulf States are absorbing an enormous amount of damage. And damage with our relationships. They have nowhere else to go but us, right? So, that's sustaining. But at the same time, U.S. service people being killed, right? SCIUTTO: Yes.
SANNER: And the state of our military. We have already expended more than half of our air defenses. Where is all this coming from?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
SANNER: More than half of our Tomahawk precision weapons. I'm worried that we are making a strategic error by doing this without understanding the trade-offs.
SCIUTTO: Well, one place where they're coming from, right, is other theaters of operation, including Asia, right?
SANNER: Yes.
SCIUTTO: And certainly Europe.
I just wonder. You mentioned soldiers in harm's way. There are more soldiers in harm's way tonight. Not only the ones flying over Iran, but the U.S. has been sending more forces, more aircraft, more heavy bombers, more refuelers into the region.
We've already seen that Iran can strike and kill U.S. forces. We saw that in Jordan, we saw it in Kuwait in the early days of the war. The concern is that Russia and China are giving them help to do so on targeting.
As you put more forces into the region, particularly as you consider ground troops, should people watching here tonight at least be concerned that the risk to losing U.S. forces is growing?
MCGURK: Again, first and foremost, on all of our minds should be those men and women. Absolutely.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MCGURK: And I've said to presidents before -- your lead-in here of all the timelines and time predictions. Once you get into something like this, throw out the calendar because it is events that will dictate what's going to take.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MCGURK: So, timelines -- we're in this now, Jim. I hope there can be an off-ramp tomorrow, or there can be some deal. I mean, look, we offered the Iranians a huge deal: sanctions waivers, banking waivers, or selling their oil, to have the Strait of Hormuz open. They then targeted two ships, and now this whole thing kicked off again. So, I would try to focus on that. That's the near-term objective: get the Strait open.
And then, how do you -- I'm struck, and I've said this before with you on air, Jim. We have no allies with us. I don't see--
SCIUTTO: Yes. MCGURK: --I don't see the international demand on Iran, Hey, let's get this Strait open, and let's calm this down.
It's just the U.S. and Iran in a tit for tat that plays to Iran's asymmetrical advantage.
So again, we got a lot of force moving to the region. What is the objective? What are we trying to achieve? It's all very unclear.
SCIUTTO: You have this Saudi agreement announced yesterday with great fanfare. And then the President pulled back today and attached what appears to be a new condition that for this nuclear deal to go through, Saudi Arabia has to do what the Biden administration had demanded prior, which -- and you were very directly involved in that, Brett McGurk -- which is to normalize relations, and their price for that is for a path to a Palestinian state.
Do you see some confusion here in the initial announcement? Or is the more plausible scenario that the President got pushback from The Wall Street Journal editorial board, from Israel and others, and said, Actually, this -- maybe this wasn't a great deal.
SANNER: This is very hard to know, and I won't say I don't know. But I think there's one thing the President really prides himself on being unpredictable.
It's one thing to be unpredictable for an adversary, which is also dangerous, by the way. But it's another thing to be completely unorganized and unpredictable with people who are your partners and allies, whom you need on your side.
[21:10:00]
The whole thing that this was supposed to accomplish, it's supposed to be settling this kind of -- our relationship a little bit rocky with the Saudis. We were kind of trying to put it all back together again to reinforce the U.S. position in the Middle East. And by doing this kind of reversal, again, we look like we are unreliable partners and allies. That's bad. So, maybe a little bit more on the polling and the checking on what is going to happen before you do it might be a good idea.
MCGURK: Just to pick up on that, this deal -- this deal is about China, OK? Because Saudi -- I've dealt with this issue as you just mentioned. Saudi really wants a civil nuclear program; they're moving in that direction. China shows up and offers basically everything. Obviously, we want this to be controlled in our orbit. That's what this is about.
And one argument I know Beijing makes with these countries in the Gulf and elsewhere is that, We're a reliable, dependable partner. You can trust us for the long-term.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MCGURK: So, to Beth's point, rolling out something like this, it should be all the -- all the ducks should be in a row. And clearly, the ducks here were not in a row.
SANNER: Right.
MCGURK: And the top duck, the President, just went off track today and said, This is actually about Israel normalization, which is what it was about in the Biden administration. Right? Not--
SANNER: When it was possible.
MCGURK: But it was signed yesterday--
SCIUTTO: Well and that -- that--
MCGURK: --put it out there.
SCIUTTO: --that unreliability, unpredictability is something I hear from officials, allies in Europe, in Asia, and elsewhere, and they don't -- they don't call it an advantage; they call it a disadvantage or a weakness.
SANNER: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Beth. Brett. Thanks so much.
I do want to turn now to CNN Senior Political and Global Affairs Commentator, Ambassador Rahm Emanuel.
Good to have you on, sir. Thanks so much for taking the time.
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN: Hey, Jim. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So, on that Saudi deal, do you see a throughline between adding conditions to the deal with the Saudis, reimposing tariffs, even as the President claims countless trade deals, even when we were told a final Iran deal was done--
EMANUEL: Yes.
SCIUTTO: --even when we were told that he could get a deal to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours. I mean, is there a consistent pattern here?
EMANUEL: Look, announcing a nuclear deal is not just a one-day PR stunt. This has to be really thought through, as just noted earlier by Beth. Look, it was part of a package, more the carrot, not the stick, for a Saudi-Israel recognition and peace agreement and diplomatic relation.
Post October 7th, Saudi Arabia is not going to do a one-off. They have to be part of something larger, which is why I called for a 23-state solution. The Saudis were the principal backers of the Arab League's proposal. They would have the comfort of numbers. And Israel would also have the comfort numbers, but from a whole different perspective, all 20-one members of the Arab League would diplomatically recognize them.
I do think there's a step back because the two conversations you were having are kind of connected, and there's two things that are happening in the region that I think are relevant, or three.
One, Iran has lost their proxies. They've lost them in Syria, gone. The Hezbollah is being squeezed. Hamas is no longer. The militias in Iraq are definitely coming into the government, some are standing out, but it's not the player it was before. So, they're using the Strait of Hormuz that was basically always open, it's now become their nuclear option because their nuclear uranium is underneath.
The second thing is Iran's goal all the time has been, for 47 years since 1979 Revolution, is get America out of the Gulf, they can get the Persian Empire back. So, they are pressuring Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, with these weapons and the bombings to force them to realize the price of America's presence is too expensive.
SCIUTTO: Right.
EMANUEL: Now, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt are trying to basically form a different type of relation, and then UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait are aligning with the United States and Israel.
So, there's sands moving in the Gulf countries, and I think this deal with the Saudis was an attempt to get your arm around them and pull them so close they can't move, when they were actually starting to hedge against the United States.
SCIUTTO: But let me ask you just big picture in that light. Do those partners--
EMANUEL: I thought I was doing that.
SCIUTTO: Well, but even bigger picture.
EMANUEL: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Do those partners and the adversaries--
EMANUEL: Yes, OK.
SCIUTTO: --do they, to Beth and Brett's point, do they see the U.S. as a reliable partner or adversary in the region, or do they see a U.S. President that's reactive, that changes his mind on a major deal with ally, Saudi Arabia, from one day to the next, that promises progress on Iran and the MOU effectively falls apart? I mean, do they -- do they see strength--
EMANUEL: Well, yes -- no well -- yes,
SCIUTTO: --or do they see just sort of immutability (ph)?
EMANUEL: Jim, look, the President, I mean, the erratic behavior just on the Saudi deal for him -- within less than 24 hours is a sign.
[21:15:00]
While the America and its military presence, its economic power, its diplomatic power, all those assets, is a force of nature in the Gulf and in the Middle East, his behavior diminishes each of those pieces, and they're seeing it play out in the war with Iran. And they're seeing a President of the United States -- the more -- take an example. You said a wider picture? The more energy, more resources are sucking in.
Ever since that happened, China is playing hardball with our long pole in Asia, Japan. They just fired a missile near Australia. They had a conflict -- not a kinetic conflict, but one with the Philippines, and we're nowhere to be present, and one with Vietnam and the South China Sea, and that's I'm just doing it by memory, and we are nowhere to be seen.
And if China can do what they're doing to Japan, which is the long pole of America's policy in the Indo-Pacific, every other ally is looking there and goes, There, for the grace of God, goes I.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
EMANUEL: And this is becoming a major problem for America's standing around the world.
And the President's erratic behavior, you can kind of slough it off once, twice. This is a nuclear agreement, and you switch in 24 hours, and each day you're doing something different in the war, sending these type of signals?
And I think America has tremendous resources. The President of the United States, as I think Iran's doing--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
EMANUEL: --he wrote the book, "The Art of the Deal." They're teaching him the art of the negotiation, and he's getting schooled right now.
SCIUTTO: I do want to ask about domestic politics because you have an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal, headlined, The 'Bernie Bros' Could Spoil Democrats' Midterms.
EMANUEL: Yes.
SCIUTTO: It's a strong piece, and you make the point that -- you make the argument that Democrats are repeating mistakes they made in the past, even going back to 2000, and you say, for instance, the Democratic Socialists of America are resurrecting ideas that have already failed, defund the police, et cetera.
EMANUEL: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Tell us--
EMANUEL: Yes.
SCIUTTO: --is someone pushing back against this?
EMANUEL: So, look -- well, Jim, here's how I look at it. This year, you have a war that's very unpopular. 2006, you had the Iraq War, very unpopular. To -- this time, you have massive amount of corruption around the President, and his family, and the Republican Congress is sitting silent like the three monkeys, See no evil, Speak no evil, Hear no evil. Then you had time delay, you had the Iraq War, all the contracts. It is set up to being prosecuted as a referendum on Donald Trump and the Republicans. Perfect set.
I just came back from Omaha. It's just a microcosm of an example. We have a fabulous candidate, Denise Powell. They're calling her DSA Denise--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
EMANUEL: --making her -- trying to distance herself from the New York 13. You know, what happens in New York 13 doesn't stay there. And her opponent just voted against the minimum wage. 70 percent of the people in Omaha on a referendum voted in favor of minimum wage. Now, are we going to prosecute this against on the minimum wage and against his desire to be a lapdog for Donald Trump?
SCIUTTO: Right.
EMANUEL: Or is she going to have to spend precious resources distancing herself from somebody she never met, and a set of policies, from defunding the police, open borders, and letting criminals out of prisons?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
EMANUEL: That is what the DSA stands for.
And so, to me, this is malpractice.
Now, you have a perfect case. This should show up as a referendum on Donald Trump and the corruption. And the only thing they have is not what they have; it's what we're giving them, and this is a distraction.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
EMANUEL: And when you recruit candidates like Denise Powell, who's excellent, candidates like Rebecca down in New Jersey against Tom Kean Jr., and you have other military candidates that are perfectly set to win Independent voters to the Democratic column, which is how you flip red to blue.
SCIUTTO: Right.
EMANUEL: I'm not interested blue to blue.
SCIUTTO: I hear you.
EMANUEL: Red to blue? My new color, Jim? Navy blue. That's all that counts.
SCIUTTO: I get it. And listen, of course, Republicans are running with it, not just calling the socialists, socialists, but talking about the threat of communism again. I mean, it feels like we're back in 1950--
(CROSSTALK)
EMANUEL: But you -- but you don't give them -- you don't give--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
EMANUEL: --you don't give them a stick to beat you. That's not the goal. The goal is to hit them on what their weakness is. That's how campaigns are won.
SCIUTTO: Point taken.
Rahm Emanuel, thanks so much.
EMANUEL: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Coming up next. Congress unveils an AI kill switch bill. It comes after an unprecedented hack, where an AI model escaped a controlled test environment by itself. My cybersecurity source joins me next. Fascinating conversation.
And chilling details from the first Nancy Guthrie ransom note have now been revealed.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Tonight, an AI kill switch bill has just been unveiled on Capitol Hill, days after an OpenAI model went alarmingly rogue.
The bipartisan bill, by Democrat Ted Lieu of California and Republican Nathaniel Moran of Texas, would give DHS the authority to shut down AI systems that could cause catastrophic harm.
According to the bill, some events that could trigger the government kill switch include Conduct of such technology that is unintended by a developer or operator of such technology and causes the death of not fewer than 10 individuals or economic damages of not less than $100,000,000.
Lieu says the dangers of artificial intelligence are no longer hypothetical, and points to that unprecedented OpenAI breach, where the company says its models escaped a controlled test environment, by itself, got into the internet, and hacked into the production servers of another tech company.
My technology source tonight is Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, also known as JAGS. He's a Senior Technical Fellow and Vice President of Intelligence and Security Research at SentinelOne.
Good to have you, JAGS. Thanks for joining.
JUAN ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE, VP OF INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY RESEARCH, SENTINELONE: Hey, Jim. Thank you for having me.
SCIUTTO: So first, you talk about how these systems are designed to autonomously attack problems, right, solve problems.
[21:25:00]
I suppose the question is: Is there something inherent in those models that allows them to autonomously do bad stuff as well as we saw here: hack into other systems, go rogue, in effect, ignore the guidance of their developers.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: These systems are tools, at the end of the day, and frankly, they're fairly exciting tools. So, something that our research over at SentinelOne is showing is that the new frontier models, things like Mythos and GPT-5.6 Sol, are actually able to perform autonomously in these incredibly complex tasks, right? They can just sort of run for days on end, trying to accomplish really interesting goals. And for us, it's an incredibly exciting thing.
But there's a lot of fearmongering and concern around what that entails for security that I think just needs better grounding in the reality of how cybersecurity works.
SCIUTTO: But let me press you a bit. Because I've heard Sam Altman talk about, about the hopes, at the positive end of the scale, right? That these things can cure cancer or develop new treatments for diseases that we haven't in the past.
But you also are aware of the more alarming scenarios that, that when a model like this goes rogue, that it could do something damaging, like develop a bioweapon. And I get why those negative scenarios can seem like outliers, but we did just have a model here do something it wasn't intended to do.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: Well, actually, I'll push back on that. I don't think that we saw the model do anything that it wasn't supposed to do. It's actually really important to understand the scenario that just took place, precisely because there's a regulatory capture game that's being played by certain organizations and all this, that's really murky in the water.
What this system essentially was supposed to do was pressure test this environment.
SCIUTTO: Right.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: It's something that we tend to refer to as like reward hacking, right? You're supposed to break out, find a way to solve this complex problem.
And what we really have to understand about this sandbox environment is the model did not make it vulnerable. The vulnerability was already there, just latent, waiting to be collected on. If anything, what it's doing is pressure testing these systems and letting us know that this thing that we rely on all the time to control AI runs had a vulnerability in it that we needed to fix.
SCIUTTO: Right, and I get that. I know that this has a long history in cyber, right, and that you get black hats, right, to kind of like probe for holes in the system so that you could fix those holes in the system.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: Right.
SCIUTTO: Another thing you've identified though is that to solve this problem, they had to resort to a Chinese system to do so. Can you explain the significance of that and why that worries you?
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: I think that's the truly worrisome thing about this whole disclosure. It's that when being attacked at something like 17,000 events and all these -- this really difficult thing to analyze, the team over at Hugging Face couldn't resort to the cutting-edge American models that we're all so excited about.
Because of these essentially misaligned guardrails, they had to load up GLM-5.2, which is a Chinese open-weight model, and thankfully they have the infrastructure to do so because they're the kind of company that provides those sorts of services.
But if it weren't the case, then they would have had to turn to a Chinese provider who could provide it for cheaper.
SCIUTTO: Right.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: And it's baffling to consider that we're placing all of this friction on the defenders, while attackers are essentially getting to enjoy this technology to the best of its abilities.
SCIUTTO: Before--
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: To the extent that cybersecurity is a sort of economics of friction--
SCIUTTO: Right.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: --we are completely misaligned here.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, just quickly, is a kill switch as proposed in this legislation, is that a fix in your view?
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: I think that it might sound like a solution to the problem that's being described to legislators, but it in no way addresses the thing that we're actually dealing with in cybersecurity.
SCIUTTO: Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, JAGS, thanks so much for joining.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Coming up next. The White House says the President's patience is running out with John Thune. While the Senate Majority Leader fired back with a suggestion. My political sources are here next.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mike Johnson and Congress have done a great job. But we're having a hard time in the Senate. The Senate, what they're doing is just, it's just not right.
Everybody call John Thune at the Senate, he's the leader of the Republican Party, and tell him to get this stuff approved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: President Trump's frustration palpable in Georgia yesterday, aimed directly at the top Republican in the Senate, Leader John Thune.
Today, the White House leaned in to the President's disapproval of Thune for not getting Trump's election overhaul bill over the finish line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The President spoke about this directly yesterday. His patience is running out. He wants to see as much of the SAVE America passed as possible by the August recess.
The House did its job. The Senate needs to do its job too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
SCIUTTO: Leader Thune, however, has been gently reminding the White House for months that the bill simply does not have the votes in the Senate to pass.
But today, his patience seem to be running out too. He fired back, telling our team on the Hill, quote, Maybe Karoline Leavitt or somebody else ought to get on the phone and get the votes, right? ... instead of pointing the finger at Republicans, they might think about going after the people who are stopping it on the floor, which is the Democrats. And if there are Republicans that they think are gettable, get on the phone. Let's get them to yes.
My top political sources are here now.
And Scott, if I could begin with you, does Thune have a point? I mean, you've done some vote counting in the Senate before.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS RADIO SHOW" ON SRN: Well, it's -- and the Senate is much different than the House, and the way the chamber works, the way the dynamics are, and the personalities at play here are different.
I mean, let's be honest: some of these Republicans in the Senate conference are simply ungovernable as it relates to the normal political pressure that President Trump can bring to bear.
And let's be clear: he could bring enormous pressure to bear on most Republicans. But a handful of these people are retiring or lost primaries, and they're on their way out. And some people just have a philosophical difference of opinion with him about the SAVE Act. Look, goodness knows I support the President's position. So do virtually all Republicans out there in the country. But some of these senators just have a difference of opinion.
And as Senator Thune knows, as the Leader, you know, there -- you don't run for the Senate to be ordered around by a President or a Senate Majority Leader or anybody else.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JENNINGS: You run for the Senate to be your own man, and some of those people are doing that.
SCIUTTO: Yes, and particularly ones who were already targeted by the President and flung out of the -- flung off the island.
But Kristen, it's interesting to see Thune push back in more pronounced terms than perhaps we're used to. Is there something to that?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST & POLLSTER: Well, I think it's interesting when you say, We're used to. Because in some ways it does feel like Congress, over the last not just two years, but over the last many, many, many, many years, has kind of ceded authority to the executive under both parties.
SCIUTTO: Does that seem that way?
SOLTIS ANDERSON: It does seem that way. And so, I don't necessarily mind somebody who's the leader of a chamber--
SCIUTTO: Yes. Sure.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: --sort of standing up and saying, I've got to run my business, I've got to do my thing.
I think it's important for him, for the politics of the Republican side, to make clear that he's on sides with the President on the substance because it is a very popular piece of legislation with Republican voters. But at the same time, also make the case, This is why it's so important for me to have a robust Republican majority in the Senate.
There have been some things that the President has done this year that have potentially jeopardized that. For instance, endorsing against incumbent Senator John Cornyn-- SCIUTTO: Yes.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: --a vote I am certain that the White House would quite like right now. So, there are ways to be smart about the politics, to do politics of addition rather than subtraction.
SCIUTTO: Right.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER TO HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: But--
JENNINGS: I will just add one, just quick thing, Karen. Sorry.
FINNEY: Yes.
JENNINGS: I think for Trump, this has been such a signature issue for him. And going into a midterm, the concern is your base doesn't turn out in a midterm.
He can't give up on this. This is a highly motivating issue for the Republican base. They want to see him and anyone else willing to fight as hard as possible. They may fight and come up short, but to ever give up the fight would be a signal to them that there's no reason for you to turn out for this party. The President cannot afford to do that, and because he feels so strongly about it, he has every right to fight for it.
FINNEY: But he -- it feels like he feel -- there's a level of desperation. The closer we get to the election, I mean, he keeps going further and further down in the polls. He thought redistricting was going to be a way to quote-unquote, find the votes to be able to hold on to some kind of majority.
And the truth of it is, you know, look, in 2021, we were having a conversation about voter ID, and you had legislation that Joe Manchin, Stacey Abrams, you know, Clyburn, Barack Obama, people agreed on, and Republicans weren't -- didn't agree. And so, it's not just about voter ID, which is very popular, and I think Democrats have accepted that there will be a time for voter ID. It is the provisions that shift power from the states to the federal government in terms of the voter roll.
And the administration has been losing in the courts on this issue.
SCIUTTO: Right.
FINNEY: And it's Republican and Democratic states who have been resisting that.
SCIUTTO: So, let's look at some of the data that the Republicans -- DHS are using to justify this, and this is about allegations of what they claim to be widespread incidents of non-citizens voting, or at least on voter rolls.
So, the DHS released data alleges 1,600 potential non-citizens found in North Carolina, 2,500 in Georgia. We should note that that would account for a 0.02 percent of North Carolina's electorate, as you see there, 0.0343 percent of Georgia's. And if you look at folks who actually voted, for instance, in Georgia, it was 20 of those potential non-citizens ever actually cast a ballot, and there are too many zeros there for me to count.
[21:40:00]
I mean, the question is, you're using, Kristen, as you know, a broader allegation from the President that, All these elections are fixed and rigged against me. Only the ones I lose, by the way, you know, mind you.
FINNEY: Right.
SCIUTTO: Is there a hole in that justification? And does that--
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Well--
SCIUTTO: --does that undermine the case?
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Well, but what I actually think has undermined the case is that for a long time you've also had Democrats who I think have, in many cases, foolishly said, There's no voter fraud happening.
SCIUTTO: Right.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: And the answer isn't none. You can say, It's very small, it's very limited, we take it very seriously.
FINNEY: Just said it's negligible.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: And I think that that would be a much more effective way--
FINNEY: We said the numbers are negligible. Not -- none.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: --to approach it. And unfortunately, it's given Republicans the opportunity to make this argument, and they go, See, look, here's a little bit.
SCIUTTO: Right.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: And even a little bit is bad if you think an election is going to be close.
Now, with the SAVE Act, the idea of federalizing our elections. The upsides are that there -- you know, when the President talks about threats from foreign actors who want to influence the way our elections work in this country, he's not wrong. We need tougher cybersecurity.
SCIUTTO: Well no question although the--
SOLTIS ANDERSON: But--
SCIUTTO: The President, as you know-- SOLTIS ANDERSON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: --dissolved the units that police that, and so.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Right, and there were also there were some benefits to it--
FINNEY: Well--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: --not being centralized at the federal level.
SCIUTTO: Right.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: So there's a trade-off of security--
FINNEY: But also, remember--
SOLTIS ANDERSON: --when you make it, where you shift what levels--
(CROSSTALK)
FINNEY: --the Help America Vote Act made it illegal to connect voting machines to the internet. So, when -- I mean, when he conflates some of these conversations, it is sort of creating sort of some fearmongering around the difference between kind of conflating impact and actual influence. It's the impact where we have not seen real evidence.
SCIUTTO: Right.
FINNEY: Do they try to influence our elections?
SCIUTTO: 100 percent.
FINNEY: So did he--
SCIUTTO: But not change votes in voting machines, which is--
FINNEY: Correct. And by the way, he has -- says things all the time about which leaders he would prefer to win. I mean, some could -- consider that is influencing a foreign election.
SCIUTTO: At the root of this, and I want you both to pipe in on this. Because, a Democratic argument is that this is not about policing fraud; it's about reducing the number of Democratic voters.
FINNEY: Making it harder--
SCIUTTO: Is that your--
(CROSSTALK)
FINNEY: Making it harder for people to vote.
SCIUTTO: Making it harder for particularly the--
(CROSSTALK)
FINNEY: And look, the more people vote, the better it is for Democrats. That's generally been our belief, which is why--
JENNINGS: I don't think that's -- I'm not sure that's true anymore.
FINNEY: Well, generally--
JENNINGS: Is it? I mean--
FINNEY: This is -- I mean, look, our belief is that more -- it's better if more people vote. Why not make Election Day a holiday, for example? That was in the For the People Act.
And one of the things about voter ID, as an example, that Democrats have concerns about is the cost. Who's going to bear the cost? Because for a lot of people, even a $100 fee to then get the right ID to then be--
SCIUTTO: Right.
FINNEY: --that says you can vote. Well, what if you're on a fixed income? That's a lot of money. So who's going to pay?
SCIUTTO: Quick response because I want to ask you about one more thing before we run out of time.
JENNINGS: Yes, I think the idea that we can't find a way to give people voter ID or IDs to do. I mean, you have to have an ID to do virtually anything in this country. We can give people IDs to vote. Everybody knows it's a good idea. The only people who don't really want to do it are Democratic leaders in Washington, and I think it's pretty obvious why. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, young, old, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, liberal, conservative, the polling is clear.
FINNEY: We haven't. We're ready to go in 2021 (ph).
JENNINGS: The polling is clear. So just--
FINNEY: McConnell rejected it.
JENNINGS: So just do it is what I would--
FINNEY: We had a--
(CROSSTALK)
SCIUTTO: OK. Speaking of McConnell, before we go, I want to play what Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said today about your former boss, Mitch McConnell, who we should note has not been on Capitol Hill in more than a month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): If he can't give us an update, he should resign. Absolutely.
We have a responsibility to the American people. We're seeing increasingly, these votes are being decided by a one- or two-vote margin. And if you're not capable of -- not only not capable of doing the job presently, but we need to know if you're capable of doing the job for the foreseeable future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Even you called for more transparency.
JENNINGS: Sure.
SCIUTTO: And you're aware, of course, of the Republican criticism of Joe Biden in the latter months of his presidency.
Should he resign?
JENNINGS: Well, only he can ultimately decide what's best for the people of Kentucky, and he answers to them, you know, not some ambitious Congresswoman from New York.
I mean, I think based on what I know, and I haven't spoken to him in the last couple of days, but he's continuing to convalesce and recover in the hospital. I think he's still there under doctors' orders. If I were in his shoes, I would offer intermittent updates to the people of Kentucky.
You know, there's been a history of medical absences on Capitol Hill. It's not terribly unprecedented. We've also had a history on Capitol Hill of political absences.
SCIUTTO: Right.
JENNINGS: She and a whole bunch of other people are, I assume, going fixing to go run for president, and they're not going to be around for much of any votes, so.
SCIUTTO: Given the age, we have a particular, it seems, supply of--
FINNEY: Yes.
SCIUTTO: --of health-related absences.
Just very quickly, your response before we go.
FINNEY: Well, look, I do think we need to rethink what accountability should look like to both to your voters in your state and, more broadly, if you are in elected office. Because obviously, it's become an issue in the last couple of years.
SCIUTTO: No question. More and more.
Karen. Scott. Kristen. Thanks so much to all of you. And a programming note: the White House Correspondents' Dinner is back on, again, tomorrow night. Special coverage live from Washington D.C. begins at 08:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN and on the CNN app.
Coming up next. New details about what exactly was in the first ransom note in the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping case. My legal source joins me next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Breaking tonight, just a chilling new development in the Nancy Guthrie case. We're now learning exactly what was contained in the ransom notes sent after her kidnapping.
Journalist Briana Whitney read the note out loud on the podcast Crime Junkie.
[21:50:00]
The first note reportedly said the following: Quote, "Hello Savannah. We have your mother Nancy. She is safe but scared. She will be held for ransom and once payment is received she will be released unharmed. We will be holding her for a maximum of 7 days. Once payment is received at the Bitcoin address below she will be released within 12 hours of deposit to a safe drop-off location back in Tucson. If the payment is not received by the last deadline on Monday the 9th at 5pm, she will be killed. Your mother is aware of this and her life is in your hands. It is in the best interest of everyone to have this completed as soon as possible. You will not be able to contact me from here on out. There will be no negotiation. Do not play games. Law enforcement will not be able to help you." End quote.
That chilling note reportedly included two details to prove that they were coming from the kidnapper, that Nancy had a white smart watch by her bedside, and that there was a busted floodlight in her backyard.
My source on this tonight is former FBI Special Agent, Steve Moore.
And Steve, first reading this, I just can only imagine how the family had to digest this.
But first, seeing this note for the first time, and given the details contained in it, does it seem legitimate to you?
STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTOR, RETIRED FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT: It could be legitimate. I'm really not coming down on the fact that it absolutely is. The two details that were released in that note -- and I think that note was received around February 3rd, or on February 3rd. The details that they talk about weren't released until February 4th. But I'm not convinced, though, that that information was completely unattainable right then and there.
SCIUTTO: Right.
MOORE: I think there were probably discussions. I think some -- it's possible that some reporters knew about it. I'm just--
SCIUTTO: Right.
MOORE: --I'm not making any allegation.
SCIUTTO: OK.
MOORE: I'm just saying that the amount of time--
SCIUTTO: Yes, you--
MOORE: --makes me think it could be derived somewhere else.
SCIUTTO: OK. Now, I want to then add this second note, read aloud again on the Junkie podcast, and this is how this one goes, received three days later: We did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical conditions. We never intended to hurt her. That was not our intention. She perished shortly after she was taken. We believe it was heart related. She is buried in nature now. Nothing you could have done could have changed the outcome. We are truly sorry.
So there, you have well, the additional detail, them saying, she passed away. It was not their intention. It happened before that deadline.
As you hear those details, does that sound legitimate to you?
MOORE: Believe it or not, I actually think it is.
SCIUTTO: Wow.
MOORE: I think it lends itself towards being legitimate because what it kind of dovetails into is they didn't know -- they didn't anticipate how sick she was.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MOORE: And why would you write that unless you weren't having some kind of pangs of guilt over what you had done?
SCIUTTO: Wow.
MOORE: Maybe that they never intended to hurt her, and then she passed away on them, and now people who had not intended to harm anyone are dealing with massive guilt over somebody dying if they never intended that to be the result.
SCIUTTO: Well, also the prospect of legal liability, criminal liability.
Final question: If these messages are authentic, is it likely, is it possible, they contain any information, data, metadata that could lead authorities, still lead authorities, to the kidnapper or kidnappers? Is there a way to track these kinds of things down?
MOORE: I doubt that they -- that there is anything from these notes, or they would have done it.
But what there are here are phrases, words, the way somebody says something, the way they phrase sentences. Those things are individual to people, and they can glean a lot of information, the FBI can, from those types of notes. And I think the behavioral scientists are loving what they learned from the second note.
SCIUTTO: I mean, is there something about language in there that stands out to you too? Or some of the phrasing?
MOORE: Yes, you know, I'd have to go through each sentence.
SCIUTTO: Right.
MOORE: But there were some things that were not perfect English grammar.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MOORE: Not -- not -- they didn't stand out badly, but they were just the way you would say something--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MOORE: --and a certain person would say something. And I think that makes it in many ways individual. And I think it also indicates a way that you might be able to reach these people emotionally.
If they truly were dealing with guilt, it gives the FBI just one more arrow in the quiver of trying to find these people through psychological things or motivation--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MOORE: --through psychological things.
[21:55:00]
SCIUTTO: Yes, and it forms some of those family messages that follow the sort of appeals that were in those messages from Savannah and others.
Steve Moore, thanks so much.
MOORE: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up next. The Source Code. We're giving you a number at the center of a story in the news. Can you guess the story? Tonight's Source Code is 27. We'll be right back with the answer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Tonight's Source Code is 27. That is 27 Senate-confirmed officials in 13 departments who have left during President Trump's second term. That is more than double the 11 departures during the first 18 months of his first term, and more than any other administration, this century, over the same timeframe.
[22:00:00]
The review by the non-partisan Partnership for Public Service does not include U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, or ambassadors. It also found the Trump administration has been slower to fill those openings, which means more of the positions will be led on an acting basis by officials installed without Senate consent, as required by the Constitution.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Jim Sciutto in for Kaitlan.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
