Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: Dozens of FBI Records Apparently Missing from Epstein Files; Larry Summers to Retire from Harvard; Trump's State of the Union; Trump attacks House Democrats Tlaib and Omar; NVIDIA Reports Record Quarterly, Yearly Revenues; Zelenskyy Talks with Donald Trump; Trump Administration Imposes New Sanctions on Iran; Rock Hall of Fame Nominees. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired February 25, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Hello, and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, and
you're watching "The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, some witness interviews, including with a Trump accuser appear to have been withheld from the Epstein files release.
President Trump touts the U.S. economy during a State of the Union address, despite public concern over the cost-of-living and. Phil Collins, Iron
Maiden, Oasis among this year's nominees for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame,
We begin with the U.S. Justice Department looking into whether documents related to Jeffrey Epstein that mentioned President Donald Trump were
improperly withheld. This comes after a CNN review found that dozens of FBI witness interviews appear to be missing from the files made public. Three
of those missing interviews are related to a woman who told FBI agents that Epstein abused her when she was very young. She also accused Donald Trump
of sexually assaulting her decades ago. The U.S. president, we should note, has consistently denied wrongdoing.
Joining us now is attorney David Weinstein, former Federal prosecutor. Thanks so much for taking the time.
DAVID WEINSTEIN, ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL AND STATE PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA AND PARTNER, JONES
WALKER LLP: You're welcome, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, I'm somewhat confused by the Justice Department investigating documents that weren't released by the Justice Department. I mean, what's
the oversight of this process here?
WEINSTEIN: Well, the oversight was supposed to be covered and taken care of when these documents were released. That's why they were having people
in the Southern District of New York, the U.S. attorney there, review the documents, look at them. That's why they asked dozens of federal
prosecutors to look and review these documents, and it would appear at best that they missed some or they thought they were there and didn't put them
there, or somebody thought they should not have been released. One of those is this situation. And now, based on their latest statement, they're
reviewing whether or not there are, in fact, more documents that need to be released.
SCIUTTO: I mean, the point here is that the only redactions agreed to are meant to affect the names and ident identities of victims. There should be
no redactions, as I understand it, based on the law requiring this release, as to people who were accused. Is that right?
WEINSTEIN: That's correct. Unless it was the subject of an ongoing investigation. But we have seen literally hundreds of thousands of
redactions that don't fall within one of those categories. So, there apparently is yet another category of redactions that they're making.
SCIUTTO: OK. So, how are we going to get confidence that those documents, regardless of whether they make Donald Trump look bad, right, or raise
questions are ultimately going to get released because the question is who's actually overseeing this, if it's the Justice Department overseeing
itself at effect?
WEINSTEIN: That's a million-dollar question, Jim, and you hit the nail on the head. You know, there keep being releases. Then they say we missed.
We've seen instances where documents have been up on the website and then they come down and then they reappear again. It would seem that the people
who enacted the law are getting to a point where they're more than a little frustrated about this, and they're going to, at some point, have to take
matters into their own hands.
SCIUTTO: Now, you mentioned the law. To be clear, the law required the immediate release of these documents, and yet instead, we've seen this
trickle over time with it appears ample opportunity to edit the documents - - the release of the documents, which documents are released. I mean, is this release following the letter of the spirit of the law passed by
Congress by a large bipartisan majority?
WEINSTEIN: It doesn't look like it is. It started off as a rolling production, and that's fine. There's a lot of documents there. Let's at
least get started and get things out so that they can comply with the first deadline. But as they trickled out and as they were put out and then
brought back, it doesn't appear that they're necessarily following the letter of the law.
[18:05:00]
And again, there were some efforts early on by a congressman writing letters to judges in the Southern District of New York to get it to move on
and speed up a little faster that didn't go anywhere. So, let's see what their next option is.
SCIUTTO: One concern about releasing these files from the beginning had been that you're going to disparage or besmirch a lot of names where there
was no evidence that rose to a level of criminal prosecution, right? And by the way, many of these things were investigated. They didn't get to that
level. But you are seeing people now losing their jobs.
I mean, Larry, John Summers resigning from Harvard, and I'm not defending his association with Epstein, I'm just saying that these were -- you know,
these were investigated. And perhaps they could be investigated again, but at least to our knowledge did not have evidence necessary to prosecute. As
a prosecutor yourself, are there dangers in that?
WEINSTEIN: Absolutely. I mean, that's part of the reason why many times you'll see in an indictment, unnamed co-conspirators or names of
individuals who are cooperating and they don't name their names, it's meant to protect these people from salacious allegations being made against them.
That's why, in part, some of these earlier reports weren't publicly released.
But when they passed the act, they didn't take that into account. They did it with a very broad, sweeping brush and they said, no, here are the
categories of reasons why you may redact, why you may not release. And they did that with a reason, and that's the law now. And someone needs to follow
the law.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Now, I should say that in the U.K. at least you have two potential prosecutions underway. One involving the former Chris Andrew, one
involving the former ambassador to the United States, Peter Mendelson. We'll see where those go.
Do you as a prosecutor, see the difference -- see a difference in the aggressiveness and urgency of how these allegations are being investigated
over there, and the consequences as opposed to what we're seeing here?
WEINSTEIN: Well, I think you have to parse them in terms of urgency. Both of the prosecutions that you just mentioned that we're all aware of in
Great Britain revolve around not activities that took place in connection with the allegations that were contained within the files, and similar to
those that were charged against other people here in the us but rather, official misconduct giving out secrets that they shouldn't have been giving
out, they're not really connected, per se, to the activities that took place, but they have to do with some of the information that was contained
in those emails that were released. And so, when they saw it, they acted on it and rather quickly.
SCIUTTO: Quickly indeed. David Weinstein, thanks so much for joining.
WEINSTEIN: You're welcome.
SCIUTTO: Well, President Trump lashed out at Democrats including Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib for heckling him during his State of the Union
address. He says that, quote, "When people can behave like that and knowing that they are crooked and corrupt politicians, so bad for our country, we
should send them back to where they came from as fast as possible."
Well, we should note that Congresswoman Tlaib of Michigan, she was born in the United States in Michigan. Congressman Omar of Minnesota was born in
Somalia, but is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Listen to her reaction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): I think it was really un unavoidable. The president talked about protecting Americans and I just had to remind him
that his administration was responsible for killing two of my constituents. I think many people look at that moment when the president says it is our
responsibility to protect Americans and he does not acknowledge the fact that two Americans, two of my constituents, two of our neighbors were
killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: The president touted what he called a roaring economy, despite consistent concerns over the cost of living. He described the Supreme
Court's ruling on tariffs as, quote, "very unfortunate," falsely claiming that foreign countries are paying the levies. The president also said he is
working to keep his tariffs in place by other means.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's saving our country the kind of money we're taking in peace protecting. Many of the wars I settled was because of
the threat of tariffs. I wouldn't have been able to settle them without. Will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal
statutes. And as time goes by, I believe the tariffs paid for by foreign countries will, like in the past, substantially replaced the modern-day
system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Kristen Holmes is live at the White House. Of course, the president did acknowledge there that it is American companies and people
that are still paying that, that tax in effect on imports. I wonder, does the White House believe in your conversations that they made progress last
night with the president's speech?
[18:10:00]
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They were celebrating, and they still are celebrating. I mean, remember one thing to
keep in mind here, Jim, the bar was not necessarily that he changed hearts and minds, the bar was that he stay on message and deliver a message about
what he's done for the last year and how it's going to play out in the next three years now.
Now, I don't think we really got a detailed look on how it's going to play out in the next three years. I also think we didn't really get a lot of the
details that the administration had promised. For example, one of the things that they had been touting was this idea that we were going to be
walked through the president's thinking when it came to Iran. The president essentially just said that they really bad guys in Iran and they shouldn't
have a nuclear weapon, which is something he said before, but doesn't actually get us across the finish line as to why it is that we are
contemplating striking them and why it is in America's best interest to do so.
And it wasn't the only topic in which they didn't really go forward with in actually giving detail. For example, he touted a number of his policies,
but did not say how they were going to positively affect Americans just that they would positively affect Americans.
But when you look at the overarching picture here, take a look at how President Trump usually talks, his speeches that he usually delivers,
you're usually coming out of them. At times we've said they're incredibly dark, some of the darkest speeches we've ever heard. They're only attacks.
They have nothing about what he has said he's going to set out to do.
And for all intents and purposes, for Republicans and for the White House, this was a win. He stayed on message. He talked about what they had done.
And of course, because it's President Trump, he was on the offensive. I was told beforehand, that's the only mode he really knows how to operate in.
So, you heard a lot of those attacks on Democrats.
And they got the optics that they were looking for, right? This idea of making it look as though Democrats weren't standing for American citizens
or for war heroes. This idea that he kind of pushed the buttons on trying to get these Democrats to stand up by doing so, because it's President
Trump, they stayed seated, and now he is saying that, you know, they won't stand up for Americans. These were all calculated moves on President
Trump's part.
So, when you go to the White House and when you talk to these officials, they do believe that this was a win. Of course, the thing to keep in mind
here is that, does a speech like this really matter in November? Probably not particularly if it's not really bad. If it's really bad in November,
people tend to remember, wow, remember that speech that he gave about the future? If it just does what they hoped it would do, which is kind of get
out there and not do anything catastrophically awful, then it probably has very little impact on voters in November, which is a win.
SCIUTTO: That's quite a standard, not doing anything catastrophically awful. Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks so much.
All right. So, joining me now, Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam. Thanks so much for joining.
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So, what was your review of the president's State of the Union speech?
SUBRAMANYAM: And I am not surprised. I think he wanted to paint a picture of an America where costs are down and where he solved every problem and
it's a golden age. But I talk to constituents every day here in Virginia and around the country too, and, you know, they tell me the same thing,
which is the opposite, which is, you know, costs are high. They don't see what's going on in the stock market, in their own wallets. You know, things
are tough right now. And so, and they're not happy with this foreign policy or the immigration policy that's happening either.
So, you know, I think it was very much seeing Trump in a bubble of people telling him he is doing a great job and conveying that to the American
people when the reality is different.
SCIUTTO: It was clearly a deliberate attempt to call Democrats out when he had that statement saying, quote, "The first duty of the American
government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens, standup or not," and many Democrats did not stand up there, was that a mistake to get
drawn into that trap in effect.
SUBRAMANYAM: No, he was trying to humiliate us and, you know, call us out and taunt us. And no Democrats stood up because we weren't going to take
the bait. The reality is we were there. We sat and we listened to the speech. I sat for the entire speech. I think almost all of my colleagues
there did as well. And, you know, we heard his proposals, you know, they're not particularly good for the American people in a lot of cases. There are
a few things that we can work on together. But overall, you know, it was not a great speech.
But then to be followed by Governor Spanberger here in Virginia who put forward a vision that's going to actually help people, lower costs, help
people afford that house, help people get through this tough time right now, I think it was striking the contrast and a good one, I thought for us.
SCIUTTO: You brought the brother and sister-in-law of the late Virginia Giuffre, an Epstein survivor, of course, the president did not once mention
the Epstein files.
[18:15:00]
SUBRAMANYAM: He did not, and it's because he wants people to forget about the coverup that he is undertaking and how -- it's a promise made and a
promise not kept. And so, the Epstein survivors were very upset. I think they were -- you know, they weren't surprised necessarily, but I think they
were upset that he wouldn't acknowledge them.
He and Pam Bondi refuse to look them in the eye. They haven't apologized in any sort of way, shown any sympathy. But they're used to this because the
government has let them down so many times. I think that's why people are so interested in this case, it's rich and powerful people influencing our
government and cover up for them and on their behalf.
SCIUTTO: OK. Speaking of coverup, or at least alleged coverup, it's CNN's reporting that a number of documents related to Donald Trump were
improperly withheld from public releases. What's your reaction to that? And based on the way the law was written, passed, again, by a large bipartisan
majority, is the DOJ following the law on these releases?
SUBRAMANYAM: The DOJ has been violating the law repeatedly. They're also violating a subpoena that we put forward on the Oversight Committee from
back in August. And remember, this is a DOJ that said last March they were going to release all of the files, but there's two and a half million files
that haven't been released. And the president is clearly in some of the files. Even the victim said that they were looking for files and didn't
find some that would involve him.
And so, what we're getting to now is a coverup that is clearly in violation of the law. And so, we're going to continue our investigation, put pressure
on them. I've called for and voted for Pam Bondi to be held in criminal contempt, because when you violate the law and you're in an official
position like that, there has to be some mechanism to force you to comply. But at this point, this administration, unlike other countries and other
companies and other venues, is not holding anyone accountable for their actions.
SCIUTTO: Have you heard from any of your Republican colleagues who voted for the bill requiring release? And by the way there, as you know well,
there's a big push from Republican constituents, right-wing constituents for the release of the Epstein files. Do any of your Republican colleagues
say, hey, we got to do something about this, the president's not following the law that we passed?
SUBRAMANYAM: I want this to be bipartisan. So, you know, we want to make sure this is collaborative because the reality is we don't have the votes
on the Oversight Committee without Republicans. But we don't want this to be partisan. We're going to be talking to the Clintons this week, Hillary
and Bill. We were more than willing to have them testify and talk to our committee. And they wanted to do it publicly too.
But the point here is that we don't want this to be just about whether it's Democrats only or Republicans only, we want this to be about politics and
about making sure we get justice for the survivors and justice for the people affected. And so, that means we want to make sure that the
Republicans are with us.
But when they're covering up for the administration as well, when they're - - you know, feel like they're beholden to the administration and beholden to the president in particular, that makes it difficult right now. So, I
know there's a few who have bucked this president and bucked this administration at times. But I'd like to see more independence from them
and the president.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, of course, yesterday was the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And the president not only barely
mentioned Ukraine, his ambassador to the U.N. abstained from a resolution simply calling for a ceasefire and respecting the borders of Ukraine.
What's your reaction to that?
SUBRAMANYAM: I mean, what's happened in Ukraine is awful. There's so many people that have died, so many children who've been displaced or lost or
killed. And for the president to not acknowledge that I think is terrible and it's tragic. And I wish this administration would do more to promote a
ceasefire. Instead, they have empowered Vladimir Putin over and over again, and I don't know why.
Vladimir Putin does not have our best interest. Vladimir Putin will not deter other invasions like it. And so, we have to continue to put pressure
on Putin instead. I hope this administrative reverse course, but it seems like the president and Putin have this strange and close relationship that
we need to learn more about.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, thanks so much for joining.
SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, the numbers that Wall Street has been waiting for, chip giant NVIDIA has just released its quarterly results. What does it say
about the company and the health of A.I. coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." In today's Business Breakout, U.S. stocks chalked up their second straight day of solid gains. The NASDAQ
rallied more than 1 percent. Checking some of today's other business headlines, A.I. giant Anthropic is relaxing its corporate safety guidelines
put in place to reduce A.I. risks. It says the guardrails were hurting its ability to compete in the A.I. race. All this comes just one day after
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened to pull Anthropic's contract with the Pentagon if it refused to yield on those safety issues. There is no
indication that Anthropic's policy changes are related to this meeting or that it is set to agree to Hegseth's broader requests.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz discussed trade with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. On Wednesday, it is Merz's first trip to China as
German chancellor. The two men discussed Germany's large trade deficit with China. Chancellor Merz also encouraged Chinese businesses to boost
investment in his country. He is the latest European leader to visit China as trade uncertainties grow between Europe and the U.S.
Tourists will soon be paying more for their next vacation in Barcelona. Spanish officials are doubling the tax they charge tourists staying in the
city. It is their latest move to help ease over tourism. The tourist tax will become one of the highest in Europe. Barcelona will use that extra
money to help finance more affordable housing in the city.
Well, the main event today for investors came after the closing bell on Wall Street when NVIDIA released strong quarterly results. The A.I. chip
giant reported record quarterly and year revenues. It is raising guidance for the current quarter as well. NVIDIA shares, however, are up only
modestly in after-hours trading. Today's report comes at a critical time for tech investors. Tech giants such as Meta and Amazon are planning to
spend billions this year on their own A.I. expansions. Investors in other key industries are fearful over the disruptive force of A.I.
Bob O'Donnell joins me now. He is the founder and president of TECHnalysis Research. Bob, good to have you.
BOB O'DONNELL, PRESIDENT, TECHNALYSIS RESEARCH: Thanks, Jim. Happy to be here.
SCIUTTO: So, what do these earnings tell you about not just NVIDIA, but about demand for A.I. chips and just the broader growth in this space?
O'DONNELL: Yes. Well, I mean, this was the big question mark going into the earnings. Any kind of an A.I. bubble starting to pop.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
O'DONNELL: And those big -- other big tech companies -- Microsoft and what have you, announcing how much money they were going to spend, we knew that
most of that was going to go to NVIDIA.
[18:25:00]
So, there was fear (INAUDIBLE) -- much conflict. So, that says to me that that A.I. trend is very much there. Personally, they also talk about how
their business was diversified, just the big hyperscale, those big tech companies into enterprises, companies themselves, buying some of this type
of equipment to do their own A.I. and other applications. So, to me, that's a good sign for even more opportunities.
SCIUTTO: I mean, we're having a little trouble with your signal, but I'm going to try one more question here. Tech firms buying chips is one thing,
and we're certainly seeing that they're buying the chips, they're building the big data centers. But are we seeing signs of strong A.I. adoption,
right? Basically, are people using up all this increased capacity?
O'DONNELL: Yes. Yes. No. I mean, absolutely. All the companies out there are doing A.I. projects as we speak. The bigger question is, are we
starting to see kinds of return on investment that people are hoping for from these A.I. -- that's the question mark that's still covered out there.
We have to see if some of these can really deliver on the promises that are being made for A.I. But the demand is unquestionably there. And people are
using A.I. That is not a question. And they're clearly buying the equipment from NVIDIA and other players like AMD to drive the creation of these A.I.
software applications.
SCIUTTO: Lots to watch. Bob O'Donnell, TECHnalysis Research, thanks so much for joining.
O'DONNELL: Indeed.
SCIUTTO: Well, on the eve of a new round of talks in Geneva, Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke with President Trump by phone. We'll tell you who
else joined that call as Zelenskyy continues to urge the U.S. to stand by his country.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.
A CNN investigation finds that dozens of FBI witness interviews are apparently missing from the Jeffrey Epstein files released so far. Three of
them are related to a woman who told authorities that the late convicted sex offender abused her when she was very young. She also accused President
Trump of sexually assaulting her decades ago. The president has consistently denied any wrongdoing. The Justice Department says it is now
reviewing whether those records were improperly withheld from public releases.
President Trump attacking two Democratic lawmakers who heckled him during his State of the Union address. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib
interrupted his speech during his remarks over immigration. In his address, the president did not mention the deaths of two U.S. citizens shot and
killed by federal agents in Minneapolis.
The Cuban government says its forces killed four people aboard a U.S. registered boat. The Interior Ministry says someone from the boat shot and
injured one of the Cuban border guards and that Cuban forces then returned fire. It says six other people aboard the U.S. vessel were injured. Vice
President J.D. Vance says the White House is monitoring the incident.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he spoke with President Trump by phone today. That timing is critical as Ukraine's war with Russia has
now dragged into its fifth year. Also, on the call, President Trump's son- in-law, Jared Kushner, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. They will meet with Ukraine's chief negotiator in Geneva tomorrow. Zelenskyy said he is hopeful
this will eventually lead to discussions which involve himself, Trump, and Vladimir Putin to, quote, "finally end the war."
Joining me now is a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Oleksandr Merezhko. Good to have you back, sir. Thanks for joining.
OLEKSANDR MEREZHKO, UKRAINE PARLIAMENT MEMBER AND CHAIR, FOREIGN COMMITTEE, UKRAINE PARLIAMENT: Thank you for having me.
SCIUTTO: So, first, I want to hear your reaction to President Trump failing to mention Ukraine in any substantial way on the fourth anniversary
of Russia's ongoing invasion. Was that disappointing to you?
MEREZHKO: It was sort of disappointing because, you know, we expected more, especially taking into consideration that it's been fourth
anniversary of the full-scale invasion, and we expected the President of the United States to mention Ukraine specifically and to say something in
support of Ukraine, to express a gesture of solidarity with us.
But a good thing, a silver lining, so to speak, in this situation is that, after all, he mentioned Ukraine in his speech. But, of course, we expected
some more from the leader of the free world.
SCIUTTO: Yes, especially given that the U.S. also abstained from a resolution calling for a ceasefire -- a U.N. resolution calling for a
ceasefire. We learned yesterday, and I heard this from the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S., that the U.S. recently called the ambassador in to
warn Ukraine against striking any targets inside Russia that might damage U.S. interests there. How do you react to that? Does it reveal, perhaps,
America's priorities?
MEREZHKO: Unfortunately, it sends a very disturbing signal because, well, I believe that the President of the United States should proceed from the
basic fact, which is about the crime of aggression committed by Russia against Ukraine. And Ukraine is the victim of the aggression.
And when we deliver deep strikes within Russian territory, when we target legitimate military targets, it's part of our self-defense. And I believe
that the United States should be firmly on the side of the victim of the aggression and to put pressure not on the victim, but on the aggressor. And
that's why, for me, this kind of call on the part of the United States, I cannot understand it. It's very disturbing.
SCIUTTO: As you know, President Trump speaks frequently about a giant trade deal with Russia and the promise of business interests there, which
Putin seems to be offering to Donald Trump quite aggressively. Do you fear that Trump might choose business and trade over Ukrainian security?
MEREZHKO: I hope that it will not happen, because if it happens, it will be a huge political mistake. And it will just, well, bring disgrace to the
whole country, I mean, the United States, because it will look even worse than Munich in 1938. Because I understand this is Russia's try, they're
trying attempt, they're making an attempt to bribe the United States, the president of the United States. And I do hope that the president will be
strong enough, and he will not succumb to this temptation.
[18:35:00]
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you just about your read of where the Ukrainian president stands right now, and perhaps other Ukrainian leaders yourself as
well, at this point, given President Trump's willingness to apply pressure to Ukraine that he's not, it seems, willing to apply to Russia. Are you
running out of patience with President Trump? Do you think Ukraine might reach a point where it just has to go it alone?
MEREZHKO: Well, first of all, we continue to believe in the people of the United States. And from what we see, we have the support, we have support
in the Congress, we have bipartisan support, which we value very highly. We have support of American people. It's tremendously important for us. After
all, the United States remains to be democratic state, and that's why it matters. The opinion of the people continue to matter in the United States.
But of course, there are certain disturbing signs. And, you know, we are concerned about that, of course. And there is a fear that at a certain
point, we don't want to be betrayed. It's totally understandable.
SCIUTTO: Of course, in the midst of this, you have these peace talks continuing. There will be a trilateral meeting tomorrow in Geneva. Do you
see, from where you're sitting, any concrete progress in these talks so far?
MEREZHKO: The progress can be made only when the maximum pressure will be put on Putin. Otherwise, I don't believe in any progress whatsoever. I
think it's naive to believe that there will be progress, because Putin, he doesn't want to stop the war. He is not interested in even in ceasefire.
And to make him to stop the aggression against Ukraine, there is only one way, to talk to him from the position of strength and to deprive Russia of
oil revenues, because Putin will stop the war only when he has no choice, when he will run out of money. But unfortunately, we don't see serious
signs for doing that on the part of our American partners.
SCIUTTO: Oleksandr Merezhko, always good to have you on. And as I always say, given you're in Kyiv, I wish you both peace and safety tonight.
MEREZHKO: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, the White House rolls out new sanctions on Iran. What this means for Thursday's installment of the ongoing nuclear talks, right
after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
SCIUTTO: The Trump administration has imposed new sanctions on Iran ahead of Thursday's talks in Geneva. The White House has been gradually
ratcheting up military pressure on Tehran, sending two aircraft carrier battle groups to the Middle East. It is part of an effort to get Tehran to
accept a nuclear deal, says the president.
During a State of the Union address, Trump accused Iran of working on missiles that could strike as far as the U.S.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of
terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen. They've already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our
bases overseas, and they're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Joining me now, Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and host of the Iran podcast. Good to have you back.
Thanks for joining.
NEGAR MORTAZAVI, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY AND HOST, IRAN PODCAST: Thanks for having me, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, first, I don't expect you to speak for all the Iranian people, but I know you're in touch with people there. And I wonder, given
that President Trump weeks ago said that he would strike Iran to help save the protesters and the deadly, really, massacre of Iranian protesters, now
that's weeks behind us, do Iranian protesters still believe that the U.S. is coming to their rescue somehow?
MORTAZAVI: I mean, I don't think so. Time has passed. We're beyond the crackdown, even the 40th day of mourning, which also generated more
protests in Iran, the 40th day of the mourning of those who were killed in the initial protests of over a month ago.
So, as far as helping on its way, you know, that was combined with saying, go and occupy your institutions. The threat of the U.S. being locked and
loaded if protesters are killed. I think if you're a protester in Iran, you're pretty clear eyed about that as far as how this was more about
geopolitics and potentially leverage at the negotiating table for a nuclear deal rather than the protests that are happening on the ground.
SCIUTTO: Well, I wonder if you and others are then concerned that if Trump gets his deal, he'll be perfectly fine with this regime surviving.
MORTAZAVI: I think so. I mean, it seems like the path, we're at a fork in the road, and the path in front of the president is either diplomacy and
peace, essentially, and continuing or war and military conflict. And even in the case of war, it's not clear if he's thinking about or even the U.S.
has sort of the capacity for a full-on war, for a regime change war, because, you know, that's going to be complicated and very difficult. I
don't even know if it's going to be possible for the U.S. or just limited strikes to essentially use as more leverage to then go back to the
negotiating table, essentially for what is considered a better or more enhanced deal.
SCIUTTO: You've written that if the U.S. were to attack, that there wouldn't necessarily be a rally around the flag phenomenon among the
Iranian people. Can you help explain your argument?
MORTAZAVI: I actually think there would be a rally around the homeland, as we saw in June. So, not necessarily for the regime or for the system of the
government, but definitely for the homeland. We saw Israel attack Iran in June, to the surprise of many, actually, there was a rally around the
homeland because, and I think it was a natural effect when your homeland is being attacked, when homes are being attacked, it wasn't only targeted
strikes, the Israeli attack, it was -- they targeted civilians, civilian infrastructure was harmed and damaged. Civilians, over a thousand Iranians
were killed, most of them civilians.
So, I think that did create a sort of a rally around the homeland effect and also somewhat of a resentment towards that kind of attack that wouldn't
just be seen as targeted and going after very limited targets and sites.
SCIUTTO: To the best of our knowledge, where are those protesters now, the ones who were injured, the ones that were arrested? What is their fate
right now in Iran?
MORTAZAVI: Well, thousands have been killed, were killed. The number is still being discussed and disputed. The government has put out over 3,000
names. Human rights organizations put it at much higher than that. It's still not clear.
[18:45:00]
The government doesn't allow close media access, international media access. No fact-finding missions have been allowed. So, whoever is doing
work on the fate of those who were killed has very limited access. Many thousands were injured, many more than those who were killed.
And also, thousands were arrested. We have seen in the past that Iran essentially, when they use the iron fist approach, it can be as harsh as
executions, a death throw, and then also very harsh sentences. The lack of due process for those who were arrested. Just very, very harsh,
essentially, retaliation for the kind of protests they saw on the street. Islamic Republic saw these protests in January as an existential threat.
And they use the iron fist approach in response to essentially show that they will do whatever it takes to crack down and end the protests. And I
think the treatment of those who are arrested is going to also sort of be matching that kind of crackdown that we saw on the streets.
SCIUTTO: Of course, attacking your people at home different, perhaps easier for this regime than attacking others abroad. But does Iran retain
the capability for a significant retaliation against either civilian or military targets outside of Iran if the U.S. were to attack again?
MORTAZAVI: I think so. Yes. I mean, not the United States homeland, but of course, U.S. bases are within reach. Iran was able to attack Israel in June
when Israel attacked U.S. bases or even closer U.S. allies in the region. Iran has threatened them, has warned them that our countries across the
Persian Gulf, whoever hosts U.S. bases, that they see these bases as fair targets if they're attacked.
And essentially, Iranian leaders are very publicly and openly, but also in back channels. But if they're attacked, they're going to turn it into a
regional war, that the war is not going to be limited to Iran's borders, it's going to spill over. And that's why we see the neighbors are being
really worried and essentially putting pressure on the White House.
Arab countries, the Iraqis to the west of Iran, the Turks were worried and have been sort of rallying against this war starting between the two sides.
SCIUTTO: Negar Mortazavi, thanks so much for joining us again.
MORTAZAVI: Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has announced its 2026 round of nominees include acts like Phil Collins, Iron Maiden, Oasis. Collins, a
first-time nominee as a solo artist. His old band Genesis got inducted back in 2010. Lauryn Hill, big feature at the Grammys. The Wu-Tang Clan, Shakira
also made the list for the first time. Now, these are not sure things. More than 1,200 industry insiders will now vote. And then the inductees will be
announced in April.
[18:50:00]
Joining me now, entertainment journalist Segun Oduolowu, as always, to talk fun stuff. So, listen, man. So, I look at this list. First of all, I'm
like, OK, these are bands from like my -- because there are a lot of like great '80s band -- you know, Collins, of course, he extends a bunch of
decades. But Billy Idol in excess going into the '90s. And then some, you know, big names. I mean, Iron Maiden, man, I mean, who are these -- there's
a lot of good acts here. I wonder who's going to make it in.
SEGUN ODUOLOWU, ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALIST: Jim, it's not even who's going to make it in. It's the number one. the diversity of the choices, right?
You've got a Mariah Carey next to a Pink, next to Wu-Tang, next to Lauryn Hill, next to Phil Collins. And so, not only the diversity of the
complexion, the styles of music, but honestly, as you talked about it, like INXS, Billy Idol, and you just start going through, and the only person
who's mad at this really must be Gene Simmons, who doesn't think hip hop belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
SCIUTTO: Wow.
ODUOLOWU: But all of these artists have showed tremendous evolution. Yes, hopefully we'll talk a little bit about Gene Simmons, because I have my
thoughts. If you're going to let Led Zeppelin into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, who stole from Howlin' Wolf and other blues artists, then you
can't get mad at hip hop that samples music.
All right. so Gene Simmons and Kiss, who I don't think have enough hits to really stand on a platform and talk about who should or should not be
allowed in, again, maybe another story for another time. But when you look at a Phil Collins, his evolution from drummer to front man, Pink's
evolution from R&B to almost like, you know, a modern-day rock and roll star, that's what the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame should be about, these
musical titans, their catalog of music, and how much we have enjoyed it.
SCIUTTO: Yes, and change, too, right? I mean, Phil Collins, like those old Genesis albums, right, when he's drummer, and then the '80s pop, right,
which, by the way, some folks didn't love so much, right, compared to the old Genesis, and then finds himself in animated movies, you know, by the
'90s and 2000s. I mean, is there like a -- do personal story -- like, of course, the late Luther Vandross, right? He's gone now. You think of
Michael Hutchence, lead singer of INXS. He's gone. Phil Collins going through, you know, horrible health challenges of his own, do those tend to
move voters at all?
ODUOLOWU: It should move voters. You know, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and who votes on it and who's allowed in and the controversy behind it, but
we as fans, we as viewers, would love to see the musicians that we've loved be honored, not posthumously. Let them walk across that stage. You
mentioned Phil Collins in poor health. Let's see them receive their glory while they're here, especially since a lot of that music, many of us still
listen to.
I would defy that there hasn't been a voice since Mariah Carey that's rivaling it. You know, there haven't been as many groundbreaking artists in
hip hop like Wu-Tang where you have a group and then all of the members go solo and have hit albums. So, let's honor these people while they're still
alive, while they can still participate in this event.
SCIUTTO: Yes. So, going through the -- I've got a lousy, you know, concert list just because I don't go to enough concerts. The only group on the list
I realize I've seen live is INXS. I mean, have you seen a bunch of these acts live?
ODUOLOWU: Oh, I can tell you right now as a straight married man, nothing is as amazing as going to a pink concert and having the LGBTQ community
look at you and say, why are you here and what do you know about pink? I loved it because by the end of the concert, we're all screaming at the top
of our lungs. I've seen pink, I've seen Wu-Tang, I've seen Mariah, I've seen Lauryn Hill. All of those are, you know, genres of music and artists
that I grew up with and was here for.
So, Oasis, you know, they're touring again. I've covered or interviewed some of these different artists. So, absolutely, I'm a music nerd and
junkie. All of these artists have songs that I'm a fan of.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, I had Pink's early albums too, man. I didn't even know, I didn't even know. I mean, I figured, we can all go, right? Can't
we? All right. Well, we'll be watching. We got a little time before they make their decision. Segun Oduolowu, thanks so much for joining as always.
ODUOLOWU: Always a pleasure, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Well, people dream of traveling all over the globe, but probably not on a bicycle. One world traveler has been biking for five years now on
a mission to cross every continent. CNN caught up with Ian Anderson in Tokyo as he is facing unexpected challenges along his journey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IAN ANDERSON, CYCLIST: All right. I bike from Portugal across Europe all the way to Asia. I bike to Japan, baby.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ian Anderson just traversed six continents on his bike. It took five years to do it. His latest leg was through 20 countries from
Portugal to Japan. Anderson documented his journey along the way.
ANDERSON: The stars are unbelievable this morning. I'm curious about the world, people in the world, different cultures, exploring.
[18:55:00]
I was curious about places like Iran, Russia. What the people were like there, and so I biked to them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said he was most surprised by Afghanistan.
ANDERSON: I was just so caught off guard, surprised by their generosity. It felt like every day they were inviting me into their home, offering me
food, tea.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: While he faced his biggest challenge in Iran, getting stuck in the country after Israel launched a series of deadly strikes in
June last year.
ANDERSON: More bombs are falling. We got our bed in there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unsurprisingly, he says it's now time for a break, but not for long. He says next up and the last continent to cross is
Antarctica. He plans to do it later this year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: How do you do that on a bike? I'd be curious. Thanks so much for joining. I'm Jim Sciuto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief."
Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
