Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

Bill Clinton: "I Saw Nothing, And I Did Nothing Wrong"; Bill Clinton Testifies On Epstein And Maxwell; Omani FM: Iran Agrees To "Never" Stockpile Nuclear Material; Fears Of U.S. Military Action Loom Over Middle East; Retired U.S. General: Russian Tried To Attack Dutch Trains; Trump Threatens Anthropic; Pakistan Declares "Open War" On Afghanistan; Whistleblower Reveals How Beijing Spies On Chinese Nationals. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired February 27, 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, Bill Clinton tells lawmakers, quote, he saw nothing and did nothing wrong while interacting with Jeffrey Epstein. Oman's

foreign minister says Iran has agreed to never stockpile nuclear material, as President Trump expresses his displeasure with Tehran. And a Chinese

whistleblower tells CNN that operatives are working in the U.S. to silence dissent at home and abroad.

We begin, once again, in Chappaqua, New York, where former President Bill Clinton has now finished a closed-door deposition as part of the House

Oversight Committee's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Here's what the panel's Republican chairman had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Well, we're going to bring more people in. We're not finished. We didn't want to announce names before today. It was so hard

to get the Clintons in. I didn't want to do anything to jeopardize losing them. I think we learned some things. We were hoping to get more, but there

were many questions, as you will see, hopefully in the next 24 hours when the videos were released.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: In his opening statement, the former president said, quote, "I know what I saw and, more importantly, what I did not see. I know what I

did and, more importantly, what I didn't do. I saw nothing and I did nothing wrong." We are learning that President Clinton was asked about this

photo of him in a jacuzzi, part of the Epstein file's release, the woman's face redacted. Sources tell CNN Clinton told lawmakers he did not know who

the woman was, and when asked, he said he did not have sex with her.

Lawmakers say President Clinton was asked questions about Donald Trump, but the top Republican and Democrat on the committee do not seem to agree about

what he said exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COMER: Ranking member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, "Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?" And

President Clinton said, that's for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the president, Trump, has never said anything to me to make me

think he was involved.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I don't think it's a complete accurate description of what actually was said, so let's release the full

transcript. So, you can all get a full record of what actually was said, which brings up some very important new questions about comments that

President Trump has actually said in the past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, who also sits on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for

taking the time.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Thank you so much.

SCIUTTO: So, first, if I can, and I know you weren't in the room for the deposition, but can you clear up in any way exactly what President Clinton

said about Donald Trump's involvement, or what he witnessed regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: No, I think we just have to release the full video and the actual written transcript of what happened. I think that that should be the

best way to kind of understand the full nature of what he said on this and a number of other subjects.

SCIUTTO: The question remains, should President Trump be called? Of course, Democrats believe he should. Republicans seem to be making the case that

even Clinton somehow exonerates the president here. Where do you stand on President Trump's testimony, even if that's a realistic possibility?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: He should absolutely testify. And I'm glad that the Clintons did testify. Although I think Hillary Clinton should not have been

called to testify because I don't see how she's connected to this Epstein situation at all. But President Trump is mentioned numerous times in the

files. Of course, there are numerous pictures of him as well. He has a lot of explaining to do.

In addition, millions of pages of documents have not been turned over, and we need to understand why that has not happened either. So, yes, he needs

to come and testify.

SCIUTTO: Representative Anna Luna, she has theorized, and she's not alone in this, that Jeffrey Epstein was somehow connected to Russian

intelligence, perhaps as part of a honeypot scheme, and that that's why people like Clinton and others were connected to Russian intelligence,

perhaps as part of a honeypot scheme, and that that's why people like Clinton and others were targeted.

[18:05:00]

And I know the Polish president has said they're investigating any potential links. Do you believe that that's a substantive allegation, that

there's any evidence of that time?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think it's a substantive allegation. It needs to be investigated. When we met with the victims and their attorneys, there were

various kind of incidents, anecdotes, stories of Jeffrey Epstein being connected to foreign intelligence agencies. And so, yes, I think we have to

pursue that. And I actually requested a director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, to produce any files related to Jeffrey Epstein and any

collection on him as well.

SCIUTTO: If I can, I'd like to talk about another topic, and that is the possibility of looming U.S. military action against Iran. There is, of

course, this discharge petition that's been circulating, demanding a word from Congress on any potential military action. Given that there is some

apparent urgency now, some possible expectations that the president is willing to go ahead and order action, I mean, should Congress have

accelerated that discharge petition? I mean, if they bring it up next week, it could be too late.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think we have to move on it expeditiously at this point because, A, I think the American people don't want us to go to war in Iran.

They don't want another endless war in the Middle East, period. And then, B, if President Trump really wants to make the case for a military strike,

he needs to come to the people as embodied through their representatives in Congress and make the case.

The War Powers Act is very clear. Only Congress has the power to deploy armed troops and hostilities, except in an emergency situation, and that is

not where we are right now.

SCIUTTO: I wonder, as the president considers military action, there's been some reporting that he would like something, in effect, short and sweet, to

force, if need be, Iran to the negotiating table more seriously. Is that, in your view, a realistic prospect to go in believing that you can limit,

well, any sort of risk of escalation?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: No, that's the problem. I think that the Iranians have a vote in this as well. We can't control their actions and if they were to

retaliate on our troops or through their proxies on others, it could trigger a regional war.

Now, the other thing is, you know, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. In addition,

I've said and many others have said, they should not have a ballistic missile program and they shouldn't fund terrorists throughout the Middle

East. But I think that diplomacy in concert with our friends, partners and allies is the best way to achieve that. Any other type of approach could be

very counterproductive to what we want.

SCIUTTO: Some of the demands the Trump administration are making sound somewhat familiar. Among them, removing enriched uranium from the country,

which was, you'll remember, part of the JCPOA negotiated by President Obama. At the time, it was sent to Russia as well as IAEA monitoring, et

cetera. I mean, do you see the Trump administration looking for something that looks similar to what we had a little over 10 years ago?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Possibly, yes. I think that they might be looking for something similar to that. And maybe they'll also add the ballistic missile

program, the nefarious activities in the rest of the region to the menu of items that are covered within the scope. If that's the case, I think that

would be a good outcome, potentially.

But any kind of military action could escalate very quickly and entangle us in something that we can ill afford right now. Again, my constituents are

very clear. They do not want another war in the Middle East.

SCIUTTO: And it's fair criticism, to your point, that that previous agreement did not cover Iran's ballistic missile program. Congressman

Krishnamoorthi, always good to have you on. Thanks so much for joining again.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.

SCIUTTO: Staying with our coverage of Iran, Oman's foreign minister says that Iranian leaders have agreed to no longer stockpile enriched uranium

inside Iran. The Omani foreign minister making that remark during an interview a short time ago with CBS's Face the Nation.

BADR AL BUSAIDI, OMANI FOREIGN MINISTER: The most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never ever have a nuclear material

that will create a bomb.

[18:10:00]

This is, I think, a big achievement. This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama's time. This is

something completely new.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Earlier today, President Trump said, however, he is not happy with the negotiations at this stage. He did field a question about potential

U.S. military strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I guess you could say there's always a risk. You know, when there's war, there's a risk in anything, both good and bad.

It'd be wonderful if they'd negotiate really in good conscience, good faith and conscience, but they are not getting there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The U.S. Embassy in Israel says that non-essential staff and their families can leave the country immediately due to potential risks to their

safety. The embassy added they should consider leaving while commercial flights are still flying. The world's largest warship, the USS Gerald R.

Ford, is expected to arrive shortly off the coast of northern Israel. The Pentagon is sending a new group of F-22 fighter jets to the region to join

the many dozens that are already there.

Joining me now is Kevin Liptak from the White House. Kevin -- sorry, in Corpus Christi traveling with the president, Kevin, do you have a sense of

how the White House is receiving these comments from Omani officials saying that Iran would agree to give up all its enriched uranium? Are they seeing

this as progress? Because, of course, President Trump said he's not happy with where negotiations stand.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: I think the White House sees the Omani foreign minister, who we should say rushed to Washington to meet

Vice President Vance to try and sort of encourage these diplomatic conversations to continue and essentially prevent a new war. They see him

as trying to underscore the importance of diplomacy, but they're not hearing, I think, anything from him that's necessarily going to move

President Trump off of his view that the Iranians have so far not conceded enough in these talks to satisfy all of his demands.

You know, it was something of an open question over the last day or so about how exactly the Americans had received that two rounds of indirect

talks that occurred in Geneva. You know, the Iranians and the Omanis said that essentially there was progress made, that they had agreed to have

their technical teams meet in Vienna next week and that the discussions would continue.

But I think it was evident just listening to President Trump today that he did not necessarily feel as if that progress was satisfactory enough. It

was interesting listening to him here in Corpus Christi. Obviously, the speech itself was not about Iran, but at the very end, he did acknowledge

that he had a big decision in front of him.

Actually, I think that might be the first time that we've actually heard from the president explicitly that he does have this now immense choice to

either continue with these discussions, even though he doesn't think they're making enough progress, or carry out some sort of strike. Now, what

exactly that looks like, we don't know. There's been discussions of these limited strikes on military targets that would essentially be meant to

apply more pressure on the Iranians, to provide more concessions at the negotiating table, or does he go for something much larger, something

intended to take out the Iranian regime, despite all of the uncertainties that that would entail?

Now, the president also repeated what he has claimed is his red line here, which is that the Iranians must utter what -- today, he called them golden

words. In the past, he's called them secret words, which is that they will never obtain a nuclear weapon. I think the problem with that is the

Iranians have, in fact, said that they will not obtain a nuclear weapon. The foreign minister said that this week, heading into those negotiations.

Now, there's a lot of reason to not believe them. Of course, they have enriched uranium to near a weapons-grade level. There have been all these

indications in the past that they're trying to obtain a nuclear weapon. But if President Trump's red line is just the Iranians' words alone, you know,

that has already been achieved. That bar has already been cleared. And so, it just, I think, leads to a lot more uncertainty about what precisely he

is looking for in these negotiations. Whatever that is, it's clear he hasn't found it yet.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, there's a big gap between military strikes to apply pressure for negotiations and military strikes to change the regime. Kevin

Liptak in Texas, thanks so much.

Joining me now, retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army, Europe. Good to have you. Thanks so much for taking the time.

LT. GEN. BEN HODGES (RET.), FORMER COMMANDER OF U.S. ARMY EUROPE: Thank you, Jim.

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: So, first, as you watch this military force assembled now, and now with the recent arrival of the Ford, what is your best assessment of the

size and scale and duration of a campaign that this force would be able to carry out, days, weeks, months?

HODGES: Well, I have to say first, Kevin Liptak's report just then was excellent. I mean, he really -- I was learning things listening to him.

He's very good.

You know, the amount of combat power that has been assembled, particularly air power and sea power, is amazing. And there's no doubt that the

leadership there, they have done so much in thinking through the options and contingencies and risks. One of the limiting factors is probably going

to be the munitions that they have, particularly the precision weapons that are needed for certain types of targets.

And I think there's -- they probably have enough to do several days, but I don't know that there's enough on hand to go multiple weeks. I don't know

that, but that's my sense, is that they probably don't have that right now.

SCIUTTO: Yes, that's a real concern. You hear it a lot, particularly after the number of munitions that were expended during the attack on the Houthi

rebels in the wake of that. Do the forces assembled have the capability, in your view, to defend U.S. forces and allies in the region from any Iranian

retaliation? Because that's, of course, a big focus of this.

HODGES: Yes. I think the integrated air and missile defense assets that are in place with the Patriot systems, of course, and the THAAD, which is the

high-altitude air defense system. And then, of course, the aircraft themselves all are capable of air defense. So, I would imagine the team

there has done a very thorough job of assessing how to protect against the various type weapons that Iran might launch against them. And it'll be

different types, of course. So, they probably have a pretty good air defense set in place.

What will be more difficult, of course, is if Iran strikes targets in Israel or other countries, then you start getting spread pretty thin.

SCIUTTO: Final question just on the Iran issue, going back to Kevin Liptak's report there, is that the president has not articulated what the

goal of these strikes would be? Is it limited strikes to force them to the negotiating table, or is it right up to and including regime change?

Because those are quite different goals.

I mean, both different scale, but also somewhat contradictory, right? Do you want to talk to these leaders about the nuclear program, or do you want

to eliminate these leaders? What kind of confusion does that create for the military?

HODGES: Well, and also on the Iranian side as well. I think you put your finger on the main issue, Jim, as far as I'm concerned, is that what is the

purpose? What are we trying to achieve? And every commander is always going to want to know what is the strategic objective that I'm supposed to

accomplish, because that will affect how you go about your operations. And I don't know that there are any, or certainly not many, cases in history

where air power alone was able to achieve a strategic objective such as regime change.

And of course, we're very good at the decapitation part, but we don't have a good record of regime change. And so, I mean, if that's the goal, you

know, who change to who or change to what? And if it's imposed from the outside, that usually doesn't work very well either.

SCIUTTO: Before we go, I wonder if I can ask you, given you've been traveling in Eastern Europe, sharing a story from last year. You were on a

train in the Netherlands, I believe, and there were some infrastructure issues there, in a series of infrastructure issues. And I know that the

Dutch justice minister at the time said publicly it could have been an instance of sabotage and wouldn't be the first time. And this, I've been

speaking to Eastern European officials who are quite concerned about Russian operations inside Europe, sabotage on train lines, et cetera. Can

you share what you witnessed and what you've learned since about the potential significance of this?

HODGES: So, back in June, during the NATO summit, which was held in The Hague in the Netherlands, I was there on the day before to participate in

some events on the margins of the actual summit.

[18:20:00]

And then so on the 24th, the day of the summit, I was on the train headed from The Hague going back home to Frankfurt, Germany, and somewhere between

The Hague and Utrecht, there was a loud kind of a metallic explosion or clanging on top of the wagon that I was in on that particular Dutch train,

clearly destroyed the apparatus that connected the power lines to the train, and so the train rolled to a stop.

After a short time, everybody was evacuated to a new train, and then we continued, and then I called a Dutch friend of mine and said, hey, is there

any reporting on this there in the Netherlands? And he said that police were reporting that there were five different type incidents all happening

that day in different parts of the Netherlands. I immediately assumed, OK, five on this particular day, this is probably coordinated, and typically

the Russians, of course, are behind these things, although you'll never find a Russian flag or it won't be so obvious. That's the nature of gray

zone operations.

Since then, you know, in fact, I was contacted by a Dutch journalist today, and they're trying to sort out, so what really did happen? What did they

find out? And I think at this point they cannot say definitively, yes, of course, this was an act of sabotage, but again, that's the nature of gray

zone operations, and governments are reluctant to act on this. They treat them like crime scenes, looking for perfect evidence, and so the Russians

will continue to do this.

The Germans acknowledged that there were 320 acts of sabotage on critical infrastructure in Germany just this past year. If only half of those are

sponsored by the Russians, that's 150 attacks on German infrastructure by the Russians, so we have a problem.

SCIUTTO: And listen, some of them are deliberately murky, right, to provide some plausible deniability. General Ben Hodges, thanks so much for joining.

HODGES: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead, the deadline has now passed, still no word of a potential settlement in the ongoing showdown between the Pentagon and A.I.

provider Anthropic. President Trump is now threatening to ban all Pentagon businesses from dealing with Anthropic if it doesn't fall in line.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, a rough end of the week and month on Wall Street. U.S. stocks fell across the board due to a

number of concerns. That includes a discouraging inflation report. Wholesale prices rose a half a percent last month, well above expectations.

Higher oil prices, they won't help the inflation outlook. Brent crude is up over $72 a barrel on fears that the U.S. will attack Iran. Bank stocks,

they fell sharply over concerns about risky loans by private credit firms. Also, fallout from the collapse of a U.K.-based mortgage provider.

And to add to the list, there are persistent jitters over the potential impact from A.I., particularly on jobs. Shares of the fintech firm Block

rallied 16 percent on news it is laying off half of its staff and replacing them with A.I. Amid all these challenges, investors fled to the safety of

U.S. treasuries. The benchmark yield on a 10-year treasury fell below 4 percent for the first time since November.

President Trump is now ordering all U.S. government agencies to stop doing business with Anthropic. He's giving them six months to cut ties with the

firm over its refusal to lift restrictions on its A.I. model, restrictions like preventing it from being used for mass surveillance in this country.

The Pentagon gave the company until 5:00 p.m. local time here in Washington. That's about 90 minutes ago. But Anthropic had already made up

its mind.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth now says he will move to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security. He's ordering all military

contractors and suppliers to cut their ties with Anthropic as well. Ahead of the deadline, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says his company has the same red

lines as Anthropic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM ALTMAN, CEO, OPENAI: I don't personally think the Pentagon should be threatening DPA against these companies, but I also think that companies

that choose to work with the Pentagon, as long as it is going to comply with legal protections and the sort of the few red lines that the field

that we have, I think we share with Anthropic and that other companies also independently agree with, I think it is important to do that.

I've been, for all the differences I have with Anthropic, I mostly trust them as a company and I think they really do care about safety and I've

been happy that they've been supporting our warfighters. I'm not sure where this is going to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So, in addition to refusing to allow its software, its A.I. to be used for mass surveillance in this country, it also does not want them used

for autonomous weapons. The Pentagon insists it be allowed to use A.I. for all lawful purposes.

Joining me now, Lance Ulanoff, editor-at-large at TechRadar. So, Lance, help me out here. I mean, if both Anthropic -- first of all, the Pentagon

apparently loves Anthropic because they use Claude in the Venezuela operations. If Anthropic and OpenAI, two of the biggest, most advanced A.I.

companies, are saying we're not going to go by these rules, I mean, what does the Pentagon do?

LANCE ULANOFF, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, TECHRADAR: Well, I guess there's always Grok, you know, xAI, you know, Elon Musk's company. That's certainly a

possibility. But I should say that the concern about A.I. being used in things like autonomous warfare is not a new concern. In fact, it goes back

well over a decade and guess who signed a letter to the U.N. saying please don't use A.I. for autonomous warfare? Elon Musk.

By now, maybe he's changed his tune, I don't know, but I don't think any company is going to be really comfortable with the restrictions or the

loosening of safety, you know, guardrails for A.I. that the Pentagon's asking for.

SCIUTTO: Can you also explain the seeming contradiction between the Pentagon for a time simultaneously threatening to declare Anthropic a

supply chain risk, as it has done now, but prior to that it was threatening to use Defense Production Act to compel it to exceed to these uses and do

business with the government. You know, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems inherently contradictory.

ULANOFF: Yes. Well, I mean, look, I think they were just trying everything they could to twist Anthropics on, to get them to say maybe the easiest way

is to just say yes. But I think that if they had forced them, there would have been a lawsuit and then it still would have been a no-go. And, you

know, the CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, basically got ahead of it and said, look, here's our constitution. They wrote a constitution, you know,

and they said, you know, these are the things that we said a long time ago that we will not allow people to do with our A.I. models. And so, what

you're asking us goes right against that. We're not breaking that, not rewriting the constitution. So, there it is.

But it was also really clear that they're already working with them. They're happy to work with them. They're happy to ensure that A.I. is

trustworthy and they can do the things that everyone wants them to do without harming people or going against people's personal liberties.

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: The thing about autonomous weapons is that we're already seeing this happen, right? I mean, Israel, the IDF, they use A.I. for some

targeting in Gaza. I was at a NATO exercise in Eastern Europe end of last year and was told that A.I. is already at least being experimented with in

the use of drone warfare. So, you know, is the horse already out of the barn? Whatever the expression is on this, is it already happening?

ULANOFF: You know, robotics and A.I. have been used by defense for years, well over a decade now, probably going back 20 years. But there's always

been the insertion of the human factor in between. So, humans still have control. They don't simply say, just go do this, take care of it.

But what's really interesting is right now we're in sort of this revolutionary time in A.I., agentic A.I., for example, which is really

where you can tell A.I. to do something. Then it goes and does all the tasks. Now, imagine that in warfare. And I think that's the place that

we're suddenly at.

And, you know, what the Anthropic CEO was saying is that, yes, these capabilities might exist, but we don't really -- they're not really

perfected. They're not really at a place where we can trust them yet. And even the governance and the regulatory framework doesn't exist yet because

the development of A.I. is happening so rapidly, we can't get ahead of it. So, we need to get everything into alignment before we allow any of these

tools to be used in this way.

SCIUTTO: You know, I feel like I'm in a sci-fi movie kind of, you know, the prequel looking back to when decisions were made that allowed the machines

to take over, right? I mean, these are not unreasonable limits for companies to be discussing. Are they?

ULANOFF: Right. No. Look, we're well beyond hypotheticals, right? We now understand the power of A.I. and there doesn't seem to be a limit to it.

The only limit is the human controls that we put around it, the regulations, the guardrails. And so, you know, that future that we

imagined, that Terminator future that we've seen in the movies suddenly starts to seem more real.

And, you know, simultaneously, right, we have all those humanoid robots being developed. And why are they suddenly all appearing and getting so

much, so much better at everything they do? Because of A.I., because of generative A.I., the way they can be trained so quickly. So, it's all

happening. It's confluence. It's happening all at once. And no one really knows where it's going. But having the U.S. government basically say, look,

let's just take them and put them to use and let them do what they need to do. That's raising alarm bells. And it's -- you know, the companies are

drawing a red line for a reason.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, good for them sticking to their constitutions. Lance Ulanoff, thanks so much for joining.

ULANOFF: Pleasure.

SCIUTTO: Pakistan's defense minister says that his country's patience has run out and is now declaring open war on the Taliban run Afghanistan amid

deadly cross-border strikes and fighting. What this could mean for a ceasefire hanging by a thread.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.

A defiant Bill Clinton says he, quote, "saw nothing" and, quote, "did nothing wrong in connection with Jeffrey Epstein." U.S. lawmakers grilled

the former president for hours about his ties to the late convicted sex offender. A photograph from the Epstein file shows Clinton in a jacuzzi

with a woman. Sources say Clinton testified he did not know her and did not have sex with her.

The U.S. ambassador to Israel is telling embassy staff no need to panic. But if they want to leave, they better do so now. Another U.S. carrier

strike group has now arrived in the eastern Mediterranean today. As President Trump told reporters he's, quote, "not happy" with the progress

in nuclear talks with Iran. He said a big decision is looming.

A tram crash has killed at least two people and injured dozens more in Italy. Authorities say the tram came off the tracks, slammed into a

building in central Milan. Milan's public transport company says it is deeply shocked and is now working with police to determine the cause.

Pakistan's defense minister is declaring, quote, "open war" on Taliban-run Afghanistan as the neighboring countries trade deadly shelling and mortar

fire. The latest violence erupted last weekend when Pakistan bombed what it said was militant camps in Afghanistan. The Taliban then attacked Pakistani

military positions along the border. Pakistan then responded, hitting the Afghan capital with airstrikes. All of this threatening to upend an already

fragile peace deal agreed to in October. CNN's Nic Robertson has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: It's kind of interesting because if you go back to when the United States and allies

were in Afghanistan, the Taliban that were attacking them were the Afghan Taliban, and they were using safe bases and spaces inside of Pakistan. Then

the United States pulled out and then a group called the Pakistani Taliban, TTP, and I remember having a sort of an email exchange conversation with

the leader at the time. He said, we are now looking to get support from the Afghan Taliban. Now, they're in charge.

And this is, in essence, what's happened over the past several years, that they -- the TTP, the Pakistani Taliban have set themselves up at bases

inside of Afghanistan. The Pakistani government says that the Afghan government is allowing them to do this and not cracking down on them.

The Pakistani Taliban have been attacking the Pakistan border, the military post there. They want to take control of parts of Afghanistan. They want to

turn it into something similar to Afghanistan and Islamic Emirate. That's what they've said that they wanted to do. Bring stricter sharia law to

those areas in Pakistan.

So, what has happened here, and we saw a similar sort of flare up in October last year, that after a big border attack by the Pakistani Taliban

against the against the Pakistani military at the border, Pakistan's army has said enough, we're going to strike their camps. We're going to strike

the Pakistan Taliban camps in Afghanistan. That -- the response came from the Afghan government. Therefore, to use Afghan government troops, Taliban,

to attack the Pakistan border.

It all begins to look a lot like the same thing for the Afghan government. And they, in turn, as we saw overnight, struck what they said were Afghan

government military positions inside Afghanistan. That's where the escalation is, that they're striking Afghan government targets.

[18:40:00]

So, there are lines of diplomacy at play at the moment, but the tensions are simmering and high. And it's quite possible that more cross-border

attacks by Afghan or Pakistani Taliban in Afghanistan against Pakistan will likely very quickly bring further airstrikes by Pakistan's air force.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Just ahead, a CNN exclusive, how China spies on its citizens, at home and abroad. CNN's interview with a whistleblower just after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: A string of recent court cases is exposing the extent of Beijing's alleged political interference here on U.S. soil. In a CNN exclusive, we

speak to one Chinese whistleblower who reveals exactly how China spies on its citizens, not just at home but also abroad. They include interrogations

inside a secret Chinese police facility in Manhattan in New York City. Americans recruited to spy on activists and a senior New York political

aide accused of acting as an agent for China. Ivan Watson reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Making noodles the old-fashioned way. Ma Ruilin works in a Chinese restaurant in

midtown Manhattan. His life transformed since he moved to the U.S. two years ago from China, where he enjoyed much more status and financial

comfort because he spent 24 years working as an official for the Communist Party. But now, he's making the extremely rare decision to speak out

against the Chinese government.

MA RUILIN, CHINESE WHISTLEBLOWER (through translator): The religious database I designed hurt many people. What I'm doing now is my repentance,

my apology.

WATSON (voice-over): In a country that is officially atheist, Ma, a member of China's Hui Muslim minority, spent much of his career monitoring fellow

Chinese Muslims as well as Christians.

WATSON: Was your department involved in closing churches and closing mosques?

RUILIN (through translator): Yes, absolutely.

WATSON (voice-over): For the last few years, Ma says he was an official in the United Front Work Department, a vast shadowy wing of the ruling

Communist Party.

RUILIN (through translator): The United Front has access to all surveillance systems. At least three different types of cameras are

installed at mosque entrances, inside mosques, churches and prayer halls.

WATSON: Did some of the work involve trying to recruit informers?

[18:45:00]

RUILIN (through translator): Yes, every mosque has them. They're paid and rewarded annually.

WATSON: Was anybody ever punished because of this spying and the information that you gathered?

RUILIN (through translator): Yes. Detention, re-education through labor and prison, all of those happened.

WATSON (voice-over): CNN cannot independently verify these claims, but we have been able to confirm Ma worked as a Chinese Communist Party official.

Ma's work also involved escorting and monitoring Chinese Muslims going on pilgrimage to Mecca.

WATSON: Here in the U.S., do you think there are people from the Chinese government looking, watching?

RUILIN (through translator): Definitely. There's no doubt.

WATSON (voice-over): U.S. law enforcement is investigating and prosecuting a growing number of cases linked to alleged Chinese interference.

WATSON: In 2022, the FBI searched the third floor of this building in Lower Manhattan and charged several people, accusing them of running a secret

Chinese police station here.

WATSON (voice-over): One of these suspects, U.S. citizen Liu Jianwang, has pleaded not guilty, while another has pleaded guilty to acting as an agent

of the government of China.

WANG WENBIN, SPOKESPERSON, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY (through translator): The so-called overseas police stations you mentioned do not exist at all.

China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.

ROMAN ROZHAVSKY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND ESPIONAGE, FBI: It's been very aggressive and widespread.

WATSON (voice-over): This senior FBI official accuses Beijing of creating what he calls an Orwellian climate of fear in Chinese communities in the

U.S.

ROZHAVSKY: We've seen them send officials here to harass individuals. We've seen them hire private investigators to try to get them to commit violence

against individuals.

WATSON (voice-over): One critic of China says he's felt this pressure firsthand. Lin Hai is a Chinese immigrant who lives and works in New York

City. In 2019, pro-China protesters beat him up in midtown Manhattan when he attended a rally to support the visiting president of Taiwan.

LIN HAI, VICTIM OF BEATING AT NEW YORK PROTEST (through translator): I was shocked because I never expected to be threatened or beaten on American

soil.

WATSON: Should people here in the U.S. be paranoid and looking over their shoulders for agents or proxies of foreign adversaries?

ROZHAVSKY: If you're a vocal dissident with a large following, I would say yes.

WATSON: It's that dangerous?

ROZHAVSKY: Yes.

WATSON: Here in the U.S.?

ROZHAVSKY: Yes.

WATSON: Do you have estimates of how many people might be acting as proxies for -- or as agents for a government like China here?

ROZHAVSKY: I couldn't give you exact numbers because, you know, but I --

WATSON: Is it in the hundreds or thousands?

ROZHAVSKY: I think hundreds would be accurate.

WATSON (voice-over): CNN has requested comment from the Chinese government, which has long denied interference on foreign soil.

WATSON: Are you happy here?

RUILIN: Yes, very, very happy.

WATSON (voice-over): Whistleblower Ma Ruilin knows he may face problems for speaking out against the Chinese Communist Party. For now, he prays for

protection from a higher power.

WATSON: Do you have any regrets?

ROZHAVSKY: At least I'm no longer doing bad things now.

WATSON (voice-over): Ivan Watson, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Important story there. Coming up, 30 years of Pokemon. We're going to tell you all about how the mega franchise is celebrating that

anniversary. Plus, Nintendo announces new games in the series.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: Pokemon is celebrating turning 30. It launched on this day in 1996 with two video games in Japan and quickly became a worldwide phenomenon.

The franchise is marking the occasion by announcing a new generation of video games. Pokemon Wins and Pokemon Waves. Pokemon became so popular, its

mobile game even got a shout out from Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: But I'm trying to figure out how we get them to have Pokemon go to the polls.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, in all the years since then, Pokemon is still a massive money maker. Video games, mobile games, collectibles, trading cards, TV

shows, plural. Making it the highest grossing media franchise of all time.

Gene Park is the video games critic for the Washington Post. You can see him here at the White House with the bug grass Pokemon Paras via Pokemon

Go. Good to have you. Thanks so much.

GENE PARK, VIDEO GAMES CRITIC, WASHINGTON POST: You know the Pokemon's name. Well done.

SCIUTTO: I mean, with help from my team and my kids, frankly. So, I mean, first of all, you brought some items here. I mean, does this help explain

Pokemon's, like how it's so lasting?

PARK: Absolutely. I feel like Mel Brooks in Spaceballs. Merchandising, merchandising.

SCIUTTO: Yes, exactly. Exactly.

PARK: I have a baseball cap from Honolulu, Hawaii during Pokemon Worlds, that's the end of the season where you get a -- we can -- where people

compete in a trading card game --

SCIUTTO: For lots of money, man. I mean, it's like -- they don't mess around.

PARK: Absolutely. I actually have my little Detective Pikachu figure here. You know, he just -- has all -- he's all kinds of different characters.

These are the original cartridges, the two cartridges -- the two games that you mentioned.

SCIUTTO: Those are the ones that started it all off 30 years ago. Wow.

PARK: These are the ones -- the two ones that started it off. And I was there on day one, 1986. I was playing these in high school.

SCIUTTO: Can you still -- do you still play them?

PARK: They can still. Playable.

SCIUTTO: OK.

PARK: And I have my Game Boy Color here that came out in 1989 that still has a Pokemon pinball game. But it's Pokemon. It still works too.

SCIUTTO: Amazing.

PARK: Just like putting batteries.

SCIUTTO: I mean, 30 years is amazing. Because we see fads come and go. I'm just thinking like with my kids. You have like the hot Christmas gift every

year. And a lot of them you don't remember one or two or five or 10 years later. How did Pokemon stick around for so long?

PARK: Pokemon -- well, I think, first of all, I think it was an irresistible pitch. Got to catch them all, you know. And if they keep

making more all --

SCIUTTO: Then you're never -- it's never ending.

PARK: It's just never ending. I -- there are over 1,000 Pokemon right now, and I couldn't tell you even -- like I couldn't name the one that you just

named even, you know.

SCIUTTO: Wow. See, so I'm ahead of you on this.

PARK: Yes. You are, you are.

SCIUTTO: With a little bit of help.

PARK: But part of it is that there's a consistent release schedule of Pokemon games that are always being released every year, and they sell

blockbuster. They're always blockbuster games. But also, movies, the anime TV show from the '90s was huge too. And also. the trading card games. So,

it's just like a multimedia franchise that is very low cost, but just everywhere.

SCIUTTO: I get the sense that you're still a fan yourself.

PARK: Yes, I am.

SCIUTTO: I mean, is that part of the success here, right, that it keeps folks, you know, maybe sort of like keeping their childhood alive to some

degree?

PARK: Well, that's the thing that Pokemon company and Nintendo as well have done so well. That they are very Disney-like, and that they are able to

create multi-generational IPs. They are always -- you know, that they're about -- they're 40-year-olds like me. If you go to the Pokemon, like

Walmart or whatever, you see older men like me going crazy for the cards. But then obviously this is great for kids too.

SCIUTTO: Sure.

PARK: Like Pikachu himself is like a wonderful character design that is very pleasant to look at. Never gets old. And, you know --

SCIUTTO: Well, I'm hoping you leave that one with me here. So, what are the plans for the anniversary to celebrate?

PARK: Yes. So, right now there is Pokemon Pokopia coming out next week. And it's kind of like a cozy game. So, that's another reason why Pokemon has

been so everywhere, because there's a pinball game, and next week is a cozy game where people can dress up their houses and their characters. Like

Animal Crossing, which was a huge hit during the COVID days, that even Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was playing during the time.

SCIUTTO: Oh, wow, Fantastic.

[18:55:00]

PARK: So, again, it's very broad reach for a broad number of audiences. But Pokemon Pokopia is going to be one of those. And that's coming out next

week. They just re-released a remake version of these games on the Nintendo Switch for $20. And next year is going to be the wind and waves game that

you're talking about.

SCIUTTO: Got it. And it's international. I mean, that's the other thing, right? I mean, it's got appeal literally across the globe.

PARK: Yes, absolutely. Yes, it's just everywhere. It translates well to any culture, even though it's very Japanese. And you're right that it felt like

a fad back in the day, but it just kept on staying.

SCIUTTO: It's still here.

PARK: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Gene Park, thanks so much for joining.

PARK: Thanks so much for having me.

SCIUTTO: Leave Pikachu with me. Thanks so much to all of you for joining. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do

stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END