Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Dozens Of FBI Records Appear To Be Missing From Epstein Files; Larry Summers Resigning From Harvard Over Epstein Files; Trump Says U.S. Wants A Nuclear Deal With Iran; Trump's Pick For Surgeon General Answers Senate Questions; Anthropic Drops A.I. Safety Values During Pentagon Battle; Harry & Meghan Arrive In Jordan For Trip With W.H.O.; Paramount Ups Offer For Warner Bros. Discovery To $31 A Share. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired February 25, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:28]
MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Hello.
Dozens of FBI records appear to be missing from the Epstein files.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
Tonight, a new CNN investigation suggests the U.S. Justice Department withheld them when they released the Epstein documents last month. Now,
among those apparently missing files include three interviews related to a woman who accused Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. President Donald Trump of
sexually assaulting her decades ago. The president has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and he never mentioned the files during his State of the
Union speech.
The congressional probe into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein expects to hear from Bill and Hillary Clinton and the former
secretary of state is due to testify on Thursday. The former president on Friday.
A lot to get through. CNN's Kara Scannell is joining us now with developments.
Kara, I mean, what do we know about the documents that were taken out, as it were?
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So the CNN investigative team took a look at the files that have been public on the Justice Department's
website, and they found that there were a number of FBI interviews that are missing, that appear to be missing. And the way that they were able to do
this is that there was an evidence log that was produced to Jeffrey Epsteins accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys.
And if you look at the serial numbers on that list, they were able to discover that there were about 90 320s, that's the FBI witness interview
statement form, 90 of them were missing from the files. And within those 90, there are three 302s that are missing that relate to allegations made
by a woman who said that in in 2019, when she spoke to authorities, she said when she was as young as 13 years old, she was sexually assaulted by
Jeffrey Epstein. And during the course of her interview, she also said that she was assaulted by Donald Trump back in the 1980s.
The White House is calling that allegation false, and they said that it is sensationalist. The Justice Department, when asked by us about why these
files are missing from the public documents, said that no documents have been deleted. They said that the documents are not on the website. It's
either because they are duplicative, they were privileged, or they're part of an ongoing investigation.
The only other information that we've been able to find about this woman's allegations in the files was that in 2025, just last year, the FBI had
summarized a number of the more salacious allegations against prominent people. And they noted in that that one person claimed abuse by Trump but
refused to cooperate. So that might be why that investigative angle ended. But it's unclear because we are unable to see these 302s with this woman
and other related interview materials that are missing from the files.
And it is something that Democrats have seized on as part of their ongoing criticism of the Justice Department and there the both decisions on what
documents to post, some three million out of six million, as well as redactions that have made on some of these documents -- Max.
FOSTER: Is there any way of identifying the woman and finding out more through her?
SCANNELL: So there is a lawsuit, a civil lawsuit from years ago that the allegations in that seem to overlap to some extent with the allegations
specific to Jeffrey Epstein, not to Donald Trump. And so, her lawyer, we have reached out to her attorney at the time to try to understand where
this has gone and where, if anywhere, it could go to date. We have not heard back from that attorney, though.
FOSTER: Okay. Kara, I appreciate it. Thank you for looking into that for us.
The string of high-profile resignations over ties to Epstein only getting longer. Meanwhile, Harvard says Larry Summers, the university's former
president and former U.S. treasury secretary, will resign from teaching at the end of the academic year. In a statement, Summers describes the move as
a, quote, "difficult decision".
The fall from grace for him was months in the making. Documents released by Congress show Summers had a much closer relationship to the late sex
offender than previously known.
CNN's Matt Egan joins us with more on the Epstein files.
And for those outside America, this was someone right at the heart of the American establishment.
MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah, absolutely, Max. Look, this is just a stunning fall from grace for a legendary economist. I mean, Larry
Summers, not just the former president of Harvard University, but he was Bill Clinton's treasury secretary. He helped former President Obama craft
the economic agenda and recovery from the 2008 financial crisis.
[15:05:02]
And now, Summers says he is resigning from teaching at Harvard at the end of the academic year. Summers said that this was a difficult decision, and
it's one that comes amid growing scrutiny over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Documents that have been released in recent months show that Summers did keep up correspondence with Epstein for years. Some of those documents show
emails with Summers and Epstein. Some of those emails Summers was making sexist comments and even seeking romantic advice from the convicted sex
offender.
Now, Summers has previously said he is deeply ashamed by his relationship with Epstein. Harvard also says that Summers is stepping down from a key
role at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the university said it accepted his resignation from that key role as part of the university's ongoing review
of Epstein related documents.
Now, Summers is just the latest business leader whose career has really been derailed by the Epstein scandal. In just the past few weeks, a number
of prominent business leaders have resigned or taken other steps related to the Epstein files. Recently, Tom Pritzker stepped down as the executive
chairman of Hyatt Hotels. The top lawyer at Goldman Sachs, Kathy Ruemmler, says that she's leaving at the end of June. A prominent lawyer, Brad Karp,
also stepping down. Casey Wasserman, the Hollywood super agent, he's announced plans to sell his talent agency.
All of them related to scrutiny over some of the decisions by some of these business leaders to continue a relationship with Epstein years after his
2008 guilty plea relating to soliciting prostitution from a minor.
And look, this may not be done. I talked to Bill George, who's an executive fellow over at the Harvard Business School. He sat on the board at Exxon
and at Goldman Sachs. And George, he told me, this is not over he said, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We're going to see more prominent
people get implicated -- Max.
FOSTER: Yeah. Seems likely.
Matt, thank you so much.
EGAN: Thanks.
FOSTER: Now, just ahead of a new round of critical negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, President Trump used his State of the Union Address to
claim the regime is pursuing sinister nuclear ambitions. Tehran fired back by accusing Mr. Trump of repeating big lies. And while the president took a
defiant stance just before those talks began on Thursday, he says he prefers a diplomatic solution to this standoff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program in a particular nuclear
weapons, yet they continue, starting it all over. We wiped it out and they want to start all over again.
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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: To the White House now and CNN's Kristen Holmes.
You know, this huge fighting force that's in the region is sitting there waiting, you know, ready to be deployed. You know, what does Trump need to
get out of these negotiations soon, not to deploy them?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, that's really been the big question here. I mean you heard him kind of give this
soft launch of why it is important to strike in Iran, but we still haven't really had an appeal to the public, an appeal to Americans to explain why
the White House or the administration believes that these strikes are necessary and that they're necessary now. We also still have the question
of what exactly they're trying to take out. Is it a ballistic program? Is it an enrichment program?
We have not been given enough details by the White House to really understand what it is that President Trump is trying to get out of these
negotiations, other than, of course, what he says, which is that he wants them to say that they will never, ever, ever make a nuclear weapon. But
beyond that, the idea of us building up this military armada, this idea of bringing these forces in. This idea of these potential strikes even when
I'm talking to White House officials behind the scenes, they seem confused as to how we got here.
But it does feel as though President Trump has boxed himself into a corner here when it comes to Iran, and that the only way out is these potential
strikes if there is not going to be any kind of diplomatic resolution. And of course, after the last engagement between the United States and Iran, we
learned from multiple administration officials that the two sides were still incredibly far apart. So how long is President Trump going to wait
when he says he wants diplomatic resolution?
And that's something the White House also hasn't been able to answer. They first said ten days and they said 15 days. Then they said they weren't
going to give a timeline.
So there's still a lot of questions as to what exactly is going on behind the scenes in terms of what President Trump would take out of a
negotiation. Of course, I'll remind you some of our colleagues had some really great reporting today on how not all of President Trump's team,
including the top general, are on board with strikes in Iran. Essentially, they're warning that this wouldn't be quick and easy and is that something
that the president is going to be able to sell to the American people, a prolonged war with Iran, after running on this idea of America first and
America first, and no more forever wars?
FOSTER: I know you had a very late night because this was a record breaking speech that he was presenting yesterday. This is his Super Bowl,
isn't it, really, the biggest speech for the president, across the year?
Lots of different headlines, but it didn't seem like one big headline.
HOLMES: It didn't and for President Trump, maybe that's the right play and maybe that's good. When you talk to other Republicans, what they just
wanted from him was for him to stay on message, for him to talk about affordability, for him to stick with the script and that is largely what
you saw him do there.
Of course, he added his own flair. He is forever the showman, putting in these various different awards that he gave people. He had the reuniting of
the family with the political prisoner and his niece where he came out of the chamber. He brought in the U.S. hockey team that, of course, just won
the gold Olympic medal.
But in terms of actual headlines, what you saw him kind of do here was -- yes, talk about what the administration had done, but really keep an even
keel. Instead, it seemed as though President Trump used this opportunity not just to outline what he was going to do in the future, which we didn't
hear that much of, or how these programs were actually going to affect Americans in the future. But instead use this as almost a way to run
against Democrats heading into the midterms.
I mean, kind of setting up these scenarios in which Democrats would -- wouldn't stand for Americans or wouldn't stand for some of his guests and
then calling them out for it. He certainly came in with the idea that he was going to be combative with the other side and he -- and he was
throughout this speech. But I will say talking to Republicans, the big concern going into this was that he was going to go completely rogue off
script, say something like he had said before, along the lines of affordability doesn't matter, or we fixed the economy and he didn't have
any of those kind of lines that would completely turn off the American voter.
And when it comes to how polarized America is in terms of politics, maybe this is the best case scenario for some of these Republicans heading into
these midterms elections that there was no kind of outlandish headline there.
FOSTER: Yeah. Kristen, thank you so much for that from the White House.
President Trump's pick for surgeon general faced Senate questions today. Dr. Casey Means was scheduled to go before a Senate committee last October,
but went into labor with her first child just hours before that hearing. Means is a Stanford medical graduate, author, wellness influencer. She's
also a prominent voice in the Make America Healthy Again movement.
Some advocates have criticized her nomination because the surgeon general is typically a physician with clinical experience. Means had dropped out of
a medical residency program, and her Oregon medical license is inactive currently.
Meg Terrill joins us from New York.
An unusual appointment, but you know, on message presumably with a lot of what she says.
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Max. Extremely in line with what we have heard, particularly from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again movement. She even pointed to the strategy document that they put out around that philosophy last year, and
called it sort of a groundbreaking document.
I mean, in it, it really focused on things like ultra processed foods, but also things like overmedicalization. She talked a lot about how people
should talk with their doctors individually about anything from vaccines to birth control and senators questioning her about those things said, yes,
absolutely. Everybody should be talking with their doctors when it comes to medicines, but they also wanted to hear from her explicitly that she
endorsed things like vaccination.
Senator Bill Cassidy asked her to talk about what she thinks about whether there's a link between vaccines and autism, and she wouldn't take that off
the table. Take a listen to this one interchange she had with Senator Kaine from Virginia about the flu vaccine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Do you believe that there is evidence that the flu vaccine prevents serious disease and prevents hospitalization or deaths in
children?
DR. CASEY MEANS, SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE: I believe that all patients should talk to their doctors.
KAINE: And so do I. And that's not what I'm asking you. Your qualifications have been much discussed there is a mountain of evidence
about this.
Do you do you believe that there's no evidence that there's -- the flu vaccine has efficacy in reducing serious injury or hospitalization?
[15:15:00]
MEANS: I -- I --
KAINE: This is an easy one, Doctor. This is an easy one.
MEANS: I support the CDC's guidance on the flu vaccine, and I will always be working with the CDC, ACIP and the agency.
KAINE: So --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TIRRELL: Now, we should note this exchange continued for quite a while after that. It was -- it was awkward to put it, frankly. And then the
senator pointed to CDC data which came out in June that showed effectiveness estimates for the flu vaccine for both children and adults.
So, it seemed like Dr. Means was trying to stay really close to what Health Secretary RFK Jr. has said about vaccines. And that's worrisome to senators
on both sides of the aisle. Issues where they agreed, though, were things like ultra processed foods which she called Frankenfoods made in factories.
There was also some tension on issues of things like pesticides, where Republicans are worried about effects of regulating pesticides on the
farming and agriculture industries, whereas folks in the Make America Healthy Again movement are riled up right now because of an executive order
that the president just signed supporting glyphosate, a pretty controversial herbicide that's also known as Roundup.
So, there's a lot of tensions there. But the key thing to watch will be Senator Bill Cassidy, who is the Republican chair of this committee, who is
a doctor to see which way he votes, to see if this nomination proceeds -- Max.
FOSTER: Meg Tirrell, thank you so much for joining us from New York with that.
Now, Anthropic is dropping its flagship artificial intelligence safety policy. The A.I. giant said it's in response to market competition.
However, the announcement comes amid a looming deadline with the U.S. Defense Department for Anthropic to ease restrictions on its products. The
firm has said it has concerns about using its Claude A.I. system to control weapons and conduct surveillance.
Hadas Gold joins us here.
I mean, you're trying to put a put together lots of different messages that were getting today, but does this mean that the Department of Defense is
going to use Claude to control weapons now?
HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: I mean, the Pentagon says this is not about autonomous weapons or about mass surveillance for the Pentagon. They
say this is about the Pentagon being able to use these tools as they see fit, saying they should be the final arbiters on what is legal and what is
not.
Anthropic, they say they're concerned because they have long established themselves as sort of the company. That's all about safety first. They have
always talked about how their concerns about the capabilities of A.I. and how it could be used, and the Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has been very
clear that he has said he is especially concerned about how A.I could be used in autonomous weapons, and that there should always be humans involved
in those decisions.
And so, this has set up a very interesting fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon. The Pentagon giving Anthropic that 5:01 p.m. deadline on Friday
to get on board with what they want Anthropic to do to drop those internal guardrails. Otherwise, they not only risk that $200 million Pentagon
contract, but they also risk being put on what's essentially a blacklist being called a supply chain risk. That means that anybody who has a
contract with the military has to be able to prove that their military work does not touch Anthropic products, and that could be a major blow to
Anthropic's businesses.
But all of this fight with the Pentagon is happening at the same time as even though Anthropic is standing firm on some of these safety guardrails
when it comes to their contract with the pentagon, they have actually today announced that they are pulling back one of their kind of key safety
principles. This principle, for a long time, Anthropic said that it would pause development of an A.I. model if it could have dangerous abilities
like helping create bioweapons until their team could get the safety measures in place first.
And that policy is gone. And that's partly because, as Anthropic says, you can see that on the screen. They say if one A.I. developer paused
development to implement safety measures while others move forward training and deploying A.I. systems without strong mitigations, that could result in
a world that is less safe, the developers with the weakest protections would set the pace.
Now, Anthropic had hoped that its original safety principles that they would pause development of an A.I. model until they could get the safety
measures in place to help control its capabilities. They were hoping that other A.I. companies would sort of join them in that quest, but they
obviously didn't.
And I should remind you, there is no law, there is no organization. There is nothing helping to put any sort of rules or regulations around A.I.
development. These companies are developing their own rules and following them as they see fit. And Anthropic now has decided to drop one of these
safety measures, partly because of the market competition -- Max.
FOSTER: Yeah, it's moving so fast, isn't it? Hadas, thank you so much.
Coming up, they've done reality shows, award shows and tell-all interviews. Now, Harry and Meghan have a new project and that is in the Middle East .
They're there currently.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:22:51]
FOSTER: The duke and duchess of Sussex have begun a surprise visit to the Middle East where they are hoping to highlight humanitarian efforts. Harry
and Meghan arrived in Jordan earlier to kick off a two-day trip with the head of the World Health Organization. The pair later joined a WHO
roundtable meeting before meeting with medical evacuees in Gaza at a hospital. Also on their agenda is a visit to a refugee camp for displaced
Syrians and a trip to the headquarters of World Central Kitchen which sends food aid to Gaza.
So, what we want to know is what's behind Harry and Meghan's pivot to Middle East matters?
Joining me now is Sandro Monetti. He's a royal commentator, editor of "Hollywood International Filmmaker Magazine" as well.
We came to you as well because you're a real sort of Hollywood insider. And, you know they're based there. They've been trying to develop a brand
there. How does this fit into that do you think?
SANDRO MONETTI, ROYAL COMMENTATOR: So much confusion and contradiction follows this couple. It's six years now since they stepped away from life
as working royals, seeking a more private life. So, when they're on what looks, to all intents and purposes, to be a royal style visit in the glare
of publicity, that's why there's some confusion about what exactly they're representing.
It's great that they are, you know, showing up and positivity and putting a highlight on the good work being done here. They're not representing the
U.K. government. I presume they're representing their newly rebranded Archewell Philanthropies, formerly the Archewell Foundation their charity.
But with that sort of sitting alongside their brand, selling marmalade and strawberry spread, you understand why there's a bit of confusion around the
world about what they represent exactly while doing these good deeds.
FOSTER: There is some consistency to what they're doing, though, isn't there? Like World Central Kitchen was something that the duchess was
working on when she was in her royal role. And when we talk about conflict zones, that's always been something very close to what the duke has been
interested in. But I guess it's the platforms they use.
[15:25:00]
As you say, they have moved from a royal role, to content creators, to influencers and now just explain what they've done with their new
reorganization. It's -- they're basically philanthropists, right? But you know, you need money to do that as well.
MONETTI: Yes. This rebrand follows a delinquent tax filing for Archewell in California in 2024, which was blamed on an administrative error and
quickly resolved. One thing they have done with this rebranding is put out much more of a mission statement along the lines of show up and do good,
and saying the kind of causes they believe in which includes you know, health care displaced children, A.I. safety all this kind of stuff.
But what effect is it having in the wider world? Because if you look at the numbers and specifically google searches, they are not showing up in the
figures which show that people are curious about them as they used to be.
The Meghan and Harry google searches are ranked far below other celebrity couples. You know right at the very top, you've got Donald and Melania
Trump. Then, you've got William and Kate. We go down the list. We've got the Clooneys. We've got the Beckhams. We've got Beyonce and Jay-z. Weve got
Taylor and Travis.
And they're, you know, below all these are William and Harry so I guess as part of their rebrand, they want to rebrand what they represent, you know,
as a celebrity couple. And, you know, as the royal family, you know, is mired in scandal at the moment. This, if you like, alternative royal family
has shown up doing good and showing the world. Hey, we're still here.
FOSTER: What's the precedent for this, then? Who could they be? You know, this type. You know, you talked about some of the actors who do
philanthropic work, but they're primarily known as actors. We've got a couple here are primarily known as royals, but they've moved away from
that. Youve got philanthropists who just have huge amounts of money, and they put that out.
You know, what -- what -- how would you define this role that they're stepping into? And perhaps someone else who's done that previously.
MONETTI: Well, it keeps changing. When the as ever product brand was launched I thought that maybe Meghan was stepping into the space of Gwyneth
Paltrow or a Martha Stewart and, now, they're sort of perhaps to Barack and Michelle Obama, perhaps, or George and Amal Clooney and it's not helped
with the constant turnover of staff and communications chiefs at Archewell. They seem to be going through staff the way Spinal Tap went through
drummers.
So, if they can actually define it, then there can be a lot more -- a lot less confusion that there seems to be among myself and others.
FOSTER: Do you think there's a way they can come back from this confusion, as you call it, and really define themselves? They may be just finding
their way I guess.
MONETTI: Absolutely. This is a brand that is not going away. Let us not forget that Lilibet is the first princess ever born on American soil. So,
part of the rebrand is to find a path for their children within this philanthropic organization and to build up a future.
So, yes, there is a way. It just needs sort of clearer leadership and messaging. But I guess you could say that today's actions were a good first
step towards those. But it'll just need a lot more clarity going forward on what they represent and why.
FOSTER: Sandro, I appreciate it. Thank you for your time today.
Raising the stakes and sweetening the deal, Paramount revises its bid for CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery. We'll look at what Netflix
might do next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:32:19]
FOSTER: More now on the fallout, the new fallout from the Epstein files. Larry Summers, Harvard University's former president and former U.S.
treasury secretary, resigning from teaching at the end of the academic year. Documents released by Congress show Summers had a much closer
relationship to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein than previously known.
Meanwhile, a new CNN investigation suggests the Justice Department withheld dozens of FBI records when they released the Epstein files last month.
I want to bring in CNN's senior law enforcement analyst and former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.
Andrew, thank you for joining us.
Obviously, there are references to Donald Trump here, which is why we've been looking so closely. Am I right?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yeah, that's absolutely right. I think any time we find evidence that information pertaining to
Donald Trump has been redacted or removed in its entirety, it draws additional scrutiny to exactly the -- what was the process? What were the
decisions made by the Department of Justice in their effort to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act, which, of course, we now know they really
haven't complied with it in many significant ways.
FOSTER: How do they handle this? If there's a belief that these documents exist and there's a sort of paper trail, but we can't actually find the
documents, is there a way of pressing them on that
MCCABE: I think there is. You know, we've seen that happen in the last few weeks. We've seen the unfortunate release of documents that failed to
redact victims' names. Some of those victims and the people acting on their behalf have reached out to DOJ.
We oftentimes see those documents removed and then fixed, essentially, and put back into the data set. We saw that with the -- with the revealing
photographs of some of the -- some of the women involved. Those were removed and were eventually replaced with redacted, redacted images.
So, in this case, we have a series of documents that were allegedly or appear to have been turned over to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team as a
part of her prosecution. That's a standard thing that happens here. You're -- as a defendant, you're entitled to discovery from the federal government
as you're preparing to go to trial to defend yourself.
Well, the -- essentially the list of documents that were turned over to her is in the data set. So, you can see there what she was given and somewhat
oddly, about 90 or so FBI reports that are listed on that document are not separately included in the data set. So, it's those 90 reports that I think
people are talking about right now.
And simply by making this -- making this situation public, you could push DOJ to go back to their archives and try to replace these, hopefully, with
the original documents.
FOSTER: So, we'll see if that happens. But we should point out that obviously, the president denies any wrongdoing at any point. And we should
also point out that we've had many survivors and victims on CNN, and none of them have actually accused the president of anything.
But there's clearly one woman here who may have some information. But we, you know, is there any sense of who she is or whether she might sort of
shed some light onto this?
MCCABE: You know, not -- we don't have really clear information on that at this point. She is referred to in some documents, we believe, as Jane Doe
four. There are apparently she was interviewed four times in 2019. Shortly after Epstein was arrested, she reached out to the FBI and said that she
believed she had been assaulted by Mr. Epstein years earlier.
She was then about two weeks or so after she made that contact, she was interviewed by FBI agents. They prepared what's known as an FD-302. That's
a standard form report that an FBI agent has to fill out after they conduct an interview. It has to include all the facts that the witness gave you in
the course of the interview.
Then we know from these from these lists of discovery documents that there were three additional interviews with the same woman and those 302 reports
do not appear, do not -- have not been found in the data set at this point.
So, do we know exactly what happened with her? No, there are some other documents in the Epstein files that may refer to her, but it's not clear to
me that its absolutely, incontrovertibly proven that she appears in other places in the Epstein files.
FOSTER: What do you say to a lot of the commentary out there that everything's been done to take anything with reference to the president out
of these files and, you know the fact that he didn't address the Epstein files in that huge speech last night all speaks to the fact that he isn't
doing enough to create transparency on all of this?
MCCABE: Well, I think the clumsy and borderline incompetent way that DOJ has handled these files from the very beginning of this administration,
each of their missteps has had the maybe unintended effect of casting additional suspicion on the president. When the president's people keep
doing things that withhold files that turn over the files that are required by law, you know, a month late that redact have more redactions than are
supposed to appear in these files. All these things cumulatively raise the question among the American public that was there -- is there still some
concerted effort on the part of the Department of Justice to shield the president from embarrassment or revelation of something?
We don't know what that would be. I think that's all very logical. It's a reasonable reaction by the public and the fact that the president doesn't
continues to this day to fail to address this stuff on any really substantive level really kind of adds to that perception.
So if there's -- if there is truly nothing to hide and no one has ever made an allegation against him, then you would think that the president would be
really putting a lot of pressure on DOJ to stop covering, seemingly covering things up and just to be fully transparent about these releases
you know, I have to say at this point, they haven't done that.
FOSTER: Yeah. Well, you're the guy that understands this system, and you've been confused by it as well. But thank you so much for talking us
through that very delicate matter. Thank you, Andrew.
Now it is the final moments of trade on Wall Street, and stocks are up today. Worries about artificial intelligence and U.S. tariffs don't appear
to be spooking investors. Tech shares have also rallied today.
This is our Business Breakout.
So, the Trump administration has slapped new sanctions on more than 30 targets tied to Iranian oil sales. The U.S. Treasury Department said the
sanctions hit illegal oil vessels. It comes ahead of high stakes talks between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program.
China's pledge to import more high quality goods from Germany. German chancellor Friedrich Merz met China's President Xi Jinping in Beijing on
Wednesday during his visit to China as Chancellor Merz said he wanted to deepen economic ties with China.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security says it might again close precheck queues at American airports due to the partial government shutdown.
Precheck allows travelers to get through airport security more quickly. Kristi Noem says the department will prioritize staffing security lanes
used by the majority of travelers. The Global Entry program remains on hold.
In other business news, Paramount is raising its takeover offer for CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, is now offering $31 a share, up
from $30. The Warner Bros. Discovery board will review the bid and is extending the window for talks. The company stresses its merger agreement
with Netflix remains in place. Analysts say Netflix is likely to match the competing bid.
What we don't know, will Warner Bros. Discovery change their minds on the takeover battle?
Joining us now is our chief media analyst, Brian Stelter.
Brian, I know this is about getting the best deal for WBD. I also read something interesting that the head of CEO -- the CEO of Netflix, said
that, you know, they do have a reputation for sometimes walking away from deals and allowing someone else to overpay. I wonder, you know, we should
really looking -- be looking at Netflix and how they respond here.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yeah. The public negotiation is happening and so is a private negotiation. And in front of the cameras,
yes, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos is saying hey, we'd be, you know, maybe we'll have to walk away and let Paramount overpay. I do think Sarandos is saying
that though, knowing that behind the scenes he has committed very seriously to this Warner and HBO deal. He has described this as a critical addition
for Netflix as it battles YouTube and TikTok.
So, Netflix is prepared to pay more if necessary. It is prepared to take further steps to defend the deal that it has on the table. And it's not
just about that $31 per share price tag, it's also about Paramount's willingness to pay. $7 billion if this deal does not go through for
regulatory reasons.
Sarandos has to be able to argue that he can get the Netflix deal through the American government and through the European regulators, and he has
exuded confidence about that. But there are growing questions about whether the Trump administration will try to block this deal. That could, of
course, result in a lengthy court fight, but pay attention to the GOP lawmakers lining up against Netflix. Pay attention to Paramount CEO David
Ellison showing up at the State of the Union last night as a guest of Senator Lindsey Graham.
Paramount is trying to argue that it will win regulatory approval, but Netflix will not. And that's one of the factors behind the share price that
is weighing heavily on these negotiations, these talks right now.
FOSTER: But they've probably got a point there, haven't they, Brian? Because, you know, we've got this, you know, Paramount relationship with
the White House, number one. But European regulators, for example, have a huge issue with the size of Netflix's market share if it gets this massive
library.
So, away from the politics, there are genuine competition concerns here.
STELTER: Yeah. Netflix is the streaming king when it comes to the business that it's in. It is number one. However, Netflix looks at YouTube and
TikTok, and the rise of vertical video in some cases made by amateurs or only semiprofessionals. And they view that as a huge threat to their
professional video business.
So, Netflix makes the argument that there are lots of competitors out there, including some that didn't exist 10 years ago. Whether that argument
holds up, whether it wins the regulators over, though is very much an open question. There are reports today that Netflix -- that Ted Sarandos is
going to be at the White House tomorrow for meetings. Netflix will not confirm that report by "Politico", but it makes all the sense in the world.
We know Sarandos is in Washington trying to woo regulators and lawmakers. It would make sense for him to be trying to cozy up to President Trump in
this moment.
FOSTER: It's fascinating. Brian, thank you so much.
STELTER: Thanks.
FOSTER: Still to come, the scrutiny continues in the U.S. over FBI Director Kash Patel's trip to the Olympics. We'll tell you who's now
speaking out about it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:46:44]
FOSTER: Bipartisan criticism continues in the U.S. over FBI Director Kash Patel's use of an agency plane to travel to the Olympics. Today, Republican
Senator John Kennedy said a good public perception of government officials is important to maintain, and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin saying Patel's
air travel should be investigated.
Our senior U.S. justice correspondent Evan Perez, is in Washington.
We should point out, Evan, that FBI directors don't travel commercial for security reasons. But there does seem to be a real concern here that his
use of jets is actually disrupting operations at the moment.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR U.S. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right, that's the latest allegation. Look, this is -- to your point, Max, this has been a
constant story for Kash Patel since he became FBI director last year and the stories from inside the FBI that we've heard repeatedly about his use
of the FBI aircraft, which he is required to travel on, whether he's on business or if he's on going on vacation, if he's traveling back and forth
to see his girlfriend who lives in Nashville. He lives -- he had a home in Las Vegas.
And so, the persistent use of the of the aircraft for these reasons has been a source of some criticism inside the FBI as well as from some
Democrats. And so, what we have here is a whistleblower who allegedly -- who has these allegations, according to Senator Durbin. And so, this is
this is now being investigated by the Government Accountability Office.
And the gist of it is this, that when there was a shooting at Brown University in December, that there was a delay in being able to get the
evidence response teams to arrive in Rhode Island, where the university is located, because Patel's use of the aircraft and because he had put a hold
essentially on the use of one aircraft by another evidence team. And so, what we know is this -- we know that the FBI office in Boston did respond
to the shooting there. I remember covering this, and I remember that there are evidence teams went from Boston there to that location.
Now, we had heard some of these allegations back, back then. And what we learned is that Kash Patel was visiting his parents in Florida. But the FBI
has multiple aircraft. And according to the FBI, in response to these allegations from Senator Durbin, they say there were multiple aircraft
available. There was never any delay in sending an evidence response team. And they say that this is essentially blown out of proportion.
But you started where this story really is, why this story has become a thing is, is because the FBI director did show up at the Olympic, the gold
-- the Olympic gold medal game where the U.S. men's team won on Sunday. And he was seen in these now viral videos chugging beers -- there you go --
celebrating, really, I think conduct that we've never seen an FBI director do. And I think that's partly why this has drawn so much attention.
Now, the FBI says that Patel was in Milan. He was visiting with Italian officials doing work meetings because, remember, the United States is
hosting the Olympics in 2028.
[15:50:02]
This is normal. The FBI would send a delegation to observe some of the security operations in Milan in order to help study what they need to do to
prepare in L.A. in `28.
So, the question is, Max, does the FBI director need to be there? Probably not. That's something that agents can handle.
But we do know this -- he's a hockey fan. He loves hockey. And there was absolutely no doubt he was going to show up at that game. We all knew it.
FOSTER: Okay. Evan, thanks for bringing that up for us.
PEREZ: Thanks.
STELTER: Still to come, a landmark social media trial resumes in Los Angeles. The latest just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: A woman suing Meta and YouTube for addiction is expected to testify in a Los Angeles courtroom today. The 20-year-old and her mother
accused the social media platforms of intentionally developing addictive features that hook children and damaged their mental health. The lawsuit is
the first of hundreds of similar lawsuits to go to trial.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to the stand a week ago, testifying to the safety features Facebook and Instagram have in place.
Clare Duffy following the trial for us.
And you know, this is going to be really tough for her because her personal life is integral to this case, and certainly, the prosecution or the
defense case.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yeah, Max, she is going to face some really personal and tough questions when she takes the stand today. And her
lawyers have said that this is still difficult stuff for her to talk about, despite the fact that it's been many years since she started using these
platforms. She's now 20 years old.
I'll just tell you a little bit more about this young woman, Kaylee who filed this lawsuit along with her mother. As you said, 20 years old she
lives in California. She started using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at the age of nine. And she says she claims that addictive
features on these platforms caused her to develop anxiety, suicidal thoughts and body dysmorphia, so we expect to hear more from her when she
takes the stand about how her use of these platforms as a child have affected her now, as an adult.
Now, YouTube's lawyers have claimed that records from Kelly's logged in YouTube account show that she only used the platform for a couple minutes a
day, so we expect her to get more questions about her habits using these platforms. Her lawyers have claimed that, like many children, Kaylee used
YouTube most of the time when she was logged out. So, sort of contradicting YouTube's argument there.
Kaylee also had a difficult childhood. Her lawyers have acknowledged that her father was abusive, for example.
[15:55:01]
And Meta has argued that that is responsible for her mental health challenges, not social media. And actually, Meta claims that Instagram was
a creative outlet for her. So, we also expect the parties to try to tease out from Kaylee how much she blames social media for the mental health
challenges that she has faced. We also are hearing just recently from a therapist who worked with Kaylee. That's who the jury is hearing from in
the first half of the day before she takes the stand.
And interestingly, her therapist mentioned that social media could make or break Kaylee's mood as she came into session. So really interesting
insights. But of course, this is an important moment for the jury to get to hear directly from this young woman who has filed this case -- Max.
FOSTER: Yeah. We'll be following it closely.
Clare, really appreciate you bringing us up to date on that.
I'm Max Foster. That is WHAT WE KNOW today. Do stay with CNN, though. More after the break.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
