Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Hillary Clinton Testifies In U.S. House Epstein Probe; Iran: Talks With U.S. Have Moved Into "Elements Of An Agreement"; Will U.S.-Cuba Tensions Escalate After Boat Incident?; North Korean Leader Vows To Strengthen Nuclear Program; Iran Covering Up Protest Deaths By Pressuring Families To Lie. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired February 26, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:23]
MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Hillary Clinton denies having any knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
Clinton is facing off with U.S. lawmakers at this hour and as she testifies in a congressional probe tied to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein. The deposition is back in session after a brief pause earlier due to photos of the session surfacing online. The former secretary of state
has repeatedly denied having ever met Epstein and accuses the panel's Republican chairman, James Comer, of targeting her for political reasons.
Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, is set to testify on Friday. He did know Epstein and flew on Epstein's private plane at least 16
times. But Comey says neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton are being accused of any wrongdoing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): To my knowledge, the Clintons haven't answered very many, if any, questions about their knowledge or involvement with
Epstein and Maxwell. Again, no one is accusing at this moment the Clintons of any wrongdoing. They're going to have due process. But we have a lot of
questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Just minutes ago, lawmakers spoke to reporters during a break from the deposition, and Democrat Robert Garcia demanded that President Donald
Trump testify before the committee as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): This committee has now set a new precedent about talking to presidents and former presidents, and we're demanding
immediately that we ask President Trump to testify in front of our committee and be deposed in front of oversight. Republicans and Democrats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: MJ Lee has more now from Chappaqua, New York, where the Clinton depositions are actually taking place.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL ENTERPRISE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it's been about three hours since this deposition began here in Chappaqua, New York.
And the former secretary of state has been getting questions from members of the House Oversight Committee and some of the lawyers that work for the
committee about anything she might know about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. But as you referenced in that opening statement, it kind of summed
up in the big picture where she is coming from. She said that she doesn't know anything about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities, that, in fact,
she doesn't recall ever even meeting him. She's never flown on his plane or been to his island or has anything to add, for that matter about Epstein or
Maxwell's activities.
Now, she did go on to say in those opening remarks that if the committee were truly interested in getting to the bottom of the Epstein story, then
one person that should be deposed is the current president, President Donald Trump, who, of course, at one time was friendly with Jeffrey
Epstein. We have gotten a couple of threads, too, from inside the room about what kinds of questions the former secretary of state has been
receiving, including any conversations she may have had about Epstein with some of the people who are in his orbit, including Darren Indyke and
Richard Kahn, who are, of course, the two co-executors of the Epstein estate. She answered, no, she has not spoken with them. She also said at
one point that she's not even familiar with some of the people that she is being asked about.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Let's bring in CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson.
Joey, I'm just wondering why she is being forced to appear when there's no evidence that she even knew Epstein.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sometimes we call this politricks. Or is it politics?
Look, the bottom line is that the committee has some work to do, and I know ultimately they're searching for the truth. But I think searching for the
truth comes with getting the right people who can give information relative to what Epstein was doing, who he was doing it with, what your knowledge
was, if any, with respect to his ties. But we do know, right? We can't speak about this without giving the political tinge to it.
That's just the reality. We can talk about the legalities of the committee. It began its work in August of 2005 the Epstein Transparency Act which
released these files.
But they were late. Act passing in November of 2005, files was supposed to release 30 days later, December 19th, they were late a number of times.
They're introducing these tranches of files to the people, but let's just segue from that for one minute, as we look there, at the former president
and really the secretary of state and the one who ran for president herself.
And that is that Trump does not like the Clintons. That is our current president. He has mentioned the Clintons time and time and time again. Look
at Bill Clinton. Look at Bill Clinton.
And there are many, depending upon what your views are, who believe that this is a massive deflection.
[15:05:03]
Now, why is that politricks? Because we know that the House committee is -- has 26 Republicans, 21 Democrats or so. And that is the Republicans are in
control. And so, if you have the president who doesn't himself want to be embarrassed, but wants to point to other people, that might be, then, hey,
have her sit down.
But I think that while Hillary Clinton, we should point out, though that Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been convicted in a sentence, is sentenced to 20
years and is doing time, she did come to there -- to the wedding of their daughter in 2010, and she did I believe -- that is Hillary Clinton -- give
that indication she knows Ghislaine Maxwell, who, of course, was a major associate of Epstein, was the girlfriend of Epstein.
But she, Clinton, my understanding is -- Hillary that is -- has indicated that she hasn't flown on the private jet, hasn't been to the island, never
met Epstein, doesn't know him, wasn't engaged in any impropriety, and that her husband only dealt with him as it related to the Clinton Foundation.
So, I think a lot of her appearance really related to politics. I think Bill Clinton, though, is not similarly situated because he did know
Epstein. He did meet Epstein. The issue is going to be, was he aware of any of the illegality, or could he point to any other people and what they were
doing and when and with who?
And so, he'll, of course, testify tomorrow. But I think, as Hillary Clinton did say, Max, political theater at its finest. That's what we saw today.
FOSTER: Well, she's not immune to that herself either, is she, or the other Democrats, because they're trying to use this as a pressure on Trump
to appear. But I get the impression you don't think he's going to be called to appear because of the makeup of that committee.
JACKSON: I get that impression. Why do I get that impression? No, I don't -- I do not believe that the president of the United States is going to be
sitting in front of that committee anytime soon. We heard as you played the lead up to it, where the Democrats are calling for him to appear and would
only be appropriate. Right?
He hasn't been accused, that is our current president, of any wrongdoing. But there has been allegations. The most recent allegation being that he
was, that is Mr. Trump, accused by an underage girl, at the time, that he took advantage of her and that the files with respect to those interviews
happen to be removed from the Epstein files and not given to the public. And so, people are wondering where those files are. There's also
indications that his name appears in the files potentially more than anyone else.
And so, they're wondering, that as the Democrats on this committee -- and again I hate to be so political about this, but this is a political
football, no matter what side you're on, right? If you're on the Republicans, hey, we didn't have power until 2024. You guys were in power
before that, meaning the Democrats. Why didn't you do and focus on these things then? Why didn't you do your investigations, right?
If you're the Democrats, you're saying, but you're in power now and we want transparency. And we passed this act to get transparency, and you're
stonewalling us. And you really want the truth. Get the real guy who knows that and that's Trump.
And so, the committee will continue to do their work. They'll continue to bring people before them to give them answers. There are indications that
the former FBI directors, as Mueller and Comey, right, could give valuable testimony that indications that the former attorney generals, whether it's
Merrick Garland, whether it's Eric Holder, whether it's Mr. Gonzalez, you go along the list can give testimony.
So, they have a lot of work to do. I think what the public wants and what the survivors want is they want accountability. So if there's anyone who
knows about these ties, if there's anyone who should be investigated, if there's anyone who should be criminally prosecuted, then that needs to
happen. And I think that's the general mood of the committee, and that's the general mood of the country, which is why this thing is not going away
anytime soon.
FOSTER: No. And we'll be back on Bill Clinton tomorrow, won't we, Joey? So, thank you so much for joining us.
Meanwhile, a third round of critical talks between the U.S. and Iran now on the -- now in the books, as the two sides try to reach a nuclear deal amid
a massive American military buildup in the Middle East. Iran says talks made progress and have moved into elements of an agreement. Oman's foreign
minister says significant progress was made during negotiations today in Geneva, with technical discussions scheduled for next week. We have yet to
hear, though, from the White House.
Straight to Geneva and CNN's Fred Pleitgen. Do you expect them to be as positive about today, Fred?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we're hearing from the other officials who are involved, that could very
well be the case that at least some progress was made. You just mentioned that we heard from the Iranian foreign minister, Max, Abbas Araghchi, just
a couple of minutes ago, saying that he believed that progress was made and that the outline of a deal was possibly coming together.
One of the things that we have to know about the talks that took place today here is that they were a lot longer than the talks that we've seen
the first two rounds that we saw between the United States side and the Iranians over the past couple of weeks, those lasting, I would say maybe
two to three hours, these had two sessions that were three hours each so a lot longer.
And it seems as though the two sides delved a lot more into details on a possible text than they did before.
But the Iranians already came to this meeting here with a proposal that they had formulated, something United States asked them to do. The U.S., in
the last meeting had said that there were certain red lines for them and they wanted the Iranians to work out at least what a document could look
like and that seemed to be the basis of what was going on today.
There are, of course, still a lot of things where the two sides still appear to be maybe not that far apart, but pretty far apart the main thing,
of course, is nuclear enrichment by the Iranians. There was an Iranian source with knowledge of the talks that told me the Iranians are continuing
to insist on nuclear enrichment, saying that is a right that they have and not something that they're going to give up. The U.S., of course, wants
zero enrichment, but it's unclear whether or not the Trump administration would be willing to settle for something along the lines of very little
uranium enrichment possible for medical purposes and maybe other smaller purposes as far as research is concerned.
And for the Iranian side, and this is something that an Iranian source told me as well, Max, for them, sanctions relief is really something that's
extremely important to sort out. They want major sanctions relief if they're going to make big concessions on their nuclear program. And they
say that involves not only U.S. sanctions, but also United Nations Security Council sanctions as well for the Iranian economy. Obviously, that would be
very important. It's being strangled.
And at the same time, of course as you mentioned, that military buildup by the United States still going on in the Middle East, the Iranians saying
that if they get attacked, they're going to hit back in a major way. So, right now, the tension is still there. And I think everybody who took part
in these talks today and everybody who's observing these talks, certainly waiting to see what president Trump's next words are going to be, whether
or not he also assesses that these talks went in a positive manner, Max.
FOSTER: Yeah, let's see. Fred, thank you so much.
Now, Cuba's president vowing to defend his country against what he calls terrorists and mercenary attacks, saying gunmen on a U.S. registered
speedboat tried to infiltrate the island on Wednesday. Cuba says the boat entered Cuban waters just south of Florida and fired on a border patrol
vessel. It says Cuban forces returned fire, killing four gunmen and wounding six others. Cuba's interior ministry says all were Cubans living
in the U.S. who came armed with assault rifles, handguns and Molotov cocktails. The U.S. says it's conducting its own investigation.
What we don't know is, will U.S.-Cuba tensions escalate after the boat incident?
Joining us now is Isa Soares.
I know you don't have a huge amount to go on here, not least who these people were on the boat.
ISA SOARES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed. And I was looking at my phone because we are expecting to hear from the Cuban foreign ministry at some
point this hour. And it's important to point out to our viewers, Max, that a lot of what we do know comes from the Cuban side. So, we haven't heard
much from the U.S. side other than hearing from Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying they are investigating.
What we don't know, who exactly were these 10 individuals, right? We know that four killed, six injured. We don't know. They were described by the
Cubans as U.S. -- as U.S. Cubans, residents of the U.S. but we don't know other --
FOSTER: They're Cuban or they're American or -- it's not clear.
SOARES: They could be Cuban. Do they have U.S. passports? Do they have dual nationality? Do they have a residency in the U.S.? We do not know.
The other crucial thing. And I think that's probably more important than who these individuals were, what were their intentions? Were they going to
Cuba to try and in some way to rescue family members, right? Or to -- because the situation there, humanitarian situation has been so dire in the
last few -- the last few weeks. Were they trying to do that?
Were they trying to deliver humanitarian aid? I mean, the whole thing of, you know, assault rifles is questionable, right? Or were they there for a
different plan --
FOSTER: To disrupt.
SOARES: To disrupt -- not only to disrupt, but potentially to sow chaos, to try to accelerate some sort of regime change? And these -- this is what
we don't know at this stage. What exactly were their intentions?
We know the situation. We've heard that from our reporter on the ground is incredibly dire. We know they're having blackouts.
This is all part of the fact that the U.S. has put extra pressure on Cuba since Maduro was removed, of course. We've had less oil going into Cuba.
There is an embargo on oil.
And really Venezuela and Nicolas Maduro were the backbone, the big ally of Cuba, since that was taken away, we've had daily blackouts, as we've heard
repeatedly. And that is important, not only because but you think about hospitals, think about schools, even your fridge. So there's a huge crisis,
and even the U.N. is warning of an impending humanitarian crisis.
But there is other political aspects to this. What exactly is -- who exactly are these individuals?
[15:15:00]
Is this a rogue group trying to accelerate it? And what kind of damage, if any does this have on the U.S. intentions here and their push, of course,
for regime change? Which is why I find the silence so far from the U.S. pretty interesting.
FOSTER: Unless they just don't know what's happening.
SOARES: Well, that could be the case. But then where does that leave the situation? We saw something like this back in the 1990s, where rogue groups
were going in to try and create and create a series, you know, accelerate regime change. But that -- sowing chaos that has major implications for the
U.S. government, who may be trying a different tactic here.
FOSTER: Yeah.
SOARES: So, there's a lot we do not know, but we are chasing. We are waiting to hear from the Cuban foreign ministry what we do, who we do want
to hear from is the United States.
FOSTER: Isa, thank you so much.
SOARES: Very welcome.
FOSTER: There was a spectacular show of North Korean military force in Pyongyang on Wednesday, though it was a parade with a bit of a difference.
Fourteen thousand troops marched in the city's main square, but for once, no military hardware was wheeled out.
All the same, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un vowing to strengthen its nuclear weapons program.
CNN's Will Ripley has more on that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Very few places can throw a military parade like North Korea just did. We saw synchronized
paratroopers lighting up the sky landing right in the middle of Pyongyang's Kim Il Sung square. We saw thousands of goose stepping strobe light troops
marching in patterns and formations, tightly choreographed drum majors wielding their batons, state TV even showing shirtless soldiers training
and practicing in the snow and ice.
One thing we did not see -- weapons. Unlike this massive military parade a few months ago for the 80th anniversary of the ruling Workers Party, there
were no intercontinental ballistic missiles or glide vehicles or giant mobile launch trucks rolling past the cameras. We did see North Korean
leader Kim Jong Un alongside his daughter, believed to be Kim Ju Ae, both in matching black leather. There's been a lot of speculation in South
Korea. Kim may be grooming his daughter as his likely successor, but so far, nothing official from Pyongyang. State media has never even publicly
reported her name.
Kim used his closing speech to double down on expanding North Korea's nuclear arsenal, promising more warheads, stronger ICBMs, submarine launch
capabilities, drones and A.I. integration. He warned any violation of North Korea's independence would trigger immediate retaliation.
At the same time, he did leave room for talks with Washington, saying it all depends on the U.S. attitude. It's worth noting President Donald Trump
in his State of the Union Address did not mention North Korea at all. He did honor a 100-year-old Korean war veteran in the chamber. That is a
notable shift from his first term, when summit diplomacy with Kim dominated headlines.
Meanwhile, the U.S. and South Korea say their annual Freedom Shield military exercises will return next month with some signs they could be
toned down from previous drills. In late March and early April, President Trump is expected to travel to China to meet with Xi Jinping. So far,
there's no sign of any plans for Trump and Kim to meet while he's back in this region.
Will Ripley, CNN, Taipei.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Coming up, what we can see inside Iran at the moment, a CNN investigation reveals the way Iran's regime is forcing the families of dead
protesters to lie about their fate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:21:25]
FOSTER: Returning to one of our top stories, the nuclear talks in Geneva between the U.S. and Iran. Sources tell CNN that President Trump's special
envoy, Steve Witkoff, held direct talks with Iran's foreign minister. The latest round of negotiations have ended, but the two sides reportedly made
significant progress and planned to continue talking next week.
And whilst the Geneva negotiations are focused on avoiding a military fight inside Iran, the regime is trying to cover up what happened in its recent
showdown with protesters.
A CNN investigation finds that families of protesters killed in Iran's brutal crackdown are being pressured by authorities to lie about their
loved ones' deaths.
CNN's Jomana Karadsheh has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In grief, they dance, celebrating the life of those they've lost. This is how Iranians are
defying their ruthless clerical regime. It's not only killed thousands in its bloodiest crackdown ever, but one that has also been trying to bury the
truth.
Over the past few weeks, we've collected testimony pointing to a widespread effort by Iranian authorities to pressure families of its victims into
silence and falsifying the circumstances of how those protesters were killed
RELATIVE OF KILLED IRANIAN PROTESTER AMIRHOSSEIN SAEDI: The family were visited by Basij paramilitary forces and Revolutionary Guards. They told
the father he was talking too much because he had been saying that his son was shot in front of his eyes.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): This man we're not identifying for his safety is in Iran. He spoke to us about his relatives, the Saedi family, whose member
Amirhossein was shot and killed by regime forces. He says security officials tried pressuring the family to label Amirhossein a, quote,
"martyr", supporting the regimes narrative that so-called rioters backed by the U.S. and Israel, not state forces, killed protesters.
RELATIVE OF KILLED IRANIAN PROTESTER AMIRHOSSEIN SAEDI: The forces were present at their ceremonies. Basij members and others stayed nearby. They
even went to their house and threatened them, saying, we have to announce your child as a martyr, and you cannot speak anywhere. You must not say
anything unless you want your other child's fate to be the same as this one.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Amirhossein had never protested before the January uprising, but on that night, not even a medical condition he was struggling
with could stop him.
RELATIVE OF KILLED IRANIAN PROTESTER AMIRHOSSEIN SAEDI: He suddenly jumped up and down, saying adrenaline has risen in my blood. I'm flying. Tonight,
I want to fly.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Amirhossein bled to death after being shot in the face by security forces, according to his relative.
The 19-year-old and his dad were inseparable. On that night, he died in his father's arms.
The Iranian regime has long been accused of harassing and intimidating families of protesters to silence them and coerce statements that align
with the official account. This time, human rights groups tell us it is a systematic campaign that appears aimed at controlling the narrative and
concealing the scale of state violence.
KARADSHEH: Memorials like this one outside Iran allow the world to see the faces of some of the victims.
Getting firsthand testimony from people inside the country is very hard.
[15:25:03]
It is extremely dangerous to speak out against the regime.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): With the help of Iranian human rights groups and activists. We reviewed voice and text messages from more than a dozen
families. They describe coercive tactics by the regime including withholding protesters' bodies or burial permits. In some cases, relatives
were pressured to attribute deaths to accidents. Many were harassed to accept the martyr designation. And we found that most were pushed to claim
their loved ones were affiliated with state forces, bolstering state propaganda.
FATHER OF SAM AFSHARI: They said Sam's body would not be handed over until he was declared a Basiji and a martyr killed by terrorists.
RELATIVE OF ABOLFAZL VAHID GOZELJEH-MEYDAN: They said his father either had to declare Abolfazl as a Basiji or pay six billion rials.
RELATIVE OF PEYMAN MOGHANI: They openly threatened that if we said or did anything other members of the family would suffer the same fate that Peyman
did.
RELATIVE OF ABOLFAZL JAHANI OSHTOLOGH: They arrested his father and told him he had to say his son was martyred by the MEK opposition group or
Israelis.
FRIEND OF FATEMEH ALI-MOH: Authorities were forcing the family to call her a martyr or to say that she had been shot by terrorists.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Also declared a martyr was three year old Melina Asadi. Her death weaponized by the regime which falsely accused agents of
Israel and the U.S. of killing the toddler. They even deployed new tools, this time to reinforce their version of events, airing this disturbing A.I.
generated video of the moment she was shot. The rights group Hengaw says Melina was killed by the security forces, and her family was made to appear
on state media.
Amirhossein's family was also forced to sit in front of the cameras for this segment eulogizing so-called martyrs. Like other families, they gather
at their boy's grave, defying the theocratic regime, an act of protest against an oppressor trying to rewrite a blood-soaked history.
Jomana Karadsheh, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:30:38]
FOSTER: Our top story, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is facing questions at the House Oversight Committee as part of the
investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Clinton says she can't recall ever meeting Epstein and only interacted with his former
associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, a handful of times. Clinton was asked about her husband's contact with young women, and said she would not speculate on
matters she wasn't present for. The deposition was paused after a photo of the closed door interview was posted on social media, which was a violation
of the rules.
Bill Clinton will appear before the committee on Friday, the first time a former U.S. president has ever testified in a congressional probe.
Now, the head of the World Economic Forum is the latest leader to quit over their connection with Jeffrey Epstein. Borge Brende, who interviewed Donald
Trump as you can see on stage in Davos last month, is stepping down after an independent investigation into his relationship with Epstein. The review
came after it emerged that Brende had a -- had attended three business dinners with Epstein in 2018 and 2019, and exchanged emails and texts with
him. Brende says he didn't know about Epstein's criminal past and regrets not checking beforehand. There's no indication of any wrongdoing here, and
the investigation hasn't found any, quote, additional concerns beyond what was previously disclosed.
But in a statement, Borge said, "I believe now is the right time for the forum to continue its important work without distractions."
It's a public relations headache for the World Economic Forum, less than a year after its founding chairman, Klaus Schwab, stepped down amid
allegations of misconduct. The forum itself has also been the subject of baseless conspiracy theories for years now.
So, what we want to know is, how damaging is Brende's resignation for the World Economic Forum?
Well, joining us now is Gillian Tett, a columnist from "The Financial Times".
I'm sure you've been to Davos many times, has been the place of conspiracy theory, and it seems like it's not escaping this Epstein scandal.
GILLIAN TETT, COLUMNIST & EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER, FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, absolutely. I mean, in many ways, what's happened both with Klaus Schwab
and with Brende Borge is unfortunately reconfirming everything that the conspiracy theorists have said for years about the World Economic Forum in
Davos, and certainly reconfirming what many people in the MAGA have been saying about it.
However, I would argue in many ways this is deeply unfair because at the end of the day the World Economic Forum has only ever been a mirror to
society around it. And in fact, what's very clear is that not only have many people been caught up in this Epstein scandal but also, unfortunately
while countries like the U.K. and France and Norway are actually taking action against people who've been caught up in this scandal, and you're
seeing a wave of resignations, the latest indeed being world economic forum. What is absolutely stunning is that nothing has yet been done inside
Washington for the people who've been caught up as well.
So, right now, we're looking at a very lopsided situation where people who were in some ways not even at the epicenter of the scandal are the ones who
are resigning, whereas while many questions remain about the very core of the scandal and the links with Washington and elsewhere.
FOSTER: I spoke to someone involved in, you know, big conferences and they're saying that they now having to put together a database of anyone
mentioned in the Epstein files and blacklisting them effectively. Is that something that you see happening?
TETT: Well, the problem with that is that if you look in different people's names in the Epstein files, there's just a vast array of people's
names. And some of them are there for entirely innocent reasons, because Epstein discussed them with other friends or reference them, or they
happened to bump into them at some massive party. So, there is, if you like, a huge witch hunt going on.
But let me just reiterate once again that in many ways, the people who are at the heart of the Epstein scandal are most involved in serious
wrongdoings are not the ones who've actually been pulled before and caught yet. And that is deeply, grotesquely unfair.
[15:35:01]
And I'm not in any way trying to excuse some of the people who very unwisely danced with those who were involved with Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell at some of their dinners and events and things, but there is still this huge, great imbalance in terms of how this is being discussed and
judged and prosecuted.
FOSTER: We are seeing, you know, titans of business aren't we losing their jobs over this in America as much as around the world as you say? Politics
hasn't been hit in the same way in the U.S. It has in Europe and we are seeing prosecutions in the U.K., in Norway.
Is that going to change, though? Because we were even talking today about this deposition that Hillary Clinton was giving today. She's pushing for
Trump to appear. He's not going to appear, and he's featured in the Epstein files far more than she is.
TETT: Well, you're absolutely right. And the problem at the moment is that although shareholders can demand that private sector leaders step down or
resign, or else the leaders themselves, the executives themselves, feel sufficiently embarrassed into doing that and again, the paying members of
something like the World Economic Forum can force some kind of reckoning at the top for the government in Washington right now.
It's really only voters and Congress, and Congress, for the most part, has seemed asleep at the wheel, although there are some very brave congressmen
and congresswomen now pushing for more accountability in actions. But unless there's a serious revolt by MAGA, or unless there are signs that
this is going to cost the Republicans, you know at the voting booths later, later this year, it's very hard to see anything right now that's going to
force the political groups in Washington to actually act seriously around this.
So once again, you've got this very lopsided pattern where the president appears determined to try and pin it all on Democrats, where his group
appeared to hope frantically that the sheer number of names that are now caught up in this net is muddying the waters around the White House. And
essentially, they are seeking to tough it out or try to tough it out.
FOSTER: This idea of a corrupt establishment, obviously the original conspiracy theories and theory in many ways and as we were talking about,
Davos, is often seen as part of that by the conspiracy theorists, anyway.
Do you think that they can bounce back from this? Is this enough for them to rebuild for next year?
TETT: Well, Davos actually had a really successful World Economic Forum this year with a record number of world leaders and attendees, and there
was a real sense of buzz around it, partly because President Trump himself went along, along with a number of the cabinet members.
So, this year felt like a very successful Davos in the sense of feeling very vital and relevant and people feeling they had to be there. In terms
of what happens in future years -- I mean, they have a number of challenges. The immediate one, of course, is the question of having lost
these leaders. And in some ways, the fact that Klaus Schwab was pushed out and he's been very bitter and angry about it.
The fact he's pushed, he was pushed out and now seen his own successor being pushed out as well is certainly a very, very unfortunate turn of
events. But once again, the point about the economic forum is it's really a mirror to the world around it.
So just as senior echelons of leadership ranks tend not to have many women in it, there haven't been many women in Davos in prominent positions. The
forum has been trying very hard to change that, and there also haven't been, you know, that many, you know non-elite members in Davos either.
Again, that's true of the world's, you know corporate and political leadership class.
So, the question really is not just whether Davos can survive, but what kind of world. Its acting as a mirror to and whether it can in any way try
and improve that. And above all else, try to improve public trust in institutions and leaders.
FOSTER: Gillian Tett, as ever, really appreciate your analysis. Fascinating.
TETT: Thank you.
FOSTER: Now it is the final moments of trade on Wall Street. Stocks have been seesawing between gains and losses. The Dow mostly flat, though, as we
approach the closing bell.
This is our Business Breakout.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has slammed the White House after the Trump administration said it would withhold more than a quarter of $1 billion in
Medicaid payments to the state. Vice president J.D. Vance says the move was made because the state has failed to stop fraud. Walz called it a campaign
of retribution against blue states.
Mortgage rates in the U.S. have fallen below six percent for the first time in three years. Lower rates could tempt more buyers into the housing
market, although President Trump has said he wants to keep house prices staying high.
Burger King is changing the way it makes whoppers for the first time in nearly a decade, the company's signature burger will now be served with a
creamier mayonnaise and a more premium bun after customers complained about burgers being smooshed.
[15:40:07]
It will also now come in a box instead of a paper wrapper.
Now, the Pentagon is pushing back on claims that it wants to force Anthropic to cross ethical red lines. The U.S. Defense Department has given
the A.I. company a Friday deadline to drop the legal safeguards on its artificial intelligence. Sources say that Anthropic is worried that that
could lead to the Pentagon building A.I.-controlled weapons or mass surveillance systems.
Now, a Pentagon spokesman has posted this narrative is fake and being peddled by leftists in the media. Here's what we're asking. Allow the
Pentagon to use Anthropic model for all lawful purposes.
Our tech reporter Clare Duffy joins me now.
Why is the Defense Department so sensitive to this issue, Clare?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Well, Max, I mean, rhetoric really ramping up here ahead of this 5:00 p.m. Friday deadline that the Defense Department
has given to Anthropic to concede to its demands. And this is coming, as were starting to hear a growing chorus of support for Anthropic coming from
other people in Silicon Valley outside of the company, and also, increasingly, some people in Washington, D.C.
Now, I think the Defense Department is pushing back here because of what we've heard about Anthropic red lines. You know, it is coming from the
company that the two things that they want to make sure remain in their contract with the Defense Department are the fact that its technology
cannot be used for mass surveillance of Americans or as you said, to create automated weaponry.
Now, the Defense Department pushing back on this idea that they want to do that, but that is sort of what's at the crux of this conflict. And I'll
read you just a little bit more of that comment from the Defense Department spokesperson, Sean Parnell. He said, again, here's what we're asking,
allow the Pentagon to use Anthropic model for all lawful purposes. This is a simple, common sense request that will prevent Anthropic from
jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk.
And really, what it seems like the Defense Department wants here is they don't want the company to be able to put any sort of guardrails on how
their technology is going to be used, and there's no indication that ahead of that 5:00 p.m. Friday deadline, Anthropic has been willing to back down
on this. Of course, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
But this could be a huge problem for the company not only to lose this $200 million contract with the Pentagon but also the pentagon is threatening to,
you know, impose this security risk designation on Anthropic technology. And what that means is that the company could lose many other contracts
with other companies that do any sort of business with the Defense Department or with the government and so that could be a huge blow to
Anthropic business as it weighs what to do ahead of this -- deadline tomorrow, Max.
FOSTER: Okay. Clare Duffy, appreciate it. Thank you.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:45:59]
FOSTER: Across Europe, there's a deepening discomfort at the derailment of transatlantic ties. It comes as American diplomats are ruffling feathers in
their host countries, including the U.S. ambassador to Paris, Brussels and Warsaw, many are beginning to question their most undiplomatic diplomacy,
that is, American attempts to meddle in European politics, as Melissa Bell explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The most undiplomatic of diplomacies, American ambassadors in France, Belgium
and Poland, at odds with their host countries. In Paris, Charles Kushner, Jared Kushner's father, briefly banned from access to the French government
after failing to turn up when summoned.
PASCAL CONFAVREUX, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON: To summon an ambassador, is completely part and parcel of diplomatic grammar. It's --
and so sometimes when you have a ambassadors who are not career diplomats, it can lead some incomprehension.
BELL (voice-over): In Poland, it was the U.S. ambassador himself who cut ties with the speaker of the lower house of parliament after he'd spoken
out against giving President Trump the Nobel Peace Prize.
And in Belgium, U.S. Ambassador Bill White keeps weighing in to an investigation into circumcision practices in Antwerp's Jewish community,
most recently tweeting the case should be immediately dropped, although he did at least turn up to the foreign ministry when summoned.
PIERRE VIMONT, FORMER FRENCH AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: The American foreign policy has a very strong ideological content nowadays and one should not be
surprised that it is there. But on the question of interference in domestic politics, I think it has to be put very strongly to the American side that
this is not what diplomacy is all about.
BELL: Ambassador Kushner entered the fray of a political domestic controversy after official U.S. comments suggesting that far left violence
was on the rise here in France. In a furious response, the French foreign minister replied that France had no lessons to learn from the reactionary
international.
BELL (voice-over): The killing of a young, far right activist in clashes with the far left a few weeks before local elections had deepened political
divisions in France even before the United States weighed in.
CONFAVREUX: We are allies. We are not aligned, which is always a -- also something that helps us to tell the truth or what we think is our truth to
our -- to our allies.
BELL: Something the foreign minister is expected to tell Ambassador Kushner face to face when the two men meet again. It is expected in the
next few days.
Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Still to come, the fallout from President Trump's distasteful White House invite continues. We'll find out why the U.S. women's Olympic
ice hockey team said they couldn't make the trip to the Oval Office.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:51:29]
FOSTER: The captain of Team USA's Olympic women's ice hockey squad has labeled President Trump's White House invite a distasteful joke. Hilary
Knight made the comment after video surfaced of President Trump speaking over the phone with the men's team following their gold medal triumph. The
president suggests he would be impeached for not inviting the women's team to the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILARY KNIGHT, CAPTAIN, TEAM USA ICE HOCKEY: The joke was distasteful. Women should be championed for their amazing feats, and now I have to sort
of sit and anybody has to sit in front of you and explain someone else's behavior. It's not my responsibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: CNN sports analyst Christine Brennan joins us now with more.
I mean, we were hoping to hear from them to get their point of view because it was pretty stark that video, wasn't it? Not just President Trump's
reaction actually, the men's team reaction as well.
CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: That's right, Max. And you know, were now at 100 hours after that moment and we're still talking about it,
which I think is a win for the women, especially the United States with Title IX, the law that opened the floodgates for girls and women who play
sports in our country back in 1972.
You know, people are not happy. All the players are going, the men's players are going back to their NHL teams and are being asked about it by
male sportswriters predominantly. That's how interesting this story has become but yes, the president made a big mistake. If he had called the
women's team after they won the gold on that Thursday night, then all of this would not have happened because he would have made that call. And then
three days later, the U.S. men win that gold medal, and he would have called again, and there would be no need to even make the joke.
But Trump got involved, obviously, the way he did -- did what he did. And as often is the case, issues then start to spring up and conversation
happens. That probably is opposite of what he was hoping for, but that's exactly where we are with a very important story that continues in support
of women and girls throughout sports and in hockey in particular, something that would never have been happening on a Thursday if everything had gone
normal and if the president had just done what most presidents do. And that is you make a phone call whether you -- everyone likes you or not, who
cares? You're the president of the United States. And obviously Trump did not do that.
FOSTER: But real sports fans were completely baffled because the women's team has actually been more successful than the men's team, hasn't it, on
the international stage?
BRENNAN: It sure has. The U.S. team has had three gold medals, won three golds out of eight tournaments that women's hockey has been in the
Olympics. It's relatively new to the Olympics, starting in Nagano in 1998, and the U.S. women have won three golds. The Canadian women have won five
obviously, the two greatest programs in the world in women's hockey.
And the U.S. men, as we know, had not won in 46 years since the Miracle on Ice in 1980. So, it was a very big deal that the U.S. men won. And I think
we all have to, you know, agree and acknowledge that that was a crazy locker room scene. And they're drinking beer and of course, you've got the
FBI director, Kash Patel, you know, pounding beers as well. All right. That's another issue.
And the players are now acknowledging, the men, that as Trump was making his joke, that they laughed. Although you do also hear a couple of players,
or at least one saying two for two meaning, both the men and the women winning the gold and also you have someone saying, absolutely, the women
should be coming to the White House.
So, you know, it was -- it was a mess.
[15:55:01]
And it's really Trump's doing. And the players clearly now are realizing this.
And the sport of hockey -- USA hockey needs women desperately. If you want to grow the game, as we've seen in so many sports around the world,
football soccer, obviously for women to have the opportunities there, it's better. It's better financially. You make more money as a league or as a
sport if you encourage girls and women to play that sport.
So, USA hockey desperately needs women to play the game. And right now, the image is there, you know, people maybe they're getting this message that
you're going to be pushed away. We don't want you. That's exactly what USA hockey doesn't want which is why we're hearing some of the apologies now.
And the players coming out and talking and saying that they shouldn't -- should not have done what they did do.
FOSTER: Yeah, well, it's probably just going to drive them to want to succeed more. They are sportspeople after all.
Christine, thank you so much for joining us.
I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. We'll have more after the break.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
