Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Bill Clinton To Lawmakers Investigating Epstein's Crimes: "I Saw Nothing, And I Did Nothing Wrong"; Fears Of U.S. Military Action Loom Over Middle East; Anthropic Faces Nearing Deadline To Meet Pentagon Demands; Afghanistan And Pakistan Exchange Cross-Border Strikes; Paramount Emerges Victorious In Bidding War For WBD. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired February 27, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:24]
MAX FOSTER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Bill Clinton testifies under oath about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
The deposition of the former U.S. president is stretching on for hours now as House lawmakers grill him on what he knew about Jeffrey Epstein and
when.
Now Clinton told them today, quote, "I saw nothing and I did nothing wrong." He says he had only a brief acquaintance with the late sex offender
that ended years before Epstein's crimes came to light. During a break in the closed door testimony, Republican Chair of the Oversight Committee
James Comer said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Ranking Member Garcia asked [resident 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, and he met with Epstein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: But the top Democrat on that committee is disputing that characterization. Robert Garcia says President Trump should come testify
about his own ties to Epstein and what he may have known about Epstein's crimes. Garcia says Mr. Trump hasn't been exonerated, despite his repeated
insistence otherwise, and must face serious questions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): The president, President Clinton, did bring up some additional information about some discussions with President Trump. I
think that the way chairman Comer described it, I don't think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let's release
the full transcript, so you can get 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. Any other questions?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Well, the one person we haven't heard from on camera yet today is Bill Clinton himself. In his opening statement to lawmakers, he said in
relation to Jeffrey Epstein, "I know what I saw and more importantly, what I didn't see. I know what I did and more importantly, what I didn't do. I
saw nothing and I did nothing wrong."
Joining us now former federal prosecutor, David Weinstein.
Thank you so much for joining us, David.
I mean, on that basis you know, president Trump is saying a similar thing, isn't he? So why is one president being called before the committee and not
the other?
DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Max, I think you've just answered the question. One person is the sitting president of
the United States right now. Whether or not that means the committee won't call him, that remains to be seen. But president Clinton is a former
president, and that's why he was called to testify today. Down the road, we may see President Trump testifying before this committee but not today.
FOSTER: He'd have to choose to, presumably because those committee members are unlikely to force him.
WEINSTEIN: That's correct. Here, the Clintons, plural, were put in an uncomfortable position. They either needed to show up, or if they didn't be
held in contempt. They're not going to do that to a sitting president.
FOSTER: What did you make of the Clintons' appearances? It was interesting, wasn't it? They tried to look as open as possible and they and they were
actually -- they didn't plead the Fifth once. So, what's their strategy and how do you think it went down.
WEINSTEIN: Well, I think their strategy is one that this is an open book. I saw what I saw, I didn't see things that I couldn't possibly have been
exposed to. Ask me a question. I will give you an answer.
And for both of them, to the extent that they knew the answer, they gave that answer. Neither one of them, one of them -- neither of them invoked
their right not to speak on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves. And as any witness does for something that's happened decades
ago for things they didn't recall, they said they didn't recall them.
As for Mrs. Clinton, she didn't know Jeffrey Epstein. She was a tangential to this. She was married to Bill Clinton. And so a little bit less clear
why they brought her in to ask her so many questions.
FOSTER: Well, it's because she knew Ghislaine Maxwell, wasn't it? Maxwell was invited to their daughter's wedding, so they obviously had a pretty
strong relationship.
WEINSTEIN: Well, you know, we'll have to see what's in the transcripts. And I think that's another important thing to note. What they said has been
transcribed and will be produced at some point. And we can all speculate as to what the answers were.
But as to Maxwell, it was Mrs. Clinton's answer to that question that, yes, she was at her daughter's wedding. She was there as a plus one to another
guest who I didn't know. And yes, she was there. I don\t think it was as close a relationship as people speculated that it had been.
FOSTER: This sort of exercise is exactly what the survivors want to see, isn't it?
[15:05:03]
They keep explaining that, you know, we need to go beyond the Epstein files. We haven't even had all the Epstein files. And just for people that
knew Epstein to just, you know, shed some light onto that web and how it worked so they you know, they can people can see that their stories were
true, but they didn't get much of that today did they? Because the Clintons were obviously very focused on protecting them. I'm not saying they weren't
interested in survivors, but they also had this priority to show that they weren't culpable in any way.
WEINSTEIN: Well, certainly, any witness who's going to be called to testify is going to have to tell the truth, the whole truth about everything that
they know. And if it means that it's going to have to tell the truth about some uncomfortable things, that they're going to have to do that. And the
question remains, certainly for the remaining time, that they're going to question former President Clinton, did he really know any of this
information in his opening statement that that he provided?
He said, yes, he had a relationship with him. Yes, he was there, but he didn't see certain things that were being alleged. You have to either
believe somebody when they tell you that, or you discredit everything that they say. That's in the eye of the beholder.
FOSTER: President Trump saying he didn't really like seeing Clinton face these questions. Bill Clinton but it was very much supporters of President
Trump who were pushing for this appearance. Do you think they might be regretting that now? Because obviously we keep talking about Trump when
it's about the Clintons.
WEINSTEIN: Well you know, you have to be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. They struck out the pitchforks and they wanted to bring in
the Clintons well, now they've testified. And so the question remains who's left to answer questions. And as they ask questions of more people and more
people show up, you then circle back around to the person who didn't show up.
So, this may in some ways, again this is all political at this point, it may have backfired. Now the questioning is going to become when is this
individual going to come and answer some questions?
FOSTER: Okay, really interesting stuff, thank you. Former federal prosecutor David Weinstein, thank you for joining us tonight.
Well, tonight, fears the U.S. moving closer to military action against Iran. The American embassy in Israel has authorized non-essential staff and
their families to leave the country over safety risks. It's urging them to get out while commercial flights are still available.
Whilst in Iran, the British government says its temporarily withdrawn its staff due to concerns over the security situation there. The U.S. is
ramping up its military presence in the Middle East with the arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford. That's the carrier strike group. Washington has also
sent a dozen stealth F-22 fighter jets and at least nine aerial tankers.
On the diplomatic front, nuclear talks are due to continue in Vienna next week. That's after discussions between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman
in Geneva. They showed signs of progress, but no major breakthrough. President Trump says the talks are not getting the results that he wants.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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. We've had tremendous luck with myself, Soleimani, al Baghdadi. Everything's worked out and then we do the midnight hammer and so
many others. Everything's worked out and we want to keep it that way. But we're going to see.
Look, it would be wonderful if they'd negotiate really in good conscience, good faith and conscience. But they -- they are not getting there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Jeremy Diamond following events for us from Tel Aviv.
These diplomatic movements today, Jeremy have made people start thinking, what do they know that we don't? I mean, just explain.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT; Yeah. I mean, everything in this region right now is flashing with these indicators about the potential
for imminent U.S. military action against Iran. What we don't know is whether or not President Trump has actually made a decision that he is
going to move forward with those strikes, whether there is still room for diplomacy.
But certainly, it seems like all of the forces necessary for those strikes have been built up in the region. And then you add on to that some of the
things that we would typically see in advance of those strikes, such as this directive to U.S. embassy personnel in Jerusalem, telling them that
non-emergency personnel are authorized to leave the country. I spoke with a source familiar with that email who said Huckabee wrote that staffers
wishing to leave should do so today and wrote today in all capital letters.
Nonetheless, he said that there was no reason to panic and that this directive was being made out of an abundance of caution. But then you add
to that some of the travel advisories that were seeing from a number of other countries related to Israel, related to Iran, related to other
countries in the region.
You add to that the, you know, at least nine refueling planes, U.S. Air Force refueling planes at Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport, a
dozen F-22 stealth fighter jets and an Israeli air base in southern Israel.
All of this kind of paints a picture with all of the indicators going in the same direction. The question is whether there is still time for
diplomacy or whether that time has ended. We simply do not yet know at this stage.
FOSTER: What the Israeli point of view, because this would be a joint operation, wouldn't it, between the U.S. and Israel?
DIAMOND: Without a doubt. And the Israelis are certainly at a heightened level of alertness, a heightened level of preparedness for defensive and
offensive scenarios as well. The Israeli military addressed the public today, you know, in the streets of Tel Aviv, people have certainly been
talking about the potential. Could this be the weekend that that the war with Iran starts?
The military has said that there's no change as of yet to the home front command guidelines, which tells Israelis whether they need to stay close to
bomb shelters, for example. But certainly, they are also at this kind of heightened level of preparedness to be able to carry out those strikes. And
of course, also prepared for the fact that Iran would not retaliate against U.S. military bases in the region, but also directly at Israel, with the
potential for it to be much more severe than what we saw during the 12-Day War in June.
FOSTER: Okay. Jeremy, appreciate it. Thank you.
Now the clock is ticking to a critical deadline for Anthropic. The American artificial intelligence company is in a standoff with the Pentagon over how
its platform, Claude, is used. The Pentagon says it wants to use Claude for all lawful purposes. But Anthropic told the pentagon its A.I. system can't
be used in autonomous weapons or for the mass surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Its CEO saying in a statement last night, "In a narrow set of cases, we believe A.I. can undermine rather than defend democratic values. Some uses
are also simply outside the bounds of what's what today's technology can safely and reliably do."
CNNs A.I. correspondent Hadas Gold is with me.
I mean, this is a point of principle, isn't it, for Anthropic? But also, they have to operate within the -- you know, the Trump government system.
HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Listen, and the Pentagon is saying, you know we need to be able to use the tools, how we see fit. And
if were in the middle of a war situation, we don't want to be running over to a private company asking them to remove some guardrails so we can do
what we see fit and Anthropic is saying essentially, you know, we don't think that our own tools are reliable enough yet for you to do these two
things. Have A.I. be in control of autonomous weapons and have A.I. being used in mass surveillance of American citizens.
And they have dug in on these red lines. And even after they say the Pentagon came back to them with some new terms. And this contract, they
said it was just essentially legalese that still allowed the pentagon to get around these red lines. Dario Amodei also in that -- in that statement,
he says, we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.
This is in the face of these threats that the Pentagon has leveled on Anthropic about labeling something like a supply chain risk. That's almost
like a military blacklist that would force any contractor that works with the military to prove that they don't work with Anthropic products. That
could really hurt Anthropic business.
That goes to show you the Pentagon is going way beyond just saying, we don't want to work with you. If you don't agree with us, we're going to
cancel your big contract, goodbye, move on to another. This is them trying to really punish Anthropic in this process.
Anthropic has said, go ahead. Go work with somebody else. We'll help you transition it over. We're just not going to do this.
But now, Anthropic is getting some really major support from one of its chief rivals from OpenAI which is now coming out and saying we have the
exact same red lines in any deal we have with the Pentagon so far. Anthropic was really, up until now the only A.I. system that could work on
the military's classified system. They just recently approved Elon Musk's xAI to do the same. Open A.I. is not there yet, and they are also having
these negotiations with the Pentagon.
I want you to listen to some of what OpenAI CEO Sam Altman had to say about this Pentagon-Anthropic fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM ALTMAN, OPENAI CEO: 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)
GOLD: And, Max, according to a source familiar who spoke with me, they said that Sam Altman is not just expressing this in interviews on CNBC, he's
also approached the Pentagon directly about this, saying that he has deep concerns about the pentagon threatening to label Anthropic either supply
chain risk or use something that's called the Defense Procurement Act against them.
[15:15:03]
This is a big deal, because let's say that the Pentagon drops Anthropic and they need to use something else. They would likely go potentially to OpenAI
who has was often seen as a just as good or next best A.I. model that could be used in these types of situations. And look, there's OpenAI saying we're
going to have the exact same issues as Anthropic has. And this is a rare moment of these huge, huge rivals kind of standing together on principle.
FOSTER: Okay. It's fascinating. Hadas, thank you. A big headline tonight.
We turn now to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. A fragile truce since last fall is on the verge of collapsing. That's due to escalating cross-border
strikes between the two countries. The fighting has been going on for the past few days with clashes escalating on Thursday and Friday. Both sides
trading deadly shelling and mortar fire.
Now, Islamabad's defense minister says his country has run out of patience with its Taliban-run neighbor.
CNN's Ivan Watson takes a deeper look now at the increasing conflict between these two countries.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Pakistan and the Taliban government in Afghanistan have engaged in a fresh round of deadly
cross-border fighting. On Thursday night, the Afghan government announced it was carrying out a series of cross-border raids along the Durand line,
that's the name for the 1,600-mile, some 2,600-kilometer-long border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And then on Friday, Pakistan appears to have carried out airstrikes deep into Afghan territory, in Kandahar, in Paktia province, and in the Afghan
capital of Kabul, as well. Both sides claim to have killed scores of each other's soldiers, and there are unconfirmed reports of civilians being
wounded as well.
There's been supposedly a ceasefire in place since October, but we've had seen a number of these incidents taking place across borders. And the
fighting is all the more striking because for decades, critics accused the Pakistani government of actually supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan when
it was battling the now defeated U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan.
And I actually asked Pakistan's defense minister about this in an interview back in November.
Here's what he had to say about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATSON: But are some of the Taliban officials that have been fighting with Pakistan, some of the same people who used to live and take shelter here?
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD ASIF, PAKISTANI DEFENSE MINISTER: Yes, yes. That's correct, you know. They still have properties over here.
WATSON: Is that the definition of blowback?
ASIF: Yes, I think so. I think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATSON: Islamabad has been accusing the Afghan Taliban of supporting Pakistani Taliban insurgents who have been waging an increasingly deadly
conflict inside Pakistan against the Pakistani security forces and that same Pakistani defense minister, in a social media post said now it is open
war between you and us.
Ivan Watson, CNN, Hong Kong.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Coming up, a months-long Hollywood drama takes an unexpected twist. The media giant that now appears to be the frontrunner to take over Warner
Bros. Discovery.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:21:35]
FOSTER: Paramount Skydance now appears to have the clearest path towards taking over Warner Bros. Discovery. That's after the stunningly abrupt
decision by Netflix on Thursday to back out of the months-long bidding war for CNN's parent company. Reverberations from a potential deal between
Paramount Skydance and WBD are being felt today, from Hollywood to Washington.
What we don't know, then, is who got the best deal in the Warner Bros. battle.
Joining us now, CNN media analyst Sara Fischer.
Thanks for joining us, Sara.
We've just heard that Netflix has filed that it's formally withdrawing its offer. It does walk away with a couple of billion dollars though. So hasn't
completely lost out.
SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: No, and it leaves this bidding war having two big competitors in Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance
trapped in a very long regulatory battle, which is going to not just be a distraction but there are legal costs associated with it, and it sort of
forces both companies to freeze while they wait for approvals. They also leave Paramount holding a massive set of debt. This is one of the biggest
leveraged buyouts of all time.
So, Netflix actually wins a little bit here. But I would argue, Max, that everyone gets a little bit of a win. David Zaslav, the CEO of Warner Bros.
Discovery, comes out looking like a masterful dealmaker, having forced Paramount to up its bid from $19 in September to $31 in February. That's
absolutely extraordinary. Warner Bros. Discovery stock has skyrocketed in that time. And, of course, David Ellison, the CEO and chairman of Paramount
Skydance, went from being the CEO of a smaller movie studio, Skydance, to now being one of the biggest media moguls of all time if the deal goes
through.
FOSTER: Netflix implying that Paramount is overpaying, but actually Paramount desperately needed to get bigger to survive in this current
market, didn't it? So perhaps you know it's relative. It might not -- might have been too much for Netflix, but actually Paramount might be quite happy
with what they're going to get long term because of what they're going to build out of this.
FISCHER: Yes. So, really, any asset is worth what someone's willing to pay for it. And especially media. A lot of times you have buyers that are
buying things for political purposes, or they're buying things for nostalgia or because they want sort of the glory of owning a media company.
It's not always just about the financials.
For Paramount, they did need scale. And I think that's why they really wanted the studio, Warner Bros. Pictures and the streaming asset in HBO
Max.
As far as getting scale and cable, that's where this gets tricky. Paramount owns a lot of cable networks through Viacom, so things like VH1 and MTV.
They have said that they think that Warner Bros. Discovery's cable assets, which do include CNN, are worth nothing. So, they're paying a massive
premium to acquire a bunch of networks that they say are worthless to them.
Now I don't think that's absolutely the case. I think these networks continue to make tons of profit, and there could be synergies there. But
for them this is not about really the whole thing. I think they wanted the studio and the streaming assets, and they figured that they could win those
by doing a bid for the entire thing.
FOSTER: You mentioned synergies there, which is basically where they can make cuts, right? Because they're doing -- they're in similar businesses.
You also talked about the massive amount of debt this new company is going to be in. How much concern is there about mass layoffs?
FISCHER: There's a lot of concern, but that's going to be the case with any major merger in any industry, let alone within the media industry. And when
we talk about synergies, what's interesting when you bring like-minded assets together, typically these are often felt firsts on the back end. So,
bringing together tech, HR sales, marketing, those are the types of functions that tend to get squeezed the most. And then the front-end
functions, you know within media companies, you're talking about newsrooms and editors and anchors. They tend to come second.
But really, Max, the thing I want to stress here is that typically when we see synergies happen, it's between two, you know, like minded companies in
one section, we have three major sectors here. We've got two movie studios coming together. We have two major streamers, and we have two major
newsrooms, and we have a bajillion cable networks coming together.
So, these are going to be pretty significant synergies and for the folks over at Paramount, this is feeling probably like whiplash because there are
already a lot of synergies. When Skydance acquired Paramount just a few months ago, and there are already a lot of layoffs there. So, this is going
to continue to be a part of this company's story, the cuts.
FOSTER: Okay. Sara Fischer, appreciate it. Thank you so much for joining us.
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Let's take a closer look at one of our top stories, then concerns the U.S. is moving closer to a potential attack on Iran. The U.S.
ambassador to Israel has told embassy staff they can leave the country. Mike Huckabee says there's no reason to panic, but the decision comes from
what he calls an abundance of caution.
The U.S. has deployed its most advanced carrier strike group to the Middle East, the USS Gerald Ford. It's also sent a dozen stealth F-22 fighter jets
and at least nine aerial tankers. And the U.S. secretary of state, Marco Rubio, is supposedly heading to Israel on Monday, with Iran expected to
lead the agenda.
For more on the potential of U.S. military action against Iran, let's speak to Jennifer Hansler in Washington.
Jennifer, speaking up to our correspondent in Jerusalem earlier, and he's saying that on the streets of Israel, everyone is expecting something this
weekend. The optics certainly seem to speak to that. But you know, tell us what we know.
JENNIFER HANSLER, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT REPORTER: Well, Max, of course, the optics are very much there, as is the rhetoric that were hearing here in
Washington. We heard from President Trump just a little while ago, and he said he is not happy with how the talks are going those diplomatic
negotiations. He said that he is not happy with the fact that they, being Iran, is not willing to give us what we want to have.
He suggested they are not negotiating in good faith, and he claimed that they have not said what he described as the magic words that they do not
want a nuclear weapon, of course, in fact, Iranian officials have said they do not want a nuclear weapon. And that was, of course, part of the Iran
nuclear deal in 2015 that Trump withdrew from in his first term.
But regardless, at this point in time, it does seem like there is significant gaps that are still remaining here in those diplomatic
negotiations. Despite this flurry from the region to try to press for this diplomatic outcome. We saw the Omani foreign minister was here in D.C.
earlier today meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance. He was stressing to him that there has been significant progress in these talks that could lead
to a framework. This is the same message we heard from him yesterday coming out of those talks in Geneva. There are supposed to be talks next week.
But we have seen this pattern, of course before, Max. Last year, there were meant to be talks and then there were military strikes that completely
knocked those talks off course. Most importantly here, Trump said he has not yet made a decision on whether he is going to take military action. But
all eyes are on the region, and he does have that significant, significant manpower in place should he choose to do a limited strike or even a more
significant, prolonged strike there -- Max.
FOSTER: There's nothing in terms of military assets to suggest a ground invasion. Of course, it's all air power. Does it suggest to you just
looking at those assets that it looks like a short sharp shock as opposed to something more prolonged?
HANSLER: Well, this is something we've heard from U.S. officials that they would be potentially looking at something more limited. Vance yesterday
told "The Washington Post" that he does not foresee a prolonged weeks long military intervention but of course, the concern within the region
particularly among gulf and Arab allies, is that this could set off something escalatory, could set off something prolonged, that there is a
lot that is unknown about a particularly if you go after potentially going after the supreme leader, that this could cause significant aftershocks.
But even in terms of if this is a limited strike, will Iranian proxy groups respond? Will Tehran direct its military to respond? There is a lot that is
unknown here, and Trump did acknowledge that there is a risk if they choose a military route here.
FOSTER: Yeah. Okay, Jennifer. Appreciate it, thank you.
It's the final moments of trade on Wall Street. It's been a tough day for U.S. stocks. The Dow is off by more than 1 percent.
This is our Business Breakout.
OpenAI has announced a major fundraising round taking tens of billions of dollars each from Amazon, Nvidia and Softbank. The new investment values
the company as $730 billion. OpenAI has also signed a new partnership with Amazon to bring A.I. to more startups.
Wholesale prices took a sharp turn higher in the United States last month. The producers price index went up by half a percent in January, more than
economists had expected. That could be a sign that more price increases to do with tariffs could be around the corner.
BMW is testing out robot factory workers at one of its plants in Germany. The carmaker is trying out the humanoid robots at its factory in Leipzig
after testing them at its plant in South Carolina last year. BMW says the robots, which are powered by A.I., will make the company more competitive.
It's all about A.I., really, isn't it? More signs now on how A.I. is disrupting the workplace. Block, the company behind Square, Cash App and
Afterpay is cutting 4000 jobs. That's almost half of its entire workforce. The company says it will use A.I. to automate more work. Owner Jack Dorsey,
who founded social media platform Twitter, says the business is strong.
Anna Cooban is with me.
Well, you know the tech needs to be there for this to work.
ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS REPORTER: Yes. And, you know, this is an enormous cut, so the tech needs to be there. But really, this company is
betting big on this. They need smaller teams. They believe that A.I. can automate all of these tasks.
[15:35:00]
And what Dorsey has come out to say is that this is an inevitability, that they would rather make these massive cuts now than gradually over the next
few months or years. And in this way, he really believes that his company is sort of ahead of the curve. He said in a statement that I think most
companies are late and that within the next year, I believe the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion.
So, he really thinks that this is the first sign of more to come. And of course, we know that people are worried about their jobs being taken by
A.I. and we had that report from citron research a week ago that was really painting quite a doomsday scenario for mass unemployment of white collar
workers. And so, to read that and then to see this, I think many people are rightly quite worried.
FOSTER: I guess most people agree that it will replace certain types of jobs perhaps create others as well. It's just how quickly he's made this
decision you know, before we've seen any company really make a success of replacing people with A.I.
COOBAN: Yes. And I think it's interesting to note that Block has been very explicit about the reason why its laying people off, a direct link between
A.I. and these layoffs, whereas other tech companies over the past year or so have had layoffs, have sort of beaten around the bush with that.
But it does bear noting that Block, like many tech companies, really overhired during the pandemic when everyone was online.
FOSTER: Yes.
COOBAN: And so, he hasn't said it, but I think it bears mention that maybe --
FOSTER: Bit of an excuse or a cover?
COOBAN: It -- maybe -- you know, I think it bears mention that they had 4,000 employees at the end of 2019. They upped that to 10,000 before these
layoffs and quite simply, like many tech companies, they might just not need that many people.
FOSTER: So, it's generally admin jobs, isn't it? That's going.
COOBAN: Yes.
FOSTER: Not just here, but generally with this.
COOBAN: Admin jobs, data scientists as well, people in H.R. I'm just plucking some jobs, some jobs.
FOSTER: Office jobs.
COOBAN: Yes, and many of the layoffs that we've seen in tech companies have been in the corporate workforce. I think it also bears note that there was
a research report in December from Vanguard, which is investment company which, unlike Citron Research, was kind of pouring cold water on a lot of
these fears, or at least the extent of them and saying that actually we've seen the growth in A.I. exposed jobs like H.R. jobs, data scientists, to
name, but two, that they've actually accelerated in the years after the pandemic than before. Not to say that A.I. won't eventually come for those
jobs, but the speed of it isn't quite as intense as people might have been hearing.
FOSTER: It's when really, isn't it?
COOBAN: Potentially. Yeah.
FOSTER: Yeah. Thank you.
Donald Trump's overseas intervention may not yet be finished. Now he says a friendly takeover of Cuba, may be in the works.
Coming up, what that actually means.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:40:39]
FOSTER: Any moment now, Donald Trump is due to arrive in Texas for an event touting energy policy and the economy. His visit comes as that state is
getting ready for a Senate primary on Tuesday, which features three prominent Republicans locked in a tight battle. All three of them have been
courting Trump's endorsement, but it doesn't appear he's ready to weigh in and tilt the scales ahead of the primary.
CNN senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak is in Texas.
It's going to be an interesting litmus test, isn't it, of sentiment.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and I think all three of these candidates would very much like to hear their names uttered in an
endorsement. When the president comes to the stage today but right now, it doesn't appear as if the president is ready to do that. You know all three
of these candidates have spent this campaign really kind of jockeying to demonstrate just how close they are to President Trump. And in fact, all
three of them reshuffled around their entire campaign schedules in this very busy final stretch to be down here in Corpus Christi to get in front
of President Trump.
And I think it's quite extraordinary, actually. You know, the president has endorsed candidates up and down the ballot here in Texas, but he's avoided
this race, which is by far the most prominent of all of the contests in Texas. And I think it does speak to the political conundrum he's facing.
You know, the establishment candidate is John Cornyn. He's running for his fifth term in the Senate. He's seen as something of a less MAGA figure than
some others in the race. He was somewhat lukewarm to President Trump's comeback in 2024.
You know national Republicans, including the Senate majority leader, John Thune, has tried and tried and tried to get President Trump to endorse
Cornyn to no avail. Part of the argument they're making is that Republicans are spending millions and millions and millions of dollars on this race
that will be needed in November, but they're spending it on the primary but so far has not worked on President Trump.
The other candidate in the race is Ken Paxton. He's the state attorney general. He's seen as a much more MAGA type figure. But he comes with all
of this political baggage, some ethical questions his wife has accused him of infidelity.
And so, it does seem as if the president is facing sort of a rare moment of political indecisiveness. All of the criteria that normally go into an
endorsement of is whether it's loyalty or the ability to win a national election, have so far been sort of muddled. And so, it reaches this sort of
indecisive moment. If no candidate reaches 50 percent in --on Tuesday, which is when the primary is, it will go to a runoff in May. Many, many
Republicans want to avoid that because it will just sap more money and more resources ahead of the election in November.
FOSTER: Well, Kevin, about Trump saying Cuba's in such a bad shape right now that it could make sense for the U.S. to take it over. Let's have a
listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We could very well end up having a friendly takeover of Cuba.
REPORTER: But what about the --
TRUMP: After many, many years? Weve had a lot of years of dealing with Cuba. I've been hearing about Cuba since I'm a little boy. But they're in
big trouble. And we could very well, something could -- I think, very positive for the people that were expelled or worse from Cuba that live
here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Kevin, define a friendly takeover of another country.
LIPTAK: I think the president would define it as something that looks like what happened in Venezuela. You know, the United States went in there, they
took out the leader, and they have found in Delcy Rodrguez the vice president, someone who they think is, quote, friendly, they think is
working well with the United States and the president seems to be viewing what he accomplished there as sort of able to replicate that in Cuba.
That is a very open question of whether there is in fact, a figure inside of Cuba who would amount to a friendly leader. You know, the United States
has been in discussions with the grandson of Raul Castro. It's not clear that they have identified him as someone who would work with the United
States if the regime was toppled there.
But what you have seen is the U.S. continue to kind of tighten the noose around that island. They've restricted oil imports into the country. They
have really caused a dire, dire situation inside of Cuba. And President Trump seems to believe that that is all leading to kind of a moment when
the U.S. can go in and install a friendly leader.
But when you talk to experts and when you talk to officials inside the administration, there is a lot of uncertainty about how precisely that
work. And certainly, history has shown that the U.S. doesn't have a great track record of trying to install a friendly government in Cuba.
And so, the president seems fairly optimistic that this could happen. He said that he had been hearing about Cuba ever since he was a little boy.
And certainly, it is true that the U.S. has had this very, very contentious relationship with its neighbor 90 miles off the coast of Florida, for the
better part of the last century.
But the president seems to be thinking that that could end sometime soon. But I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about how precisely he
would accomplish that.
FOSTER: Okay. Kevin in Texas, really appreciate that. Thank you.
Now, the British prime minister, Keir Starmer has suffered an embarrassing election defeat in an area of greater Manchester that's been a Labour
stronghold for almost a century. Starmer's Labour Party lost one of its safest seats to the left-wing Green Party in a local by-election.
Our Nada Bashir has the latest from London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday suffered a humiliating election defeat to the left wing Green Party.
Hannah Spencer, a 34-year-old local councilor and plumber, won the contest for the vacant parliamentary seat of Gorton and Denton, an area of greater
Manchester, taking some 40 percent of the vote. Despite this previously being a safe seat for Labour.
HANNAH SPENCER, BRITISH GREEN PARTY MP: I didn't grow up wanting to be a politician. I'm a plumber. And two weeks ago, during all this, I also
qualified as a plasterer because even in chaos, even under pressure, I get things done. I am no different to every single person here in this
constituency. I work hard, that is what we do.
BASHIR: While the result marks the first time the Green Party has won a run-off election for a seat in parliament all won in the north of England,
the party still remains a minority in parliament now holding five out of 650 seats.
For the Labour Party, however, this may lead to further questions over Keir Starmer's leadership. Despite words of confidence ahead of the vote from
Starmer and his senior cabinet ministers. The party came in third with Nigel Farage's anti-immigration Reform UK Party coming in second place with
more than 28 percent of the vote.
The defeat, of course, also follows weeks of political turmoil, with Starmer facing calls for his resignation from within his own party over his
decision to appoint Labour veteran Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. Despite his links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
And while Britain's two party system has long endured, labor and the conservatives dominating, this could mark a shift in the country's
political landscape.
Nada Bashir, CNN, in London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: The serial -- the serial stowaway strikes again. Next, how a woman got on a transatlantic flight without a ticket, again.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:50:40]
FOSTER: She was convicted last year for sneaking on board a transatlantic flight without a ticket. Now, a Russian stowaway has allegedly done it
again. According to law enforcement sources, Svetlana Dali has been detained in Italy after managing to sneak past airline staff at Newark
Airport in New Jersey and boarding a flight to Milan. The FBI says it's aware of the alleged stowaway.
In 2024, Dali managed to get on board a flight to Paris by getting past border agents at a new -- at New York's JFK Airport. She was arrested and
held in custody for seven months before her conviction.
So, what we want to know is, how does this stowaway keep sneaking onto planes?
Joining me now is Anthony Roman, a former commercial pilot.
Thanks for joining us, Anthony.
Can you just explain how she did this from what we know?
ANTHONY ROMAN, FORMER COMMERCIAL PILOT: She's quite effective at bypassing TSA and bypassing airport personnel during the boarding process.
Essentially, what we believe she is doing and what appears to be on the boarding camera, is that she awaits for the personnel who are doing the
screening to be suffering from some things called human distractions. And it is something that you need to be trained to avoid many, many times and
very frequently.
And if not, it occurs they can put themselves in a group that's being bypassed and often get in, even though millions of passengers join and, and
are properly screened. You'll always have one or two who can bypass the system as a result of human factors.
FOSTER: Because the system set up for security, right? Not necessarily searching for people without tickets. I know that's built into the system,
but the priority is the security side. So, she's and she wasn't carrying anything that was a security risk.
ROMAN: Correct. That's -- that's very, very true. What I would recommend is that a secondary biometric system be applied. And that would simply mean
that if human distraction is taken advantage of and someone reaches a secondary security post going through the X-ray machines boarding the
airport, that the secondary A.I. camera will identify that this individual was not properly checked in, set an alarm to the proper law enforcement
personnel and that will help prevent any of the very few illegal boarding passengers or terror groups from entering.
FOSTER: Yes. So that's what -- you know. That's the bigger question, isn't it? She wasn't a threat to other people. But she could have been.
What's your concern? That, you know, people have seen what she's done here, and you know, for more dangerous purposes, how could they use it?
ROMAN: Well, if she can do it several times, then it does show the risks involved in allowing a individual who is a member of a terror group or
someone suffering from psychological problems who's carrying a weapon? Has the weapon bypassed the system? It happens more frequently than one would
expect.
And I believe that the secondary biometrics would be a terrific -- a terrific warning system that the individual has not properly signed in and
therefore can be arrested.
FOSTER: You do see the air staff going up and down the aisle checking everyone that's sitting down presumably, if it's a full flight, she
wouldn't have been able to find a seat. But they -- you know, there's a problem, a basic problem there, isn't it? Before they set off, they're not
actually confirming who's on board.
ROMAN: That's exactly the point. They aren't confirming it. And again, it's part of the timetable for the pilots.
[15:55:04]
The flight attendants are trying to get things moving. They're helping passengers with their luggage in the overhead bins. Individuals who are
starting to bicker or in the wrong seats. They correct.
And so, again, this is part of that human distraction syndrome that can create this problem and again, automate systems can best be involved and
therefore be very, very helpful.
FOSTER: Okay. Appreciate it, Anthony Roman, for shedding light on that extraordinary story. I can't believe it's happened again. Thank you.
We've just got some news in to CNN. Donald Trump has just posted to Truth Social saying he's ordering all U.S. federal agencies to immediately stop
using all Anthropic technology. This comes as we approach that deadline we told you about earlier. For Anthropic to agree to demands from the Pentagon
to drop all ethical guardrails on its A.I. software.
We'll have more on this after the break, but that is WHAT WE KNOW.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
