House Democrat: Bill Clinton Deposition Sets Precedent To Depose Trump

23:57But do you think right now, if they haven't given in, that Anthropic is going to give in for this? I don't think so. I think they'll say, we won't do the contract. They'll do whatever. But they can't be forced into rules that they don't want to live by as a tech company because these LLMs can be really problematic. And so they're anticipating future problems that could happen, even if the defense department says they aren't going to do them. This isn't the most believable administration on lots of things. And so, again, do business with someone else. You don't have to, like, punish someone. And all the way, it chills relations with others in Silicon Valley, too, by the way.

24:34The whole thing is moronic. I don't know. I think that's the technical term for it. So we just learned just in terms of some other news stories that Warner Brothers Discovery, which I should disclose, owns CNN, has determined that the Ellison's, Paramount's latest takeover offer is superior to the one, to the offer that Netflix made. Netflix wants to buy Warner Brothers and HBO and then CNN and all the cables would spin off into Discovery Global. Paramount wants it all, including us. Netflix now just has four days to adjust their offer, what's going to happen? Yeah. I don't know. I mean, tomorrow on Pivot's gotten, I think Netflix should probably walk away because the price is so ridiculous.

25:16I mean, Warner was just trading for$10 a share and now it's 31. I mean, is it $21 better? I don't know. That's the question you have to ask. I think one of the problems is that the Ellisons via Paramount have not made a kill shot offer. It's not$34 a share, even$33. and Netflix can match this if they want. But the minute it looked like the deal was in trouble, Netflix's stock soared. And probably they could take all that money and come back later and pick, assuming that this doesn't go as well as most mergers don't, pick up the pieces. And to pick up the pieces they want or do a distribution deal.

25:54It just depends on Ted Sarandos if he wants to get into a bidding war here. It's certainly rich. you know, the only group that's doing well here is Warner, you know, in that regard. And we'll see. We'll see what happens. Kara Swisher, thanks so much. Let's bring you now to Chappaqua, where Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are taking questions about the deposition with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These are big, powerful people that hire very skilled law firms and they delay, delay, delay. And, you know, part of when you delay in this investigation, it takes seven months to bring a witness in like it did today.

26:34That creates a problem. So we're trying to move as quickly as we can. We're obviously following what's going on in the United Kingdom now. We're following everything. I know that there are a lot of eyes and hopefully the media will play a role in this. The media has a role. The documents have been made public. We're going to continue to fight for more redactions. There are some names who are redacted. I think we all agree shouldn't be redacted. I don't think they're who you think they are. So that's why we want those those names. Chairman, if I could just add to you a quick to follow up on that, though, we asked specifically the victims and we were all there as well as the speaker and the Democrat members of Congress if the president was involved and they exonerated him.

27:15So why would we bring in the president of the United States who's been exonerated, who cooperated with law enforcement and who released the files when we had to fight? We basically threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn't want to come in. So to be clear, we had cooperation. We asked the victims directly, and he was exonerated. So I would encourage all of you, at least to the fair reporting and understanding, that just like you would not publish false statements about the Clintons in some of the allegations that have been made about them, you would give the President of the United States the same respect.

27:45The evidence is leading us. Mr. Chairman, President Trump has released more files than anyone during the Biden administration, zero files, no DOJ involvement. He has secured the border, lowered human trafficking, and passed the House Republicans and President Trump has passed anti-human trafficking legislation just his first year. And Mr. Cormorant, Mr. Cormorant. In terms of transparency, as you guys said moments ago, can you release any findings that were discussed today? We're going to release that video, and you'll be able to see the whole thing as quick as we can get the video produced. But I think what will be interesting is some of the comments that Secretary Clinton made at the very end about Jeffrey Epstein.

28:27And I think that that would apply to others that you all obviously have an interest in, too. Mr. Coleman, you said that Bill Clinton is the man to ask questions. That's what Mrs. Clinton said many times today. Why did you bring Hillary Clinton along? Again, for the 15th time, this was a motion made by Democrats and Republicans in a subcommittee on oversight. There were a list of people to bring in, and Bill and Hillary Clinton were on the list. I'm glad we brought Hillary Clinton in because she's never really answered questions until in the last week about her relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.

29:09So she answered questions, and hopefully they'll be helpful as we move forward. Go ahead. On the Clinton Global Initiative, was that your main focus today with Secretary Clinton, and did you feel like you got the answers you were looking for? Well, I don't want to disclose too much of what was said, but most of the questions that we asked about the Clinton Global Initiative, which were very specific questions, some of them were backed by e-mails and other documents that have been released by the Department of Justice. She said that she was a senator and you would have to ask her husband that tomorrow.

29:43So we have a lot of questions for her husband tomorrow, and I'm confident that deposition will last even longer than this one. Thank you all. Thank you. All right. That was the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer and other members of the House Oversight Committee, talking to members of the press after hours and hours of sitting for a deposition with former Secretary of State and Senator and First Lady Hillary Clinton about the Epstein files in the Epstein investigation. Let's bring in the panel to talk about this big day.

30:20Ambassador, Senator, Congressman, Flake, as long as I'm giving multiple titles. What's your take on this? I mean, Hillary Clinton had said previously, and I guess she said also in this deposition, she didn't know Jeffrey Epstein. And if they have questions for her husband, they should ask him. Yeah, I think that's where it ends. I mean, I don't think that they got anything today. They could say, well, she said something that was interesting at the end. But I really don't think there's much there. But Bill Clinton, obviously, spent a lot of time with Jeffrey Epstein. And so there'll be something there.

30:49But it just whatever they do in this regard, questioning the Clintons just brings up, well, why won't you question the president of the United States? Yes, Mr. Trump's also Epstein files. That's going to be part of it. Well, and why is it the case that they have been so sloppy with the release of documents, further traumatizing so many of these women where we've seen, you know, I mean, I know it's been the DOJ, but Congress has a role in helping to make sure there is transparency and making sure victims are protected. And why aren't they pushing harder to make sure, you know, with this report that DOJ may be holding back more evidence that mentions the president?

31:28So I would want them to be that interested in talking to everyone and seeing all the information. All right. We'll wait till we hear more information about what exactly they talked about in that deposition. Let's talk about the election because there's one coming up on Tuesday. Early voting is underway for Tuesday's primary races in Texas. New data shows a major spike in party turnout, up nearly 60 percent from the same point in 2020. The last statewide primary to feature a competitive Democratic primary contest. Now, in 2026, the hot race for Texas Democrats is the Senate primary. That's between state rep James Tallarico and Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett.

32:06Karen Finney, what does turnout in the primary so far signal to you about where Democrats are going in the midterms? And just to give a slight simplification of this for our viewers, I think it's fair to say that Jasmine Crockett is more of a firebrand, more controversial. Tallarico, probably a safer choice in terms of his politics, but also a less well-known person. Well, there's a couple. Is that fair? Do you think how I just. I would describe it a little differently. Tweak it. Go ahead and tweak. Let's do that. Tweak it up. First of all, as a Democrat, I have to say I would love to see us win Texas, but I can't, you know, after doing this for 30 years, I'm like, oh, exactly.

32:45That being said, the other way I would tweak that, though, is Jasmine appeals to a different demographic. And part of what her candidacy could be doing is, and this is what I've been hearing, turning, you know, young African-Americans, young Latino voters, younger voters in general, because they have this, you know, she's been seen as more of a fighter. And also based on where I've seen her traveling in the state, Tallarico may have, you know, again, I think they each have a slightly different electorate that they're appealing to. So it'll be interesting to see, quite frankly, who at the end of the day from the Democratic Party is turning out, who are both of them able to turn out, and who will be able to turn out ultimately some moderate Republicans in the general election.

33:27Because to win Texas, we're going to have to do that as well. So Senator Flake, you served with John Cornyn. Right. And I bet you never thought you'd see the day where John Cornyn was being attacked as too liberal, as too much of a squish. But he's being attacked on the right. Ken Paxton, the attorney general, and Wesley Hunt, the congressman. We should note, Cornyn, and I think it's also the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is standing by the incumbent, just released a vicious new ad against Ken Paxton. Here is some of that ad. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support.

34:09It's voting time. So let's cut through the bullshit. Crooked Ken Paxton cheated on his wife. She's divorcing him on biblical grounds. So now Paxton's wrecking another home, sleeping around with a married mother of seven. The wife cheater and fraud or the Texas workhorse? Okay. Just to keep on my mind, that's a tough ad. But when you step back and you think, that's the National Republican Senatorial Committee and an incumbent Republican saying that about the Attorney General of Texas. We'll see if he wins. If Paxton wins, they may have a little different opinion of him next week, the Senatorial Committee.

34:49But they have been playing to say, this will cost us$100 million and that may not get Paxton over the edge. And that's true. I think, you know, Crockett would be a gift to Republicans for her to be the Democratic nominee. Paxton is obviously a huge gift to the Democrats. And, I mean, Telebrico, if he really does have the ability to get people, swing voters, independents, that may be the missing ingredient that Texas Democrats have wanted for so long. Or white women, yes. What's the ingredient? Ken Paxton is the ingredient, is what you're saying. Well, definitely. That's the easiest one. But even if it's Cornyn, if he has the ability, it'll be far more difficult to Democrats if it's Cornyn, obviously.

35:30But if he has the ability to actually pull some swing voters, moderate Republicans who don't like what's going on, then that may change the equation. But it hasn't so far. I wouldn't be doing my job, though, if I didn't also say one of the things we are seeing on the Democratic side, this electability conversation, which particularly when you have a woman and a candidate of color tends to, I hate to say it this way, impact this conversation about, well, who could really win in a general election? which is why I think it's important to look at who are the voters she can turn out, who are the voters he can turn out, and what does that coalition look like at the end of the day, and who could turn out all of those voters in a general election.

36:10I don't think we should. I think there's been some assumptions about electability that based on race and gender that I don't like. It's also complicated, I should note, because Congresswoman Crockett has said things about Latino voters who are an important bloc in any state, but especially in Texas. that are controversial. So it's not just. And she's had to make her case to the electorate to, you know, talk about why she's the right person for them in the Senate. Do you think that she you think she's a stronger candidate than Republicans like Senator Flake think? Well, I would love to see her up against Kim Paxton.

36:46That would sure be lots of fun. That's very possible. It sure is. Very possible results. I mean, yeah, I don't know. Just for some people who don't know, if you don't get 51 percent in the primary on Tuesday, then there's a runoff between the top two. And most Republicans I know think that if Paxton gets to the runoff with Cornyn, Paxton will beat Cornyn in a runoff because of who would turn out in a primary in Texas. Right. It would be like the raw meat Republicans. Yeah, that's that's how it usually works. Yeah. No, that would be quite a matchup. But I still think Crockett will have a hard time convincing moderate Republicans or swing voters to go that way.

37:29And I think Tallarico has a chance of that. You know, he's a young candidate. He hasn't been tested, you know, on the national stage. And so that may be different, but he seems to have that ability. I would certainly pull that switch if I were a Democrat. But that would be a time. There was a moment on Tuesday, State of the Union, that Republicans are already using in campaign ads. Here is a piece of that. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.

38:16These people are crazy. We're going to come back, but one second, because Hillary Clinton is coming to the microphones in Chappaqua to talk to the press. Hello, everybody. Hello. Good evening. Well, I have just finished testifying. I answered every one of their questions as fully as I could based on what I knew. And what I knew is what I said in my statement this morning. I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication with him. I knew Ghislaine Maxwell casually as an acquaintance. But whatever they asked me, I did my very best to respond. It was disappointing that they refused to hold a public hearing, so I wouldn't have to be out here characterizing it for you.

39:18You could have seen it for yourself. We had asked for that. We think it would have been better for the committee and its efforts to gather whatever information they are seeking. We had a bit of a challenge in the beginning because we had agreed upon rules based on the fact it was going to be a closed hearing at their demand, and one of the members violated that rule, which was very upsetting because it suggested that they might violate other of our agreements. So we had to cease the hearing for a period of time until we could get assurances that no rules would be broken going forward, and we returned to answer questions repetitively, literally, over and over again.

40:16I don't know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein, I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. So it's on the record numerous times. It then got, at the end, quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the Internet that was serving as the basis of a member's questions to me. So I can only say that the best exchange that I had came at the very end when contrary to every other deposition they have taken, no Republican member asked any questions about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell to anyone else they have deposed.

41:28And in fact, the Republican members didn't even show up for the deposition of Les Wexner. And when I said that, I had to point out that the only questions that any Republican member asked of any of the people they deposed was of former Attorney General Bill Barr, when Chairman Comer asked him about the allegations, in his view, about Russia's involvement in my election in 2016. So at the very end of this hearing, after I made that point, I want to commend Chairman Comer for raising a series of significant questions that I responded to about the nature of the investigation and the areas that I thought should be explored.

42:35So I appreciated that. I want to see the truth come out. So that was a reassuring way to end a very long, repetitive deposition. Madam Secretary. Secretary. You spoke in your opening remarks about how heartbroken you have been for the Epstein survivors as these files come out. Can you talk to us a little bit about how you have processed and reacted to the fact that the former president, your husband, Bill Clinton, is referenced in the Epstein files numerous times, including in some photos featuring women, and how have you been personally preparing for the deposition that is coming tomorrow? So are you 100 percent confident that there isn't anything that the former president knows about Epstein's runs?

43:24I am. And I think the chronology of the connection that he had with Epstein ended years, several years before anything about Epstein's criminal activities came to light and that he was charged and sadly given a sweetheart deal, which, as I said in my statement, had that not happened, perhaps his predatory behavior could have been stopped earlier. But I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who had contact with him before his criminal pleas in 08 were like most people. They did not know what he was doing. And I think that that is exactly what my husband will testify to tomorrow.

44:18Madam Secretary,

44:24do you believe this was a fair hearing? And do you still want to testify publicly even though you gave this deposition? Well, I'm not going to do it again. You know, they had a chance to do it in public, and I wish they had done it in public. And I think they're making the wrong decision avoiding doing it in public. I thought it was very repetitive. I thought that they asked literally the same questions over and over again, which didn't seem to me to be very productive. And then, as I said, toward the end, you know, there were other questions that were totally off subject. So if they are going to fulfill their responsibilities to literally investigate the investigations, which is what they originally said was the scope of their work, I think they could have spent the day more productively.

45:52Madam Secretary.

46:00I don't know when the video will be out. I don't know when the transcript will be out. We've asked that they be out as quickly as possible, and then you can see everything. Thank you. All right. Former Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton describing her take on the closed-door deposition she had with the House Oversight Committee. Among the things she said was that there were some bizarre questions about Pizzagate, which is that ridiculous conspiracy theory that there are kids being tortured and eaten in the basement of a pizza parlor here in D.C. in the basement that does not exist.

46:43And it terrorized the people who worked there when it happened. Well, beyond that, some lunatic went there with a gun to go help the kids. And, you know, and thank God nobody was hurt. I just want to know, what were they asking about that? Are you still involved in that? That was unbelievable. Well, we'll see. Well, I mean, this is, again, members of the House Oversight Committee. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Chairman Comer that asked that. But there's some out there members on that committee. What's your response to what you just said? Well, I think this was a big miscalculation on the part of the committee, wanting to have a deposition.

47:22Well, actually thinking that she would never want to appear or have anything public, and she did. And so I think that it just draws attention back to what they don't want to draw attention back to, who hasn't been interviewed. I mean, there's a sitting cabinet member right now. Howard Lutnick. Who has been to Epstein Island. And lied about it. Yeah, exactly. And so they're going to be increasing calls. All right. Why won't you talk to him? His information is probably a lot more current than hers. And so I think it raises questions that they didn't want to answer. Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, obviously, Jake, as you know, I work for Secretary Clinton for the 2016 campaign in the White House.

48:04And yeah, they completely underestimated who they were going to be sitting across from. I'll just say that, you know, having known her for so long. But it does raise more questions than answers that they clearly are not wanting to get into in terms of there's so much information and other areas that would have been more productive to spend their time trying to trace down what's really going on and why more people, frankly, aren't being prosecuted for what they may have done. Well, interviewing somebody, a woman who certainly did not avail herself of the disgusting wares of Mr. Epstein. No. Maybe never even, according to her, never even met him.

48:41Certainly doesn't make this like a very serious investigation, thanks to both of you. Thanks, Jake. Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

48:50Jake Tapper:This is CNN Breaking News. Our lead tonight, Hillary Clinton, just moments ago after appearing before the House Oversight Committee in a six-plus hour closed-door deposition, she did not want to attend. I have just finished testifying. I answered every one of their questions as fully as I could based on what I knew. And what I knew is what I said in my statement this morning. I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication with him. I I knew Ghislaine Maxwell casually as an acquaintance. But whatever they asked me, I did my very best to respond. This is all part of the oversight committee's probe into dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his child rape trafficking ring.

49:48Hillary Clinton, who has said she cannot recall even meeting Jeffrey Epstein, was asked about whether she had contact with Epstein's estate. And apparently she was also asked about Pizzagate. CNN's Annie Greyer is in Chapikon, New York, where the hearing took place. Annie?

50:05Well, Jake, the hearing has wrapped after over six hours of questioning that Secretary Hillary Clinton faced by both Democrats and Republicans. And she just addressed the press where she said that that was a very repetitive deposition. She said she didn't know how many times she could repeat the fact that she had never met Jeffrey Epstein. She categorized this all as sort of a waste of time. She talked about how she only knew Epstein's co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell casually said that Maxwell attended her daughter Chelsea's wedding as a plus one, didn't really interact with her. She said that she was confident that her husband had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.

50:42She said, quote, I am. And she said that her husband's relationship with Epstein ended several years before anything about Epstein's criminal activities came to light. Now, Comer, House Oversight Chair James Comer, the top Republican on the committee, said that he is trying to get the depositions video and transcript out as quickly as possible. We know that both Democrats and Republicans had a lot of questions here, but Democrats argued that this was largely a waste of time, given that Hillary Clinton never knew Jeffrey Epstein directly. Take a listen to more of what Hillary Clinton had to say today.

51:18That the best exchange that I had came at the very end, when contrary to every other deposition they have taken, no Republican member asked any questions about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell to anyone else they have deposed. And in fact, the Republican members didn't even show up for the deposition of Les Wexner.

51:56Hillary Clinton did not mince words in her deposition to Democrats and Republicans today. And she argued that she was being unfairly singled out, that she did not need to appear for this deposition in the first place. She and her team have been pushing back and forth with, along with her husband, for months, trying to prevent this deposition from happening. And she argued that if she were to do this, it should have been in public. But she certainly said she doesn't want to go through this process again. Jake. Annie, tomorrow, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will have his deposition, which is obviously a much more relevant deposition because he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.

52:32How is the former president preparing for this? What sort of questioning do you think he should expect? Well, we're told that the former president and his team have been hunkering down for days to prepare for questions and also prepare lines of attack because we know Republicans are ready to go on offense against the Clintons. And Bill Clinton has a long history with Jeffrey Epstein. He flew on Epstein's planes multiple times. Epstein visited Clinton when he was president in the White House. There are photos in the Epstein files of Bill Clinton all over. So the former president know he has questions to answer, and Democrats can say that they also have a lot of questions for the former president.

53:13But this is not the format that Bill Clinton and his team wanted this to happen. They pushed back on this for months, trying to prevent a deposition from happening. And it was only when both Democrats and Republicans were willing to hold the Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress for not testifying in a deposition that the Clintons caved and agreed to the depositions. That's why we are here in Chappaqua, because the Clinton team and the Oversight Committee made this concession to have the depositions in their hometown. But we are expecting tomorrow to be a very long day with the former president setting a new president, being the first time a former president will sit in a deposition under subpoena.

53:52Democrats say that Republicans set this precedent and they look to match it if they reclaim the majority to try and bring President Trump in for questioning about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Jake. They both have them. Annie Greyer, thanks so much. Let's bring in CNN Chief White House Correspondent Caitlin Collins. Caitlin, is the White House feeling the heat at all when it comes to the fallout over the release of the Epstein files? And do they have any sense of vision beyond tomorrow in the sense that, OK, Republicans are going to subpoena Bill Clinton and force him to testify about Epstein? and that might mean that when Democrats reclaim the House, they're going to do that to current president Trump.

54:34Yeah, I mean, Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on House Oversight, has said that already applies because by bringing in a former president, he is arguing that they should also be willing to bring in the current president to talk about Jeffrey Epstein, given obviously there are pictures of them together, the birthday book. There are ties between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, despite the denials of wrongdoing by this White House. So Democrats say, Jake, that president has already been broken and that it's already there. And you've kind of heard that echoed in President Trump himself when he was asked about weeks ago about this fight over getting the Clintons to come and testify.

55:08The president said that maybe he shouldn't feel that way, but that he felt badly for former President Bill Clinton for having to go in there and sit down and conduct this deposition. And so he's already kind of expressed that sympathy, even as He's also, you know, at times said it was only Democrats who were involved with Jeffrey Epstein, and that's who the focus should be on here. We've heard from people like Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey who say it's actually equal opportunity, and that regardless of if you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you had ties to Jeffrey Epstein that they have questions about, that they should be brought in for questioning.

55:40And so obviously with Hillary Clinton going in, Jake, someone who had never met Jeffrey Epstein but had met Ghislaine Maxwell, we have heard from sources say that they believe that sets the precedent for other family members to be brought in, whether that's in similar settings because of Jeffrey Epstein or other investigations. And so this could be precedent setting going forward, Jay, come the midterms and the White House's concerns over that. So we'll see what exactly that looks like going forward and what the questions are that they have for the former president when he goes in for his deposition tomorrow.

56:10Meanwhile, President Trump, of course, spent some time with New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani today at the White House. And Mamdani put out a very interesting social media post that certainly suggests he is conversant in the wooing of Trump, a Trump whisperer, if you will. Was that meeting planned? And what did the two discuss? And explain the social media post while you're at it. Yeah. And Jake, I don't know if the White House would go as far as to say that Momdani is a Trump whisperer, but I have talked to several aides who say, yeah, he understands how President Trump operates and the way to basically speak his language and appeal to him.

56:50And that's what Mamdani was doing there. If you noticed in that picture where the president is smiling from ear to ear, he's holding up two newspapers. One is a real front page from the New York Daily News from 1975. It's got President Gerald Ford's face on it. It says Ford to city, drop dead. And then Mamdani and his team created this mock-up that President Trump is also holding, where it's the president's face and it says Trump to city, let's build. That is because Mom Donnie was here today to make this pitch, wanting a federal investment in housing, which his team is billing as the largest in 50 years should the president follow through on it.

57:24And they are arguing that here's what happens when someone like Gerald Ford ignores New York City and doesn't pay attention to the biggest city in the United States. And here's what it could look like for you, Trump. And obviously, Jake, that appeals to him, not just on the level of the front page there and the positive headline, but also Trump's nostalgia over his hometown and as a developer. And that is how they were trying to basically make this argument to him. And we haven't heard the White House readout or the president comment on this meeting so far, but Momdani's team walked away from this feeling like the president was pretty enthusiastic about it, Jake.

57:54So obviously they had a pitch in mind. They brought props. You could see from the president smiling in that photo that he seemed to be pretty receptive to this argument that was here at the White House today. We are told it was scheduled before the State of the Union, Jake, and obviously transpired here. Something that has been going on since they met in November, met now. And as you spoke to Mamdani about, Mayor Mamdani about on Monday, they have been in communication since then. Yeah, I knew he was multilingual, but I didn't know that Mayor Mamdani spoke Trumpish. But apparently he does, rather fluently.

58:24Caitlin Collins at the White House, thanks so much. Don't miss Caitlin on her show later tonight. The Source with Caitlin Collins, her guests tonight include the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. That's Robert Garcia, Congressman of California. That's tonight at 9 Eastern, only on CNN. We're going to talk much more about Hillary Clinton, her deposition today with the House Oversight Committee. Plus, coming up, some breaking news just in about the company that owns me and this network, CNN, Warner Brothers Discovery, and its negotiations to sell with Netflix. Don't look like it's going very well.

58:53Stay with us.

59:01So we have some breaking news internationally that affects everybody I'm looking at right now in the studio. Moments ago, Netflix said it is declining to raise its offer for the purchase of Warner Brothers Studios and HBO following the Warner Brothers Discovery Board's determination that Paramount, which is not just going for Warner Brothers Studios and HBO, but also the whole enchilada, including us here at CNN. And Paramount has submitted a superior offer, according to Warner Brothers Discovery's board. As I've noted, Warner Brothers Discovery is the parent company of CNN. So let's get right to CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter.

59:41So let's start with the question, why did Netflix walk away? Ted Sarandos and others in Netflix made it very clear they really wanted Warner Brothers Studios and they really wanted HBO. Right, in this corporate tug of war, it seems Netflix has suddenly let go of the rope. There's a lot of course that could still happen here, but the big news this afternoon is that Paramount suddenly is in a much stronger position to take over CNN and the rest of the Warner Buzz Discovery Company, which includes HBO and the Warner Buzz Movie Studio and all those other assets. Paramount is the company that essentially put this into play last summer.

1:00:17New CEO David Ellison, shortly after taking over Paramount, CBS, that part of the media world, then set his sights on WBD. And WBD CEO David Zaslav started a bidding war as a result. He sided with Netflix, the WBD board sided with Netflix for a deal that had been struck back in December. But Paramount had then launched a hostile takeover bid. And in recent days, Paramount had negotiations with WBD and raised the offer to$31 per share with a bunch of Swedeners that made the deal more appealing, more palatable to WBD. So in the last few hours, we've heard from WBD that it is siding with Paramount, and now Netflix is walking away from the table.

1:00:56There's two elements about this, Jake. Number one, Netflix says, quote, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount bid. But number two, Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, was at the White House for meetings today, and I'm told by a source he left the White House in a not very happy mood. There's a lot more reporting to do about that aspect of the story. We don't know anything from the Netflix side about the White House meetings, but it is clear that M &A runs through the Oval Office right now, and it is possible that Netflix has been given signals from the White House that the regulatory roadblocks were going to be too severe for the Netflix deal to get through.

1:01:32Bottom line, Paramount now takes the lead in this ongoing race to take over Warner Brothers. There are still other regulatory hurdles for Paramount, but it's a big, big change now and a big success for Paramount to have Netflix say it's walking away. And there's lots of caveats, Jake. You know, Netflix says it's walking away. There's been new developments every few hours in this story. So we'll see what happens next. But at least for now, Paramount with a clear lead right now to take over CNN. Explain what you mean. You said M &A walks through the M &A moves through the White House. That's mergers and acquisitions.

1:02:04Explain exactly what you mean by that. You're saying the President Trump has to sign off on any one of these deals now if they're big enough. His government does, right? His administration, historically, at FCC, in this case, it's the DOJ, the Justice Department, that would sign off. And the DOJ is currently reviewing the Netflix deal that apparently fell apart in the last few minutes. We know that President Trump's taken a very personal interest in this particular deal, however. He has said that it's, quote, imperative that CNN be sold, given that he doesn't like the current owners of CNN. And he has met with the CEOs in involved repeatedly.

1:02:39It's a big change from past presidents who have left the DOJ alone to this subject and let antitrust experts take the lead. Trump has been very involved and so there's a lot more reporting to be done about what he's been doing in recent weeks when it comes to this deal. And I know people have understandable concerns about what an ownership change might mean for CNN. Paramount's a complicated place right now. It's a company where Stephen Colbert is being pushed out at CBS but also where South Park skewers President Trump and where Jon Stewart still speaks truth to power. John Oliver as well. It's led by a CEO, David Ellison, who has worked hard to forge a relationship with Trump, but who also donated a million dollars to Joe Biden's re-election campaign.

1:03:15So a lot more to come on the Paramount front. All right, Brian Stelter, thanks so much. And more breaking news. The AI company Anthropic, which we reported on in the last hour, just responded to Pete Hegseth's ultimatum that they let down their safety guardrails or lose millions in funding and be all but blackballed. That news is coming up also ahead. When a post about Nicki Minaj went viral, was that because of her star power or was it because of online bots? There's a new study that digs into this issue. That's next.

1:03:56And we're back with more breaking news in our tech lead, AI company Anthropic, which we were covering just a few minutes ago, they just announced that they, quote, cannot in good conscience, unquote, comply with Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon's deadline and demand that they lift all the safeguards for the Pentagon to use their product by tomorrow. This means that they are at risk of losing their$200 million contract and being labeled an unreliable provider. Anthropic, in a statement, says the use of AI in mass domestic surveillance and also fully autonomous weapons are, quote, outside the bounds of what today's technology can safely and reliably do.

1:04:44Anthropic says it remains ready to support the national security of the United States. I am probably the president's number one fan That's Nicki Minaj of course and we're sticking with our tech lead for another story there's a new report that analyzes rapper Nicki Minaj's social media claims and suggests that her MAGA content may not be actually as popular among her army of fans known as the Barbz but rather popular among an army of thousands of bots. Now, the report was shared exclusively with Politico. It detected a network of more than 18 ,000 inauthentic accounts sharing and reacting to Nicki Minaj's post between November 11th and December 28th.

1:05:34Here to discuss is Dan Bromi. He's the CEO and founder of Syabra. It's a company behind this announcement. We're not saying, by the way, before we start getting nasty notes, we're not saying that Nicki Minaj is not popular or that she's not talented, but this is just looking at her social media content before, Dan, you and I get any nasty notes. So, Dan, you analyzed more than 55 ,000 profiles that interacted with 51 Nicki Minaj posts, and you found about 33 % of the engagement was from fake, inauthentic profiles. How were you able to identify that these profiles were not real? So, the way that we analyzed that as the company that is the infrastructure for analytics, we look at a framework called actors, behaviors, and content.

1:06:22And we look at specific types of coordination, similar temporal signals, identical messages that are some of, out of hundreds, if not thousands of different parameters, that are indications that there is an inclination towards inauthentic behavior and high levels of manipulation and high levels of coordination around specific topics. So bot activity is obviously rampant on social media, especially when it comes to politics. That is correct. But you found something especially odd about this activity, and Politico wrote it up saying, quote, rather than a short-lived spike tied to a single event or appearance, a company found sustained and coordinated amplification of Menage's posts across a range of political and cultural topics over time, unquote.

1:07:11So let me see if I can translate this and then explain it to me even further, because I'm sure I'm going to get it wrong. You're finding that, like, she posts something and there's obviously a response because she's a huge superstar. Correct. But it keeps on going and going and going. And that's really where the inauthentic bot-driven activity is. Is that right? That is right. And, you know, I think it's very important for us to kind of explain what it means. people shouldn't really focus or fixate over the percentages of inauthentic activities or inauthentic accounts. I think that's it might be a very controversial, very sexy topic per se, because it is every day's conversation.

1:07:52But at the end of the day, whether it is 33 percent, five percent or 20, what truly matters between you and me is real people, genuine, authentic people like you and me, are we getting exposed to the narratives that the so-called inauthentic accounts are driving? So it's never about the three, the 33 or the 20. It's about, is there a spillover? Is there a spillover? Is there an impact over the audience? And as much as that analysis focused on a sample of what is being said around Nicki Minaj's social media audience, this is completely data-driven. It's data-driven. It's unbiased. It is very objective.

1:08:35And as, like you said, you know, as a surprising effect, it might seem less surprising when you talk about geopolitical conversations, but it touches every single industry that we see today. Yeah. And what, the reason I was really interested in this is because we were covering earlier this week, this nonsense attack on Governor Newsom. Governor Newsom on Sunday made a comment at an event where he suggested because he got bad SAT scores, he's like the people in the audience. He's like a regular person because he has dyslexia. And then this account that is just a MAGA, lying, smearing account called End Wokeness.

1:09:16They clipped his remarks remarks and said and mischaracterized it as as if Newsom was saying to a black audience I can't read just like you you know it was a racially diverse crowd in fact maybe even majority white and that's not what he was saying it spiked when end wokeness put it out there and a bunch of right-wing accounts and politicians who should know better backed it up but then what was interesting is the next day according to an analysis I saw, the impressions went down, meaning the number of big accounts that pushed this, but the mention volume went up, meaning more people were talking about it, even though the number of big accounts talking about it was going down.

1:10:06And that suggests possibly, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that suggests possibly that was also being driven by bots, right? You know, while we, as a company, we haven't done any proper analysis over that very specific conversation, I think that what you're describing seems plausible simply because this is, it's a well-known technique in the information warfare and information operations world, if you want to call it like that. Taking a small piece of information and extracting it out of context to shift the conversation, to shift the narratives from one point to another is an extremely well-known, let's call it format, of manipulation online.

1:10:51Now here it was one comment, it was one comment, one sentence, and maybe the author that actually posted that didn't really mean what he or she meant, but eventually it ended up being taken completely out of proportion. And that's the interesting piece. And just to comment on the last thing that you asked, which is number of big accounts going down, but number of volume and mentions going up. Is that what you said? Yeah. Yeah, okay. So that is probably related to the fact that there's always, I don't want to call it a second wave, but there's always almost like a backdrop of impact. Because sometimes when there's an intention, when there's a real need and a will to try to influence other people's opinions, you don't do it as a spike and leave the table.

1:11:43It never works like that. It's usually very highly coordinated and orchestrated, which is why we're looking at this. Very interesting. Fascinating stuff. Thank you so much. And we should note that Nicki Minaj did not respond to Politico's request for comment on the report. Dan Brami, thank you so much. She was dragged from her car by ICE agents a month ago and never expected rough treatment, however, as she was an invited guest at Tuesday State of the Union. We're going to talk to her next.

1:12:19In our politics lead, more than a week before a federal immigration agent killed Alex Preddy in the streets of Minneapolis, the scenes involving federal immigration officers in Minneapolis were already chaotic and disturbing. Nearly a week after an ICE officer killed Renee Good came this haunting image of an American-born U.S. citizen telling agents that she's disabled after ICE agents forced her car door open and dragged her out. The woman is Alia Rahman. Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota invited Rahman as her guest for President Trump's State of the Union on Tuesday. U.S. Capitol Police arrested her there for allegedly disrupting the proceeding, charging her with unlawful conduct.

1:13:03Part of a statement from U.S. Capitol Police to CNN says, quote, All State of the Union tickets clearly explain that demonstrating is prohibited. The guest was told to sit down but refused to obey our lawful orders. It is illegal to disrupt the Congress and demonstrate in the congressional buildings. I want to bring in, in studio, Alia Rahman and her attorney, Jessica Gingold, is also joining us remotely. Alia, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. And I'm sorry for everything you've gone through. The scenes from Minneapolis are just really disturbing. The congresswoman says you were charged with unlawful conduct because you were silently standing during the president's speech.

1:13:41Can you explain at what moment did you stand and what happened after that? Yeah. You know, this is obviously my first time at State of the Union. I think if people have not been there as a guest, you might not have a sense of what's happening up there. You were up in the gallery. Yeah, so guests sit up in the gallery, right? We see our lawmakers on the floor stand up and sit down, stand up and sit down. That's happening up there, too. So I had actually stood up and sat down a couple of times before they removed and arrested me. You know, I stood up because somebody was turning 100, you know, stuff like that.

1:14:19So, yeah. Were you standing in silent protest? or were you just, this is one of the times that you were just standing? No, I was just experiencing the event. You know, there's not much you can actually do at State of the Union besides sit down and stand up. You're there for a long time, you know. Yeah, I was not protesting. I mean, I was wearing a mask and I wasn't speaking. I didn't have a sign. I didn't have anything written. And the point at which they actually put their hands on me to remove me, I mean, you can see it in pictures. The people around me are also standing, you know. So it was a pretty confusing situation in terms of what the issue was.

1:14:57But yeah, I was removed. So you weren't standing in protest. You were just standing along with other people. Do you feel like they were targeting you because they knew who you were? I mean, what do you think? I mean, I think you do have to ask that question, right? Because, hey, I'm a very, like, I can be kind of a cold, logic, autistic person sometimes, right? And what I am seeing is that the people to either side of me are standing up and not just standing up, but they're like making noise. Right. I was actually quiet. So if the issue is disruption. I mean, I'm not aware that anybody on the floor even knew I was standing up.

1:15:33Right. You know, people have kind of been like, what happened, you know, since then, because it wasn't causing an issue. Do they ask you to sit down and you refuse to or. I asked. I asked questions like, I'm sorry, what? Because like think about that. What does that even mean? Like sit down like for the next two hours or sit down just now and only you? Or are we all supposed to sit down? Like what's going on here? Yeah. So the question of are they targeting me? I mean, I really thought about that. Like I'm not famous. The only thing I'm known for is giving testimony about what I saw inside the Whipple Center detention center.

1:16:11Right. Democrats had a hearing and invited you to talk about it. It's the only thing anybody knows me for, and I think I'm not the only person who worries that the state of Minnesota itself is targeted, right? Because we did not sit down, and we have been demanding justice. You know, I just think it's really wild that I'm arrested, right? But Brian Palacios has not been arrested. The man who killed Keith Porter, that's all his family wants, right? Like, let's just see if there's a crime here. That hasn't happened. Charles Exum, who shot Marimar Martinez five times and bragged about it. They have not been arrested, right?

1:16:46But me? How long were you in police custody? I was released just before 4 a.m. So roughly 9.30, 10 o 'clock until 4 a.m.? Yeah, I think it was probably just after. Actually, I don't know exactly what time it was because you can't have a watch or a phone in there. The speech started about 9.18 or something like that. I'd probably been there about an hour. I mean, I'd been there. You have to go in really early and sit there. So I would say, yeah, probably a little bit after 10. Were you in the custody of Capitol Police or D.C. police? Capitol Police. Yeah, the people who actually removed me are that kind of sergeant at arms team, which I got to say, they don't give police vibes.

1:17:26They give like bar security vibes, right? Not clear what the issue was, like lots of strong arming. And the video you played, right, after that part of the video from Minneapolis, I was cuffed behind my back and carried through the streets. I have a torn rotator tendon here and I have multiple cartilage chairs on both of my shoulders that we're trying to put together because of ICE agents, both there. And you have a cane. What is that for? Yeah, I used to walk with a regular cane because of balance issues around my traumatic brain injury, but guess what? If you've got torn shoulders, you've got to take some pressure off of it.

1:18:02Normally you would just switch to the other arm. But I have two torn shoulders for this punitive situation where I committed no crime with ICE. Let me bring in your attorney, Jessica. Are there legal grounds to fight the unlawful conduct disruption of Congress charge against Dahlia? So we are obviously still evaluating our options and continuing to investigate what occurred that evening. We are deeply concerned about what occurred and we are definitely going to fight this. It is our belief that the allegations are baseless, that she likely was targeted, and that it is completely unreasonable for somebody to be arrested for merely standing up.

1:18:52we are committed to representing her and fighting this till the end disturbing story that was disturbing back when you were hauled out of your car now continues to be Jessica Gingold remotely and Ali Rahman thank you so much for joining us and stay in touch with us we would like to keep tabs of this I would like no more interesting things to happen in my life actually but so but I'm sure yeah absolutely okay what is it we would be happy yeah to hear from any other witnesses to the event as as Alia explained she didn't have her phone in there she didn't have um any way to record what was happening um so to the extent that others were there you know we would welcome people to reach out to the MacArthur Justice Center um so that we can and expose the truth.

1:19:46And there were other people who got involved. Two people who, someone who was wearing like a medical coat who said, take your hands off her shoulders, that's not necessary. An attorney who steps up and said, I'm curious about what's happening here. Do you have an attorney? So, and who tried to go with me to this back stairwell they took me to and were not allowed. Yeah. Aliyah, Rachman. Hope nothing more interesting happens. Right, hope I never see you again. Okay. All right, thanks so much Aliyah and Jessica. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. Could President Trump claim an emergency of some sort before the midterms and use that declaration to justify a ban of mail-in ballots?

1:20:26Some disturbing details and exclusive reporting from The Washington Post coming up next.

1:20:35Our Politics Lead Now, an alarming new report from The Washington Post reveals a 17-page draft executive order circulating in which the White House claims China interfered in the 2020 election. Now, we all know the president has his theories and grievances, but this is significant to today because President Trump could then use that claim as a basis to declare a national emergency, which then theoretically could open the door for him to exert extraordinary presidential power over the voting process in this year's midterm elections. Washington Post senior White House reporter Isaac Ars-McDorff joins the panel.

1:21:13He broke the story. So Isaac, tell us what your sources have told you. So I want to be really clear. This is not an official White House draft. This is not a document that comes from the White House. This is a proposal that's being shared with the White House when we know that Trump has said on social media he wants to do an executive order to mandate no mail ballots and voter ID even without an act of Congress. How's he going to do that? Well, he says he's about to present a new legal theory that's never been tested before. And there's a lawyer who has worked with him in the past, knows him since high school, representing Tina Peters, who viewers remember the Colorado election clerk.

1:21:55And this lawyer has this proposal, as you described, that if the administration can present evidence of foreign interference, that could be the basis for a national emergency that would unlock the president to exercise these powers that they acknowledge ordinarily he doesn't have. Those are powers over election that belong to Congress or the states. Would he have to present this evidence? Because we know that the president's definition of evidence is quite different than that, at least in 2020, as defined by courts, and election boards and governors, even Republicans, would he have to present this evidence to some sort of reputable arbiter?

1:22:34Well, presumably, I've heard from a number of organizations today since I published this article that they would challenge this in court. And then you would see, like with previous executive orders, looking at some of the rationale that they've used for expedited deportations, the judge would be in the position of reviewing, is the argument they're making about an invasion force from Venezuela describing Tranda de Uruguay, do we buy that or not? Is that a valid, but it would go to litigation. What kind of powers would this unlock theoretically if he does this declaration? Well, I mean, this isn't like spelled out in a statute or anything, but according to an early version of the draft that I saw, it would just order that everyone's got to re-register Re-register.

1:23:23Everyone's got to re-register. You've got to start over with voter registration. 200 million people or whatever. You've got to show proof of citizenship. And you can only vote with hand-marked paper ballots. And you can only use an absentee ballot in very limited circumstances. Sure, Michael, your response? I mean, look, there are a lot of people who are going to make claims of having good, strong, robust relationships with the White House and with the president himself. We've seen these types of reportings in the past. And good job by Isaac, by the way. When I first read this story, I couldn't quite believe it.

1:23:55So I reached out to people to just ask, like, hey, is this legitimate? And one response I got was, well, if you find a person who this guy is allegedly talking to, let us know, too. The White House is principally focused on maintaining the House this November. They're principally focused on the economy, bringing jobs back to the American people, not these kooky-mongy crazy stories by some random attorney who is trying to assert something. And it should be known, again, this is not officially from the White House. Many people propose a lot of crazy ideas. It does not mean the White House is going to enact on it.

1:24:25And by the way, the Constitutional Authority isn't there. And Republicans, I believe, wouldn't support this because they want to talk about the kitchen table issues that most Americans care about. Karen? Oh, sure, Michael. Your Republicans may not want to, but Donald Trump will take anything he can. And remember in 2020, when people were putting out all kinds of crazy legal theories, many of which made their way to the courts, all of which failed. I'm thinking of a press conference where you had a Rudy Giuliani with, you know. Four Seasons Landscape. Right. In that great city of Philadelphia. Exactly.

1:24:58That wonderful city. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So look, but we know there's too much of a pattern where some of these things that the rest of us think, well, this is absolutely crazy, kind of somehow circulates. And given the way that people know that the way to curry favor with Trump is to give him what he wants, he's made it very clear over the last several weeks that he wants to nationalize or somehow control the 2026 elections because he wants to hold on to power. So I'm not surprised that you're hearing from organizations because from what I'm hearing from Democrats, particularly our civil rights organizations and voting rights organizations, people are taking this all very seriously and being prepared because we don't know what this guy's going to try to do.

1:25:41What did the White House say when you reached out to them for your story? They said that the president is committed to passing the SAVE Act. Which, by the way, there aren't necessarily the votes for the SAVE Act, right? Well, they would have to change the rules in the Senate, which the Senate Republicans have said they're not going to do. So the official line from the White House we keep hearing is, the president wants the SAVE Act, which he says, but he also says very clearly, if they don't pass the SAVE Act, I'm going to do it anyway. And this is a proposal that has reached the White House about how he could do it anyway.

1:26:13And what other kind of feedback did you get from your story? Well, I'm sure Michael is absolutely right. There are definitely people in the White House who do not want to see this happen, do not think it will work. But we've seen a situation before where Donald Trump has door number one, a lawyer who says, that's not going to work. You can't do this. And door number two, a different lawyer who says, here's how you can make it work. And which door does he choose? Yeah, we have seen that movie before. Thank you so much. Great reporting. Sure, Michael, Karen, thank you so much. 40 years after the horrors of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, a new CNN series is digging into the full story from a KGB cover up to the war in Ukraine.

1:26:49That story's next.

1:26:57In our world lead, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in what is now Ukraine 40 years ago continues to impact the country today. A new CNN original series Disaster, the Chernobyl meltdown uncovers the full story from the explosion and KGB cover up to today's war in Ukraine. Take a look. The reactor was not receiving any cooling water. That would cause a reactor meltdown. So they became fixated at that point on getting water into the reactor. The gate valves on the cooling system had to be turned manually. Alexander Akimov and Leonid Toktinov went to the valve compartment, and they spent a long time there in enormous fields of gamma radiation, struggling to open first one gate valve, then the other one.

1:27:51What they didn't realize was that opening the valves was a complete waste of time because there was no longer any reactor core too cool. Akimov and Toptonov both received lethal doses of radiation. They died a few weeks later. Let's bring in CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance. Matthew, good to see you. One of the remarkable things about the Chernobyl disaster is how all these decades later, it is still problematic, especially in the context of Putin's war in Ukraine. Yeah, it's a disaster that's still with us. I mean, it's not just that 31 people were killed back in 1986 and the initial explosion and the thousands of people that are estimated to have been killed in sort of radioactive poisoning afterwards.

1:28:37It's the fact that, you know, the UN's nuclear watchdog agency says it's going to be 20 ,000 years before that area around Chernobyl is fit for human habitation again. And so it's going to be with us for a long time to come. But you're right, in the context of the Ukraine war, additional dangers have presented themselves. First of all, back in 2022, when the Russian military began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, they partially did that through the Chernobyl exclusion zone area, tank tracks, kicking up all sorts of radioactive dust. They dug trenches, which must have exposed the Russian troops to all sorts of sort of radioactive hazards as well.

1:29:12They withdrew. But, you know, since then, the concrete infrastructure, the sarcophagus that's been put on top of the radioactive core to protect it from radioactive leakage, that's been hit at least once by a drone blamed on Russia, which damaged it. also with the incessant attacks by Russian forces on the energy infrastructure in Ukraine. The electricity supply is periodically cut off to Chernobyl as well, and that's needed to keep the remaining radioactive material there cool. So it's a historical catastrophe, but it is one that is still very much with us, Jake. All right, Matthew Chance, thanks so much.

1:29:52And look for this new CNN original series, disaster, the Chernobyl meltdown. Back-to-back episodes will premiere this Sunday night at 9 Eastern on CNN and then the next day on the CNN app. You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, threads, BlueSkyX, and on the TikTok at Jake Tapper. You can follow the show on X and on Instagram at The Lead CNN. If you ever miss an episode of The Lead, you can watch the show on the CNN app. Aaron Burnett, Out Front, starts now. Take it away, Aaron.