AI Summit at White House 

0:00Pamela Brown: Every day, animals across the country face abuse and neglect. And every day, the ASPCA shows up to rescue animals in crisis. But they can't do it alone. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. Become a donor today to provide the care and shelter these animals urgently need. And for a limited time, the ASPCA will send you a free gift as a special thank you. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. Observe. The North American Dad. 50s. Great polo collection. He enters his vehicle information on Carvana. An offer appears in minutes. Remarkable. He squints, reads it again, smiles and says, dang, that's a good offer. The highest form of approval.

0:49No haggling. No hassle. No one called him boss. He's still on the couch. Astonishing. Sell your car today on Carvana.com. Pickup fees may apply.

1:07Pamela Brown: This is CNN Breaking News. Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in the Situation Room. Happening right now, we're following three breaking news stories this morning. First, a very important lunch date. In just a few hours, President Trump will meet with leading AI executives over at the White House. On the menu, their growing concerns about the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technology. Also, Pamela. Quote, I will not be silenced. Those are words from Jack Smith, who is facing a Senate Judiciary Committee right now.

1:47The former special counsel is expected to defend his decision to prosecute the president. And for the first time since the judge declared a mistrial, Lindsay Clancy returns to court. We are live in Massachusetts as the judge determines what happens next for the mother who killed her three young children.

2:04Pamela Brown: And let's begin with the major breaking news we're following right now. The former U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, defending his legal authority to prosecute President Trump. Remember, Smith secured two, yes, two federal criminal indictments against President Trump under the Biden Justice Department. One for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The other for mishandling classified documents. Both cases were dismissed before trial. But Smith has long drawn the fury of President Trump and his allies who say those investigations were politically motivated.

2:46Pamela Brown: Today marks the second time the former special counsel is publicly defending those investigations under oath. And he's making it very clear that he stands firmly behind the legitimacy of his work and will not be silenced. I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump. I made those decisions without regard to President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation.

3:32If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.

3:46Pamela Brown: Let's go live right now to our senior justice correspondent, Evan Perez. He's up on Capitol Hill watching all of this unfold. Evan, you've done extensive reporting on Jack Smith's investigations. What are you watching for today? Well, Wolf, you're going to hear a lot from Republicans who are trying to paint the investigations that Jack Smith oversaw as politicized, as weaponization against Republicans, against the president of the United States. Of course, at the time he was former president when Jack Smith was investigating him. And what you hear there, what you heard there from Smith is him backing up everything that happened in that investigation, that everything he believes that was done was done not for political purposes, as the president and some of his Republican allies in this room want to point, want to make it out to be, that what he was doing was following the law and trying to bring a case.

4:42For instance, there is going to be a lot of focus, already is a lot of focus on phone records belonging to members of Congress, bank records belonging to conservative organizations that were subpoenaed as part of this investigation. Wolf and Pamela, you know, we know that that's a routine part of building a case. If you're doing a criminal case, you subpoena those records as part of an effort to make that case. Republicans say that they should never have, that should never have happened because that was politicization. And so that's what a lot of the focus that we're

5:15Pamela Brown: going to hear about the questioning, the questioning of Jack Smith over the next several hours. It's certainly going to be lively indeed. Evan Perez up on the hill for us. Thank you very, very much. Pamela. All right. I want to dip in now to this court hearing, the status conference, to determine whether there will be a second trial for Lindsey Clancy. Let's listen in. But we are objecting to proceeding on that motion today. The reason for that is that we received the motion last Monday. It was our understanding that today was scheduled for possible trial assignment and the Rule 25 motion, we learned on Friday when defense counsel or someone working with him sent an email to the clerk that they would like to argue the motion today.

5:59We were not aware that that was going to happen, and so we really had a very limited time in which to delve into this 34-page memorandum that was submitted by defense counsel and prepare for this motion today. So we are asking for more time on that than what we've had up to this point. All right. Counselor? As a matter of your Honor's discretion, I'm prepared to argue with today. The Commonwealth has had eight days. It's a significant motion raising important issues that if your Honor was to decide in favor of the defendant,

6:34Pamela Brown: it would move out a lot of the other issues that would require an end to this litigation. I'm prepared to walk you with today, Judge. Well, I appreciate that. But to be fair to both sides, this was a significant motion to file within the time span. There's certainly nothing, not criticizing the defense for filing it and the timing of it. But I do understand the Commonwealth may need some additional time. So can we put that also on for that November 2nd date? Yes, Your Honor. Council? So why don't we, we will hear that motion to dismiss on November 2nd.

7:22Does the Commonwealth intend to file a memorandum in opposition? Yes, Your Honor. All right, so if you could file that maybe at least a week before that hearing date, that would be helpful. Yes, Your Honor.

7:36Then, there's also, it was filed yesterday or this morning, Commonwealth's motion to bar prejudicial extrajudicial statements.

7:49Commonwealth, are you ready to argue that motion? Yes. All right. Defendant? Sure. Well, the other question is whether I am. All right. This is a motion that was filed late yesterday. I didn't see it until about 5 o 'clock this morning. So I was also reviewing a number of the other motions. This raises some significant constitutional questions as well as under the Massachusetts law. I'm going to suggest that we set a date on that so that the court can be ready as well as the council. Put that on November 2nd as well. Sure. All right.

8:40All right. All right. And then I know there's a related motion filed by the Globe regarding access to arguments inside of our conferences. I just received that last night as well. So I'm not ready to address that. We'll mark that up for hearing. We'll reach out to council who filed that. We can set that up for hearing. All right. So why don't we go forward first on the motion for required finding, and then we can deal with the other motions and then talk about schedule. Okay. All right, Mr. Brinnington? I don't know which... Are you going to argue the Rule 25? Sure. Okay.

9:47Thank you. Your Honor, the posture at this point, obviously, is that the government rested. I filed the motion under Rule 25 for required finding. The court denied the motion. We then proceeded with the defense. When the defense rested, I renewed the motion for required finding procedurally. The court denied the motion. The government then commenced their rebuttal case. When the government rested the rebuttal case and the case concluded, I renewed the motion for required finding, and this is a request for the court at this point to enter an order allowing a motion for required finding of not guilty.

10:25the issue is really two you've got as it goes back to the motion for bifurcation you may recall i know you do that i had filed the motion requesting that the court bifurcate the trial itself arguing the massachusetts constitution the difference in the language between the mass Constitution and the Federal Constitution as it relates to presenting evidence against oneself, whether or not it's an impingement on a defendant's rights for due process, as well as their Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to require a person who is asserting a defense of lack of criminal responsibility to have to have both issues tried.

11:16In other words, whether the person committed the offense and whether or not the person at the time of the commission of the offense lacked criminal responsibility. Two separate issues. But the way our present statute and law is set up, and as Your Honor denied that motion in your memorandum, you indicated obviously that we have to go forward on one trial. Whether or not it's because of money, that it would cost a lot of money to try two cases for anybody asserting a defense of lack of criminal responsibility or whether or not it's logistics. I don't know, but I suggest to the court that it's readily apparent that you are put in a conundrum where you have to, in effect, admit culpability, if you will, to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility.

12:05Now, many, many laypeople have difficulty understanding the concept of the bifurcation and say, well, you know, she admitted that she did it. So she's guilty, and therefore she's just guilty. And then they go off on a tangent about all of these horrific allegations that she's a demon and she's possessed and she should be executed. And this is coming from politicians, from President Trump all the way down. So we end up trying the case. I tried to raise the issue as best I could on the issue of probable cause. the jury was instructed by you that they did have the obligation to make a determination as to whether or not the government has presented evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this young woman was actually guilty of this offense.

13:05Your Honor then proceeded to indicate appropriately that in the event that the jury determined that there was evidence that in fact she had indeed committed the offense, They would then proceed to the issue of whether or not the government sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that, in fact, she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect such as which would have an effect on her being either unable to appreciate the criminality of the conduct alleged or, in the disjunctive, conform the conduct to the requirements of the law, which is our black-led-led-law definition of lack of criminal responsibility.

13:46So I'd like to kind of bifurcate this argument this morning in the same way. And what I would do is address first the issue of the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's not riding the horse two ends against the middle and trying to play games with the system or gamesmanship or anything. This is a constitutional due process obligation that the government, when the government charges a person with a criminal offense, they have that burden of proof on each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Your Honor knows from your review and recollection of the evidence that was presented, I submit to the court that a motion for required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence to indicate to a rational juror, which is consistent with the Lattimore standard, consistent with Jackson v.

14:49Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, where the courts note that to sustain the denial of a directed verdict, they call it directed verdict, we call it required finding, it is not enough for the court to find that there was some record evidence, which is always what the government always argues. There's some record evidence here. There was an evidence on this, evidence on that element. Dr. Satov testified to something, and there's enough for a jury. It's a question of fact. No, that's not the standard. The standard is whether or not that there is evidence that a court is able to determine, that there's record evidence to support each essential element of the offense.

15:33It must find that there is enough evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. We consider the directed verdict standard required by Jackson v. Virginia to be comparable to that heretofore applied in Commonwealth v. Cooper, and that's in Lattimore. Jackson case further indicates that the evidence must not just be some record evidence. It has to be reliable, and it has to be sufficient, that would allow a rational juror to make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just that there's some record evidence that touches on each element of the offense.

16:22So I asked the court to harken back to the evidence that was presented and ask yourself, where's the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this? You have a situation where Patrick, comes home. Your Honor recalls the evidence that he indicates that when he came home, that he enters the house, he puts the food down on the table, comes back from the restaurant, it's quiet, eerily quiet, as the government indicates in their motion. That he then indicates that he goes upstairs into the bedroom after yelling downstairs to the basement, there's no response. He goes upstairs, and when he goes upstairs, he goes into the bedroom, and your Your Honor will recall that the evidence is that he's able to make an observation, that the window is open, it's cold in the room, he sees blood.

17:14My memory is that it appeared as though it was sprayed on the walls. In fact, your Honor will recall that the next period of the walls is the attorney for Lindsay Clancy. This is a hearing to determine whether there should be a second trial in the Lindsay Clancy case after there was a mistrial, as you'll probably recall a few weeks ago. So let's go live now to CNN's Gene Casares, who is right outside the courtroom. So what are the takeaways for you, Gene? I think number one would have to be we are not hearing that there has been a deal. We are not hearing that this case is over. This is an active criminal case right now, and they are proceeding as such in arguing these motions.

17:53So I think that's number one. Number two, we saw stand up in court the Massachusetts attorney. We do not know her name. I don't believe it was read in court, but the Massachusetts attorney for the holdout juror, he now has representation here in Massachusetts. And she was asked by the judge to file a memorandum of what she wants. This court, because remember, there is an outstanding motion from the defense that they want to collect his cell phone, that they want surveillance video outside the jury deliberation room to be preserved, to see what he was doing. They want his confidential questionnaire to be preserved, to see what he wrote on that.

18:34They want this juror to be brought into court, according to the defense motion, to be asked a number of questions of whether they were faithful and true and honest in what they did during their deliberations and what was on their cell phone. He now has representation. November 2nd will be the date we will hear more about that of this loan holdout juror. Number two, motion to dismiss. Defense filed at prosecution, said we have not had a chance to respond. It was just filed. November 2nd is when the motion to dismiss will be heard. And now the current motion that is being actually argued by the defense is asking the judge to make a determination of finding Lindsay Clancy on his own, not guilty.

19:16Why? Because of insufficiency of the evidence, that there was not evidence presented to this jury that any jury rationally could have found beyond reasonable doubt that she knew right from wrong, that she knew what she was doing. And so that's where we are at this point. But my headline is still that this case continues onward. And we have learned the name of the attorney representing juror Doe. That is how he is being referred to in this courtroom. Remember, the judge still has an order that jurors are to remain anonymous, at least inside the courtroom. Heather O 'Connor is the attorney representing Jur Doe, now here in Massachusetts, who has become a big focal point to the defense argument that this case should be outright dismissed because of that juror.

20:08All right, Gene Casares in Plymouth, thank you. We'll be right back.

20:13Pamela Brown: Clothes shopping really isn't my thing, but I still want to look sharp and feel confident. That's why I use Stitch Fix, the OG personal styling service. No more scrolling through websites or wasting my day at the store. My stylist sends pieces picked just for me straight to my door. Free shipping, free returns, no subscription required. Get started today at stitchfix.com. That's stitchfix.com. The holidays are busy enough. Getting your home ready shouldn't be. From the perfect tree and twinkling lights to festive decor for inside and out, Wayfair has everything you need to get your home holiday ready.

20:55Find furniture, hosting essentials, festive serveware, and more all in one place. So you can spend less time getting ready and more time enjoying the season with the people who make it special. Shop Wayfair.com today to make holiday magic at home.

21:10Pamela Brown: Wayfair, every style, every home. Breaking news. Lindsay Clancy is back in a Massachusetts courtroom for the first time since the judge in her triple murder case declared a mistrial. The judge is addressing questions about a potential retrial. We, of course, will bring you any updates or decisions as they come in. Wolf, over to you. There's more breaking news we're following up on Capitol Hill, Pamela. The former special counsel, Jack Smith, currently testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, defending, strongly defending his legal authority to prosecute President Trump. Remember, Smith secured two, yes, two federal criminal indictments against President Trump under the Biden Justice Department.

21:52Pamela Brown: He's being questioned by Senator Chris Coons of Delaware right now. Let's listen in. We investigated was predicated upon Donald Trump preying on party loyalty. He preyed on party loyalty and fear, fear that he could force people to do things. The reality is one of the reasons our democracy held up, one of the reasons he was not able to take power, even though he was seeking to do these things, is because Republicans stood up. Our witnesses, the strongest witnesses, would have been Republican members of Congress. I personally find it very hard to understand how our investigation can be viewed as partisan when the strongest witnesses, the people who were the difference between the rule of law standing and not, in our case, were Republicans.

22:47People like Rusty Bowers in Arizona. People like Mike Pence who did the right thing and put the interests of the country over the personal interests of Donald Trump. I just don't understand how an investigation predicated on witnesses like that can be partisan. Mr. Smith, what signal do you think it sends that President Trump, when he was reelected, carried out mass firings of career nonpartisan prosecutors? What message do you think that sent to Americans interested in raising their hand to serve their nation or to law enforcement prosecutors, judges throughout our system of law? I think the message it sends is that public servants will not be protected.

23:36And if we cannot protect public servants who enforce the rule of law without fear or favor, the Justice Department cannot work and it cannot have credibility. That is why we have seen the erosion of the credibility of the department in courts across this country. It's important, I believe, incredibly important to protect public servants if we want to have a rule of law that works. I want to focus my last two minutes on NDOs, or so-called nondisclosure orders. The special counsel's investigation into unprecedented efforts to unturn a presidential election was lawful and necessary. I want you to briefly walk me through the process by which you obtained nondisclosure orders for the toll records of members of Congress.

24:19These types of NDO requests are fairly typical in DOJ investigations, and your NDO requests were fully compliant with the Department of Justice policy at the time. Is that correct? That is correct. And we had, in my view, an ample legal basis to seek nondisclosure orders in this case. In fact, the same thing happened to Democratic members of Congress during the first Trump administration confirmed by a 2024 DOJ IG report. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. the thing that was unique to our case is the extreme concern over obstruction of our investigation, intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence, and interference with the integrity of the investigation by Donald Trump and his co-conspirators.

25:08Let me close on this point. My Republican colleagues, including some longtime friends, have tried to suggest there was something wrong with your decision to obtain nondisclosure orders during your investigation. I believe the government bar, the current bar for granting NDOs, may be too low and that government requests for secrecy are too often granted. My NDO Fairness Act with Senator Mike Lee would ensure NDOs are only issued in circumstances requiring secrecy in a way that would better protect all Americans, including members of Congress. This bill has already passed the House by voice vote.

25:45The Constitution protects Americans' right to privacy and their personal communications. But we can only assert that right if we know our privacy has been violated. I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong. I'm just suggesting that if I have colleagues who were enraged by your legal and appropriate and timely pursuit of NDOs, there's something we can and should do about it. You said in your opening that while fear may be contagious, courage is as well. I want to thank you for your courage, for standing up to relentless, biased attacks on you and your family, for groundless conspiracy theories, and for, frankly, the shocking lack of forceful engagement by my colleagues to defend the rule of law in the face of one of the most challenging, treacherous moments in our democracy's history, the assaults on this Capitol and our Constitution of January 6th.

26:38Thank you, Mr. Smith. Without objection, I'll enter into the record. All right.

26:43Pamela Brown: So we've been listening to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democratic Senator Chris Coons asking questions, making statements about the former special counsel, Jack Smith, who's testifying under oath about his investigation into President Trump. We're going to continue to monitor this important history, this important testimony, get back to it. But right now, I want to go back to Plymouth, Massachusetts right now. That's where Lindsay Clancy is now back in court for the first time since her mistrial. A reasonable doubt. And as this woman sits in front of you today, I suggest to the court they did not prove probable cause.

27:22And they certainly did not prove that she was not acting at the time of the psychosis and should be found not guilty. Thank you.

27:49Your Honor, the Commonwealth did file a written opposition, and I'd mostly rely on the written opposition for a summary of the facts of the case, based on the best memory. Obviously, we don't have full transcripts to cite to for the particular pieces of evidence, but I think the Commonwealth did present a fair representation of the pertinent facts, although this was a lengthy trial, and I certainly don't proclaim that it's an exhaustive list of all of the relevant facts. But as we're here addressing the motion for required finding under 25B2, which Council has cited to, The job of the court, Your Honor, is to decide based on the evidence presented at trial whether the evidence was sufficient for the Commonwealth for any rational trial of fact to find that the Commonwealth has met its burden as it applies to each and every element.

28:45We're hearing now for the first time in this argument that counsel is challenging first the sufficiency of the evidence as it applies to the three counts of murder. What we heard throughout the course of trial over and over from counsel was that there was objections to the presentation of Commonwealth's evidence on the underlying murders because the defendant admits, the defendant stipulates whether the Commonwealth agreed to the stipulation or not. And now, for the first time, the defendant is arguing that there's no evidence that she did this. I'd suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to the information supporting the fact that she did this.

29:26We have, she's the only one in the home with three young children. We have that her husband testified under oath that he left the house, that she sent him out on those errands, that he went to the exact places where she directed him to go. not only did she direct him to go based on his testimony, but we confirmed that with her own cell phone data that says that she made the call to the restaurant, that she made the call to CVS, that he then went there. He's on video surveillance at those locations during the time period in which these murders occurred. He comes home, and he finds the children in the manner that they were in, and he finds the defendant where she was.

30:00We have all that information. There was DNA on those exercise bans that was attributable to this defendant, and it was on the ends of those bans, the ends of those bands that she had to pull in order to strangle each and every one of those children. We have that she woke up in the hospital and spoke to a chaplain within days of gaining consciousness where she talks about the fact that she had these hallucinations telling her what she had to do, that she had to kill the kids, and that she was glad that the kids were safer now. So there's plenty of information to support the essential elements of the charges of murder.

30:32There's information or facts that support deliberate premeditation. There's facts that support extreme atrocity or cruelty, much of them which I would more focus on and discuss with criminal responsibility, but I ask Your Honor to consider a lot of these facts in both contexts. So the first point, that there isn't enough evidence to prove that she did it, I would suggest is a laughable argument, and based on what Your Honor sat through several weeks of the trial, that the Commonwealth met its burden as it applies to that. As far as the motion for required finding as to lack of criminal responsibility, I did try to outline in the commonwealth's response the law as it pertains to this issue because it is a little different, I would suggest, than what we traditionally see with required motions for required findings.

31:21When it comes to a defensive lack of criminal responsibility, your honor is aware that that's something that comes into effect only when raised by the defense. And when it's adequately raised, then the burden switches to the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not lack criminal responsibility, that they were criminally responsible. And the case law is specific when it comes to required findings that when that is the case, again, for required finding, the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. And that the court, unless they find defense case proves that the Commonwealth's case is conclusively incorrect, that the court doesn't necessarily rely on the defendant's case in order to address whether the Commonwealth has presented sufficient evidence.

32:10Pamela Brown: All right, we're going to continue to monitor this hearing up in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Lindsay Klansky, for the first time since her mistrial, is now back in court. They're arguing whether there should be a retrial, what the charges should be. We'll continue to monitor this, stay on top of this story. Much more coming up. We'll be right back.

32:32Share comfort and joy this holiday season at Tecovas. Our boots are handcrafted in over 200 meticulous steps and have a broken in feel right out of the box with styles for everyone in the family. Our expert staff can help you pick the perfect gifts, and we have free in-store gift wrapping to help make the holiday season truly special. See you soon at your local Tecovas store or shop with us anytime at tecovas.com. Twas many nights before Christmas, and one woman knew she needed a Christmas tree, so to Wayfair she flew. Finding just the right one, and for years it will last. Wayfair shipping was free, and remarkably fast.

33:09What's this? Garland? A wreath? Essentials to host? Good thing she celebrates way longer than most. As her cart filled with magic and decor from the heart, Merry Christmas to all. Get your Wayfair head start. For holiday decor you can count on year after year, Wayfair delivers.

33:29Pamela Brown: We're following more breaking news right now. President Trump has unveiled a new government portal powered by artificial intelligence to help the American people navigate government bureaucracy for federal services. Right now, the president is currently speaking at an event that he says will showcase America entering what he calls a new golden age of technology. But it also comes amid very dark concerns about AI and what some tech experts are warning is a potential threat to humanity. In just a couple of hours, the White House is hosting a lunch meeting with the nation's top tech leaders to discuss AI's rapid development and the growing incidence of AI agents going rogue.

34:12Pamela Brown: CNN's Elena Trin is over at the White House for us. Elena, how significant is this presidential meeting with these top tech leaders? I think it's incredibly significant, Wolf, especially as we've heard not only from several of these leaders in the artificial intelligence community kind of ringing the alarm bells about what AI is capable of and the dangers and the risks that come with letting it go unregulated in future years. But also, as we know, that the president himself is still saying publicly that his number one priority when it comes to the AI space is ensuring that the United States outpaces China.

34:50And so what this is really meant to be, I'm told, from our conversations with sources in the Trump administration, is that it's not likely that this meeting with these leaders and the president is going to solve these issues that we've been hearing about really far more pressing in the last couple of weeks. But instead, it's serving as a turning point to get all of them in the same room and see if they can get on the same page about what the future of AI safety and potential regulations can look like. I should say the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, someone who has been calling for all of these different leaders to be in the room with the president.

35:23He's expected to be part of this meeting today as well. But I think the timing of this is also very interesting because, one, we know that OpenAI has been facing some really tough headwinds with their new AI models in recent days. They just recently said that for the second time in three months, it was pausing all training and testing on its most advanced models because one of them had found a way out of its testing environment and gained access to the open Internet. We've heard these concerns about these models acting without human authorization, something that is leading these leaders. People like OpenAI's Sam Altman, we've also heard from Anthropics's Darrell Amadei, saying that this is a cause for concern and we need to do something about it, even potentially slowing growth.

36:06The president, though, and many of his top advisors, Wolf, believe that they believe that some of these companies should be regulating themselves. They are worried about stifling economic growth. We've seen AI be a huge driver, I should say, of economic growth data centers as well. And they don't want regulations to stifle that. So this should be a moment where we can hear, hopefully we can get a readout of this meeting and learn exactly where things stand and what this could look like for AI safety in the future.

36:35Pamela Brown: Is the president, Elena, still calling these accusations that AI could go rogue and do horrible things to humanity? Is he suggesting still that he sees this all as a hoax? That's what we've been. I mean, look, that was a statement he made a week or so ago. Well, he has had more conversations with A.I. leaders since. For example, on Sunday, he hosted Anthropics, Dario Amadei, for a private dinner at the White House. But he does still believe that perhaps there's too much of this doomsday coverage or doomerism, as they're calling it, when it comes to artificial intelligence, that people are too afraid of what he believes is going to be the future of modern technology.

37:18So we'll see. I think that they are on different, some of these leaders are on a very different page of what this should look like than the president. But this will be an opportunity for them to air it all out at this White House luncheon.

37:28Pamela Brown: We'll see what happens. Elena Trean at the White House for us. Elena, thank you very, very much. Pamela. All right. Here now is a member of the House AI Caucus and Democratic Congresswoman from Massachusetts, Lori Trahan. Welcome back on the show, Congresswoman. I know you are very passionate about AI. You even passed up on a leadership bid to focus on AI policy earlier this month. I wanna note that. What do you hope comes out of today's White House meeting? Well, I'll first say that it's disappointing that President Trump and Speaker Johnson are having this meeting with tech executives without more people at the table.

38:06and I think most notably Democrats, just sort of signals that they're not taking the threats of advanced AI systems seriously. And if we're going to be serious about protecting Americans from the risks of this technology, we need more than dinners and meetings with just CEOs. We need independent safety experts at the table. We need bipartisan lawmakers at the table who have worked on this issue. And I think we need to focus on, you know, the guardrails that actually matter, right? transparency, independent testing, mandatory reporting of incidents, and a kill switch if a model is capable of a catastrophic risk.

38:46And those are all things that we put into the Frontier Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation I wrote with Jay Urbinalti from California. It's the strongest AI safety legislation introduced at any level of government, and it's ready to move to meet the moment that we're in right now. I want to listen to what Speaker Johnson said yesterday on Fox Business about today's meeting. The leaders of all the different AI platforms all have different ideas and prescriptions on what the supposed guardrail should be. We do not need a moratorium. We do not need to jump in and hyper-regulate this because we'll lose the race to China.

39:22The innovation is important to continue, but we have to strike the right balance. What, in your view, is the right balance between regulation and innovation? So I definitely think we have to right now we're running on the honor system, right? The only reason why we know about any of these incidents is because, you know, these companies have chose to tell us. So if we have mandatory safety reports, transparency, independent auditors to verify that the company's taking all the precautions that they lay out, you know, mandatory reporting of these serious incidents that we've seen over the last couple of months.

40:00And then a legal process that's well understood for the government to step in if one of these models is capable of a disaster. That is table stakes, right? Right now, what they're deploying is the strategy of trust us. And the administration has repeatedly said that when it comes to AI safety, they're going to let the biggest corporations who are developing this technology police themselves. Well, that's the same approach that we took with social media for the past 20 years. And we're still paying the price, especially our children, for Washington's inaction. So I hope to hear more from the speaker on the results of this meeting, but then also guardrails that have really been scrutinized and debated by rank and file Democrats and Republicans on where we need to go next on the frontier.

40:53OpenAI, as you probably know, is pulling back on releasing its latest model because it doesn't meet its standards for safety. And Dario Amadei, who is the head of Anthropic, has also been raising the alarm about potential AI concerns. Does that give you any hope that these companies are taking more responsibility over their product? Yeah, look, I think when you have three CEOs of major frontier labs basically saying that they cannot guarantee that they can control this technology, that is a message that the president, who has called this a hoax, needs to hear. The speaker needs to hear that. And what they're proposing around transparency and independent auditors is not dissimilar from what is in the Frontier Act and what we've introduced with Republican co-sponsors.

41:49I think the thing that's important to just stress is we cannot continue down this path with a voluntary system. What's good on Friday for these companies might not be good on Monday. And Congress is the only institution right now that can create durable mandatory policy. And so I don't, while these meetings are great, unless we have action by Congress, it's all just a continuation of the honor system, which I don't think does anything to assure the American people that they're protected. But can Congress act fast enough, given how rapidly developing this technology is? And do you think enough members of Congress even are familiar enough with AI to know what they're talking about?

42:33Yeah, look, I think the last month has been a turning point. for congressional members and not just calling for more guardrails, but also putting pen to paper on, you know, what comes next. I think that we need the political will. I mean, it's unfortunate that we're home in our districts right now and that the speaker canceled the last two weeks of our session and will not bring us back until after the election, because these incidents, while they haven't been harmful yet, I don't want to gamble with the next seven weeks. You know, we need, I think a bunch of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to get to work and do the things that are required right now, but then also start building out like the whole portfolio of AI legislation that's going to hit every aspect of our economy, our national security, our workplace and beyond.

43:29So I do think that there's urgency. I just think that they're trying to thwart that urgency right now with meetings like this one. I wonder what you think about this announcement from NVIDIA, saying that it's launching this new tool to keep AI agents from going rogue. I mean, do you see a scenario where technology is used to keep AI safe for humanity? Look, I think innovation is a major part of the solution here. And at a minimum, we should be having hearings in Congress. I mean, just think, Pamela, in the last few weeks, we haven't had a single CEO, either on the frontier side or on the chipmaker side, you know, come in and speak to Congress so that we can engage in responsible policymaking.

44:21And so, you know, when the when you've been asking for them to come in. Yes, yes. There's been multiple letters, bipartisan as well. And what do you hear back from them? Well, the speaker has the speaker has put Congress in recess, which I think is, you know, kind of tells a larger story about how this Congress has been these last two years. But in terms of this moment, when Americans are calling for Congress to act on AI safety, it is completely irresponsible for us not to be there. Having these hearings, debating this legislation and these really important next steps. You know, these meetings are fine and, you know, welcome that these CEOs are engaged in what the future will be.

45:08But right now we're working on the honor system. There aren't nearly enough people at the table. We don't have one safety expert at the White House today. You know, when we wrote the frontier bill, we had so many stakeholders from workers to community, to consumer advocates, to safety experts, to the industry themselves. And that's how you arrive at legislation that really puts the needs of the American people front and center. All right, Representative Lord Trahan, thank you. We'll be right back.

45:38Pamela Brown: When you're building a company, you learn that trust is what closes deals. You may have the best product, but buyers won't sign without proof that your product is secure, especially if it has AI. Vanta gets you compliant fast with SOC 2, ISO 27001 and more, and keeps you secure with continuous monitoring. Hyperbound, a YC-backed startup, used Vanta to unlock the Fortune 100 in under a year. Snowfire got audit ready in a month and closed a multi-million dollar deal. Trust matters. Get started at Vanta.com. This holiday, all plans, even unlimited, are just$15 a month. A holiday deal this good obviously deserves an enormously expensive holiday song, like All I Want.

46:17Right. Okay, we can afford that. You know what? Forget the music budget. We're going to stick with whatever's in the public domain. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for a 12-month plan required,$15 per month equivalent, taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms.

46:39Pamela Brown: We're following the breaking news. A judge in Massachusetts is right now addressing several motions in the Lindsay Clancy case. Her triple murder trial ended in a mistrial, and now prosecutors are pushing for a retrial. Let's go back live inside the courtroom and watch. ... should be protected because the Commonwealth believes that a juror's right to privacy, a jury's right to come to a verdict without any type of fanfare or unwanted attention or persecution. It should be sacrosanct. And so we would object to any type of public hearing where information, private information about that juror would be discussed.

47:20Can I be heard? Sure. Thank you very much. I am so tired of hearing persecution attacking. hacking. I am doing all these terrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to Cruz, not the DA, but the politician calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments, including the guy from Houston. I just wanted to say that, Judge. We're talking about this motion for access to arguments regarding sidebar conferences. Anything else you want to add to that? On that issue.

48:05On what? On the issue that we've just been talking about, the Gloves motion. No, I'm just tired of hearing about me persecuting people. All right. I never said anyone's name. No, listen. We're talking about this motion. All right? I'm going to take it under advisement. I think I understand everybody's position. so that matter will be under advisement. Thank you, sir. All right. I think those are the motions that we had. We were going to take a number under advisement. Now, just in regards to scheduling now, I know we have a November 2nd date for hearing regarding some other motions that will be heard.

48:47I'm going to suggest at this point, and please I think council knows this but anybody who's sitting out there don't read into the fact that we're going to get another date this is not indicating how I'm going to rule on any of the other motions but I think it's important that this case move forward if it has to move forward motion to dismiss is allowed well then that's fine, it's a different thing but rather than wait 30 days or 60 days to pick the next trial date, my thought is to pick that now. And then we can work towards that and backfill the dates in regards to that. So really, I guess that brings us back to the original reason we're going to be here, status.

49:37So Commonwealth, what's the status in regards to the trial dates at this point? Your Honor, I think we need to obviously argue these motions, have rulings, there are appellate rights to those rulings. And so once all of that's complete, I think we could select a trial date once we know what those rulings are. And appellate rights could take some time. So I think if we select a trial date now, that might not actually be a real trial date, depending on how this case proceeds and what happens with any appellate rights from either side. Well, let me hear from the defense. Believe it or not, I agree with you.

50:21So we'll all stand together and say we'd rather defer until you make your rulings and then any appellate arguments are presented, rather than pick a trial date. Why don't we just pick a trial date? And that will get this case moving. Because the discussion three weeks ago was let's try this thing in a week. Right? and now no one wants to pick a trial date. That was not the Commonwealth's position. So I think that when you factor in that this could take some real time to go through these issues and then exercise any rights, I'm just concerned that any trial date we pick might not be realistic. I agree with it.

51:06Then the parties can move to continuing. Why don't we do this? November 2nd, be prepared to talk about picking a trial date. Yes, Your Honor. All right?

51:19And why don't we just do that? I'll leave it at that. All right? This is a matter of what I'm hearing about how important this is to get this resolved, to deal with this for all the parties. That's what I'm trying to do. All right? And I'm not saying, I'm not blaming counsel for that. But that's my goal in this thing, is to get this thing tried as soon, as proper, without sacrificing anyone's rights, anyone's position but I don't want this thing to then just start to kind of get kicked down the road punted and go forward it's not gonna get punted but I'll tell you right now I can't do a trial before June I'll just let you know that right now it's not a matter of kicking or anything talk about that on November 2nd everybody can take a look at their schedules.

52:04All right. So anything else? So we've got November 2nd. They'll be here, 9 o 'clock. So we will be in recess at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Some of the records for Saturdays continue to November 2nd, 2026, at 9 a.m. All right.

52:21Pamela Brown: So it looks like they're about to take another little break right now. the judge, the judge William, the judge William Sullivan saying that November 2nd, they're going to resume this hearing and talk about a discussion about whether or not there should be another trial. There was a mistrial, as we all know. I want to bring in criminal defense attorney, Elise Hirshon right now. Elise, we heard Clancy's lawyer argue, where is the evidence that she did this? Does that show a departure from her earlier defense?

52:56Good morning and thank you for having me. Yes, so Kevin Reddington is making the argument that he wanted to make a trial but was not able to. Essentially, when you go forward with a criminal responsibility defense, you have to, as a lawyer, actually concede that your client did it in order to ask for the jury to find her not criminally responsible. And that removes your ability as a lawyer to go forward with the presumption of innocence and argue reasonable doubt. He wanted to bifurcate. He wanted to split the trial to figure out, does the jury think she's guilty or not, and then argue criminal responsibility that was denied.

53:31So the trial focused on she did take the lives of her children, but it wasn't murder. It was not guilty for criminal responsibility. Now here, because we're not on trial and it was already a mistrial, Reddington got to get up and make both arguments, both that they didn't prove that she did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And on top of that, they did not disprove that she was suffering from a mental health illness or defect. So it was very strategic here. And he threw everything at this judge to consider.

54:04Pamela Brown: Because they were arguing she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, right? Yeah. So the the big diverge here is, you know, all the experts, the three for the Commonwealth experts and the three for the defense, all said she was suffering from a mental disease or defect. That's a legal term. But was it enough to overcome her criminal responsibility? That's where the paths diverge. But remember, it's the Commonwealth's burden. We're back here at square one, essentially. Three first-degree murder charges, one for each of the children. Did she suffer from postpartum psychosis? The defense expert witnesses said yes.

54:43But remember, that is not a requirement for a criminal responsibility defense. She just had to have been suffering so much so that she couldn't appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and couldn't stop herself. Was it psychosis? That's the defense theory. But it could have been postpartum depression. It could have been some other type of psychosis. But in this case, postpartum psychosis was the theory of criminal responsibility.

55:06Pamela Brown: Elise, I want you to stand by our own Jean Casares, who's been covering this from the very beginning. She's outside the court right now. And Jane, the topic of a new trial date seems to be a major issue in these ongoing deliberations. Tell us why that's so important right now. Well, that's how the judge ended the hearing. He wanted to set a trial date and he was ready. He had his calendar. Let's go. What's the trial date you want, prosecutors? And the prosecution said, you know, Your Honor, let's argue these motions. We need to see what you order in regard to these emotions. Appellate action. Now, we knew this was going to be a possibility.

55:46Martin Weinberg, who argued some of these as an appellate attorney in many respects, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, if the rulings are not in the favor of the defense, they will be appealed. There's no question in my mind they will do that. The motion to dismiss and other motions associated with ending this trial, ending this criminal prosecution in its tracks. Fascinating, though, that the defense wants to be unredacted, juror notes, and also sidebar conferences, bench conferences. Prosecution really fought back that the sanctity of the jury should be upheld because there will be a chilling effect.

56:31No one in the Commonwealth will want to be a juror if their notes are released and if the sidebar conferences talking about the jurors conceivably would become public knowledge.

56:42Pamela Brown: I thought it was significant, but tell me if I'm wrong, that the judge, William Sullivan, ended this session that we were just watching right now by noting he wants to have November 2nd emerge as a date when they could all be prepared to talk about a new trial. What about that? Absolutely. He's telling them, I want to set a trial date. So, you know, it's interesting, Wolf, there was not even a discussion whether there's going to be a prosecution, again, on this active criminal case. It was assumed or it was said at Sidebar or in the judges' chambers. It was just, it's happening. What's the date?

57:23And so that is interesting in and of itself. But this trial is proceeding and they are proceeding with now motions to dismiss. They're preserving that for appellate purposes. But I think the road in Plymouth County is for this case to have a second trial, as happens many times with criminal prosecutions that don't reach a verdict the first time around.

57:46Pamela Brown: The judge said he wants them to be prepared to talk about a new trial. He didn't necessarily specifically say there would be a new trial, right?

57:58Well, he wanted to set a date. And so that could be in theory he wanted to set a date or there has been conversations that he knows they will be proceeding. Prosecution did not talk about it. But I think the mere fact and this was not argued today. They filed a motion. I guess it was late last night, but we got it this morning of the prosecution wanting to have a judicial order. So there is not prejudicial statements. statements given by counsel in regard to the evidence in this case. That conceivably is a limited gag order. The judge is going to address it on the second. But if you are not proceeding with trial, if your intent is not to go for a retrial, then why do you want this motion?

58:46Because there's a potential jury pool here. You don't want it tainted anymore as you proceed conceivably toward another prosecution here.

58:55Pamela Brown: All right, Gene, stand by. I want to go back to Elise right now. Elise, Gene just mentioned that prosecutors argued to keep the jury notes that were sent to the court about their deadlock sealed. Talk a little bit more about how that potentially could impact a new trial if, in fact, there is a new trial. So it certainly would impact where these motions are going because this, all of Kevin Reddington's motions, and he said this in this hearing, it's not about calling out the holdout juror. It's not about a juror that wouldn't agree with the verdict that he think is just for his client. Kevin Reddington is advocating for a fair trial according to due process rights, constitutional rights of his client.

59:40If there's a juror there who was biased, who had a protected class bias, was harboring maybe against gender, race, disability, or something to that effect, if that's the reason this juror held out, and that was communicated potentially in one of these notes, that's important discovery that the lawyers need access to, and Kevin Reddington wants the public to have access to. So he is not continuing to be demonized by some, not here, but some media and some individual media representatives as just going after and calling out and persecuting this juror. That is not what's going on here. He is seeking the truth.

1:00:21He is seeking transparency. Kevin Reddington is the one that says we all need to see what was communicated in the juror notes. And if the judge should have inquired further before allowing a mistrial, again, the manifest necessity standard, then that could be the basis for the double jeopardy motion and dismiss that could terminate the case. So this comes down to the notes. This comes down to if the judge had inquired further, again, not about what was discussed in the jury room, but what was going on in terms of procedure, in terms of impropriety, in terms of a potential bias, in terms of a refusal to apply the law.

1:00:57This is all getting blown out much bigger because this holdout juror is speaking out both directly and through a lawyer, a lawyer who is not licensed to practice in Massachusetts and had to associate with a local lawyer who appeared today on his behalf. The lawyer that represents this lone juror is not even allowed, doesn't have jurisdiction to come into a court, file a motion and make an argument. So it's a little bit of an anomaly there and a little bit strange why this would be the choice by this juror. But essentially, they're making accusations and they're coming out and saying that Lindsay Lindsay Clancy is is a murderer and that she's a demon.

1:01:36That's advocating for a position. A juror is supposed to be a civil servant. They're supposed to do a job objectively. And he's really just undercutting here the entire system, in my opinion.

1:01:46Pamela Brown: Elise Hirshan, thank you very much. Gene Cazares, as usual, thanks to you as well. And we'll have more news when we come back.

1:01:59T 'was many nights before Christmas, and one woman knew she needed a Christmas tree, so to Wayfair she flew, finding just the right one, and for years it will last. Wayfair shipping was free and remarkably fast. What's this? Garland? A wreath? Essentials to host? Good thing she celebrates way longer than most. As her cart filled with magic and decor from the heart, Merry Christmas to all. Get your Wayfair head start. For holiday decor you can count on year after year, Wayfair delivers.

1:02:30Pamela Brown: Now there's more breaking news we're following. The former special counsel Jack Smith is testifying on camera and under oath up on Capitol Hill right now. He's before the Senate Judiciary Committee defending his historic and highly controversial federal investigations into President Trump. Those cases involved President Trump's alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and charges that he mishandled classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Both cases were eventually dismissed, and the president denies any, any wrongdoing. Smith says he stands by his decision to prosecute Trump.

1:03:08Pamela Brown: Republican lawmakers say he acted politically and should be prosecuted himself. But this morning, Jack Smith delivered a very defiant message directly to his critics on that Senate Judiciary Committee panel. And I'm quoting him now. He said, I will not be silenced, end quote. CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez is watching all of this play out up on Capitol Hill. Very dramatic stuff, Evan. Republicans have been aggressive in their questioning so far, right? That's right, Wolf. They are very aggressive in the questioning. But I will say, you know, in between the time that they're not, when the Republicans are not speaking, a lot of them have left the room.

1:03:48And it gives you a sense of what the purpose of this hearing is. This is not so much about getting information from Jack Smith. It's about reframing the events of January 6th and those investigations that Jack Smith oversaw. And part of that, the job of some of the members of Congress, some of these senators, is to frame some of the actions by the investigators as targeting Republicans. Listen to this exchange between Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana and Jack Smith about some of the actions taken during this investigation. You saw just the records of the Republicans. And you knew that violated the speech and debate cause, didn't you?

1:04:31That is incorrect. We sought to comply with that. Did you take con law? I'm sorry, Senator. Were you in the quad playing frisbee during con law at Harvard Law School? I did take constitutional law, yes. Well, then you had to know it violated the speech and debate clause. In fact, when you went to Judge Boasberg, you didn't even tell him you were seeking the phone records of members of Congress, did you? Because you knew he wouldn't agree. He would say, hey, Counselor, anybody who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog knows that this violates the Constitution. But you didn't tell him, did you?

1:05:18We sought nondisclosure orders from— You didn't tell him, did you? In seeking nondisclosure orders, we did not disclose. You didn't tell him, but you're unbiased. You have no personal feelings.

1:05:35You make me want to throw up in my mouth. And Wolf, you know, that gives you a little bit of the flavor of what's going on in the room behind me. Look, I mean, the investigation that they're talking about, of course, is about the president, the then president of the United States, Donald Trump, trying to avoid, you know, the certification of his losing that election. And, of course, the part of the investigation was looking into whether there were people like Rudy Giuliani calling members of Congress Republicans who would have been working with them to try to do that. And so, of course, it would be Republican members of Congress whose phone records, the toll records, that would have been subpoenaed.

1:06:19Democrats were not involved in that. And, of course, that gives you a sense of this investigation. One other thing that happened just a little while ago, Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri tried to paint a conspiracy saying Jack Smith was in cahoots, essentially, with Fannie Willis, the prosecutor down in Atlanta, who also did a state investigation of the president, and tried to portray that they had met at a game in Atlanta, a basketball game. It turns out Schmidt was wrong. He showed a poster there that attempted to show messages that he thought showed that Smith was down in Atlanta. It turns out he was mistaken that Smith was actually at a basketball game in Maryland, the game between Maryland and the Iowa Hawkeyes.

1:07:02So Schmidt was wrong. And, of course, that was one of the more fiery exchanges that we saw in this room this hour.

1:07:11Pamela Brown: Wolf, Pamela? A lot of fiery exchanges. There's no doubt about that. Evan Perez watching all of this unfold. This is historic and important. Still ahead, taming technology. AI leaders are meeting with President Trump over at the White House as the industry and Washington are grappling with safety and regulation. We'll ask Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace what role Congress should have. We'll be right back.

1:07:40T 'was many nights before Christmas, and one woman knew she needed a Christmas tree, so to Wayfair she flew, finding just the right one, and for years it will last. Wayfair shipping was free and remarkably fast. What's this? Garland? A wreath? Essentials to host? Good thing she celebrates way longer than most. as her cart filled with magic and decor from the heart. Merry Christmas to all. Get your Wayfair head start. For holiday decor you can count on year after year, Wayfair delivers. You're listening to a quick ad. You know what else is quick? Selling your car on Carvana. Just put in your vehicle information and we'll give you an offer.

1:08:19Done. No hassle. No negotiation. No guy from an online listing lowballing you. Which means by the time I'm done explaining this, you could have basically done it.

1:08:33Still haven't started? Hey, better late than never. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pickup fees may apply.

1:08:42Pamela Brown: There's more breaking news we're following. A major White House meeting about AI safety is about to begin. It's coming as warnings about the technology's threat to humanity become more and more dire. President Trump and several top members of his administration will meet with top tech leaders, even as one of those AI companies now says it's stopping plans to release a new AI model due to safety concerns. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace from South Carolina is joining us right now. She's a key member of the House AI Caucus. Congresswoman, thanks very much for joining us. I know you told me about two weeks ago when you join me in the Situation Room, that you don't think Congress should be, quote, regulating American AI into the ground, end quote.

1:09:29Pamela Brown: So what guardrails would you like to see? Well, thank you, Will, for having me on today. I'll say this again. I've said this. We're talking about a body of elected officials that don't even know, the majority of whom don't even know how to log into Facebook. I don't think this is the group of people that should be telling AI how to operate. I've said from the beginning that if there are going to be guardrails that need to be led by the private sector, led by the AI companies. And if we even take a step back, well, if we already have laws on the books in this country that make certain things illegal, like, you know, random John Doe on the street can't build a nuclear bomb.

1:10:09Why would AI be allowed to do that or assist somebody in doing that, for example? So we have laws on the books already. I would use those as our guideposts. posts. And I've said previously too, that, you know, if AI companies said we need to slow down, they have the freedom to hit pause, which is what one AI company is doing this week. But I also chair a technology committee on house oversight. I've been complaining for years that we have systems built on COBOL. This is the kind of thing, kind of software that can really hurt critical infrastructure in this country, that can hurt the banking system.

1:10:42Why we haven't been using the state-of-the-art technology to increase our defenses and potentially use them as offensively against our enemies and those who don't align with us. I think that that's where the real problem is, and I appreciate the president's leadership today on this.

1:10:58Pamela Brown: Where should there be a congresswoman accountability in all of this? Well, we have laws on the books. We have federal laws. There are state laws that handle certain crimes. I think that that's where states and the federal government should start. President Trump has said previously that whoever wins the AI race basically rules the world. And I don't want to give China a leg up. If our government says, hey, everybody stop right now, China is not going to stop. They are going to continue their advances in AI and they'll beat the United States. I want the United States to lead. And that means, you know, very little regulation here.

1:11:39I don't think we should be the ones deciding that. I think the companies who know what the technology can do are the best leaders to say, these are the guardrails we all need to abide by. But some of those companies have already released open source code that is being used by Iran, that is being used by Russia, by China, by our enemies abroad to do harm to the United States here and overseas. So, you know, some of these companies have already released code that's being used by our enemies.

1:12:03Pamela Brown: The Florida attorney general, a Republican, is seeking an emergency injunction against chat GPT maker OpenAI. Listen to this. I want to get your reaction. Listen to what he said. They asked the government to tie them to the mast. Well, Florida's answering their cries for help. Today, we asked the court for a new temporary injunction. No new model development without independent safety guardrails. No more harvesting children's data, no more calling this product safe, accurate, or reliable. Do you agree with that assessment? Do you agree with what they're doing right now down in Florida? No, I don't.

1:12:44I don't. That basically means stop what you're doing right now until 10 or 20 years from now when the government figures it out, then you can move forward. And one of the things that he just mentioned in his press conference there is talking about the farming of children's data. If this was such an issue, then it should have ended decades ago because data companies, software companies, technology companies have been farming data of American citizens, adults and children alike for decades. It's been a problem that no one has been willing to address. And that's not a problem necessarily with AI.

1:13:15That's a problem with technology and people's data. They don't know what they're signing up for half the time. And a lot of the apps that you have on your phone are collecting your data 24-7.

1:13:27Pamela Brown: Republican senators, including the majority leader John Thune, John Kennedy, Mike Rounds, Tom Tillis, John Cornyn, they're all pushing back on the White House for airing what are called campaign style ads with taxpayer funds. Do your constituents think it's appropriate what the president is doing with these campaign style ads that taxpayers are paying for? Well, no one should be using office money or tax money to pay for political campaign ads. In Congress, though, some of those folks, both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike, they use office funds, federal taxpayer funds, to advertise their services for their office.

1:14:09I haven't seen those ads, so I don't know if they're political or if they're talking about services offered to people in the United States citizens. But that is a clear red line that nobody should cross. That's not how taxpayer dollars are used for. And should it be? Those are the rules that Congress plays by. And I would expect the administration to, too.

1:14:28Pamela Brown: While I have you, Congressman, I want to quickly pivot to the reopening of an investigation into a gang rape case allegedly involving former students at Cornell University. You've been a public advocate of sexual assault survivors, even at times sharing your own personal experience with abuse. What do you think needs to be done to keep systems from failing victims of sex abuse? Well, certainly if you are a rapist and it's been proven, I don't think writing an essay is going to right the wrong. I have started to dive into that case. I haven't read all of it. I have questions about the statement initially provided to the police about the incident.

1:15:11I want to see all the evidence before I come down and judge what did or did not happen. There are false statements that have been made on previous cases on previous campuses. and I want to be sure that the truth gets out there. And if this girl, this young woman deserves justice, she gets every ounce of it and every penny that she deserves because this kind of thing has been going on. And very often, most often, most victims, most women don't ever get justice. It's usually a he said, she said. And so I've been fighting for these issues for a long time. It's why I ended my political career, Wolf, because of the Epstein files.

1:15:46I believe in it that much that I want to see the Epstein victims get justice. I think if we can do that over time, then every other woman who's been harmed and put in harm's way will be able to get their fair share of justice, too. It sets an example for the rest of us.

1:16:00Pamela Brown: You've also, Congresswoman, been very outspoken when it comes to the Lindsay Clancy trial that has been underway. Listen to what her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, just said a few moments ago in court. Listen to this. Thank you, Greg. Sure. Thank you very much. I am so tired of hearing persecution, attacking. I am doing all these terrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to Cruz, not the DA, but the politician calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments, including the guy from Houston.

1:16:50Pamela Brown: So what's your reaction to that, Congresswoman? I would never hire an attorney like Kevin Reddington with that kind of lapse in memory. He forgets that he targeted the loan juror in court in his comments, calling him that guy. We saw then his wife in multiple social media posts, even sharing the NBC News story outing the juror, talking about private facts and information about the loan juror. I believe the loan juror was targeted. I believe that Kevin Reddington played a part in that. And I think it was a good idea for the prosecution in between now and the time to decide if there's going to be a second trial to put a gag order on this guy because he's putting someone in harm's way.

1:17:32And I think it sets a terrible precedent that a juror can be targeted, one lone juror, for a decision that an attorney or a court or attorney disagrees with. It's going to make every juror just vote in unison to avoid the harsh penalties. This guy, this juror, had to move out of his house. He's gone into hiding with his family. This kind of thing shouldn't happen to anyone because you disagree with them on a jury trial.

1:17:59Pamela Brown: Important point indeed. Congresswoman Nancy Mace, thanks as usual for joining us. We'll continue our special coverage. Pamela? All right. Well, if you touched on the Cornell case, there are several new questions this morning after prosecutors in New York say they are reopening the investigation of an alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity house in 2024. A former student known as Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit earlier this month. And now prosecutors say that the allegations in that civil complaint are significantly DIFFICULTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE WOMAN'S STATEMENT TO POLICE TWO YEARS AGO.

1:18:32TOMPINS COUNTY NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY MATTHEW VAN HOUTEN SAYS A GRAND JURY WILL NOW REVIEW THE CASE TO SEE IF ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE WARRANTED. JOINING US NOW IS JEREMY SALAND. HE IS AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ONE OF THE SEVEN MEN ACCUSED IN THE CIVIL SUIT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH US, JEREMY. SO YOU HAVE SAID VERY CLEARLY THAT YOUR CLIENT DID NOT ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH JANE nor commit any other crime he is accused of, including snorting ketamine off of her body. We're going to get to that accusation in a minute. But I want to give you the opportunity to explain what you've learned about that night in October in 2024, including parts that your client was and wasn't part of.

1:19:14Pamela Brown: Sure, certainly. And first of all, there's a lot of emotion involved here, a lot of anger and frustration and people jumping to sides and trying to say what happened and leading not with critical thinking and facts, but how they feel about something. And in fact, while I have led with facts, I've contributed to that sort of frustration myself in inflammatory language, so I appreciate this opportunity to really get to the specifics. My client is innocent. That's not to say that he can speak to or say what, if anything, happened when he was not present with this young woman when other people were there.

1:19:48Pamela Brown: I can't say what happened or didn't happen other than what I heard during certain testimony on previous occasion, what she has said I obviously am aware of, and what my client has told me. But my client foolishly, ignorantly, ugly-wise, responded to a snap that was sent out to this fraternity, went to see what was going on, and a friend of his who had been with him previously had disappeared, wasn't with him anymore, thought he might be there. And when he entered that room, as he maintained then, and he has maintained now and will maintain in the future. He saw the plaintiff. She was not naked.

1:20:27Pamela Brown: She was not under duress. She was coherent. She was not having any difficulty articulating what was going on in terms of a conversation. And, in fact, my client introduced himself as Scott. So you don't generally do that. You don't say who you are before committing, as alleged, these horrible acts. And I want to say something that's also incredibly important. If you read the complaint, just like when people see TikTok or Instagram, they get the first soundbite of 30 seconds, and my client is accused as a rapist, one of these seven guys. But if you actually read the substance of it pages and pages below, you'll see that my client is only accused of, and I'm still serious, pouring ketamine on this girl and snorting and parting me off of her.

1:21:11Pamela Brown: And I'll leave this one last point that is important I want to get out. He did not, and we know he did not, because no one in that room will say he did it. And we had a hair follicle test done to confirm he had no ketamine in his system. He is innocent. Whatever terrible thing happened to her, if it did, that is horrific. But it has nothing to do with him. Let's just drill down on this a little bit. I just want to focus on the facts, all emotions aside. That's why I'm having you on. The hair follicle, when did he get that hair test? And are you willing to release the results of it? Well, we will certainly provide whatever is needed in a courtroom if it happens.

1:21:48Pamela Brown: I don't see any way that this case against him ever gets indicted before a grand jury, because, again, nobody will put him in any type of sexual touching or intercourse at all, period. A no credible person, no honest person, based on the testimony that I already heard. And so at that time, if it's necessary, I'll give to the prosecutor a copy of that ketamine test to corroborate and confirm that it was valid and it confirms there was no drugs when we learned of this incident and these allegations. What about to the public? Would you be willing to release that? Yeah, I would, again, I'm happily releasing to the district attorney's office if we believe it's necessary to present in a court of law.

1:22:27Pamela Brown: It's more important that it goes there than to you. You can take my representation or not, but we certainly can provide it to him as necessary before a grand jury. And we can potentially release it here, but let the court system do its work first. Sure. Let me just follow up on that. When was that ketamine test taken? Because it can take several days for it to reach the hair follicle. And if you only did it once, it may not show up in the testing. So I don't mean any disrespect to you. I appreciate you trying to figure that out and say what it can or can't show. I'm not a medical scientific provider.

1:23:02Pamela Brown: I don't know if you are. But we did it within the time frame. Yeah, we did it within the time frame. When we learned of this incident, after that, we did it. And it would have been there if it existed. And it didn't. And to my recollection, another student did the same who was accused of doing this. But that aside, and science is critical, science is critical. But we also have quote unquote witnesses and herself who can't say that he did it off of her or poured that ketamine. So I'm not concerned other than concerning situation, true or false, 80 percent one way or another. It's a very real, horrible situation.

1:23:41So let me just follow up because you mentioned the Snapchat that your client was a part of and the response to a really vulgar line about free P word. In this Snapchat, your client says in response, a couple down, Diego went seven minutes ago and is not AFK. So what does that mean?

1:24:04Pamela Brown: He left, I think my understanding was that he left his keyboard away from keyboard and left. And that's why my client was like, where is he? And went looking for him. So, you know, that's in substance, as I recall. And that's what that means. Now, there's, you're going to ask the next question about point of view. There was people milling around, to my recollection, outside the room, men and women, you know, boys and girls, young men and young women. And, you know, when he approached that, he got confirmation, as I recall, and entered that room and saw this girl. And that's when he introduced himself, right out of the gate of who he was.

1:24:38Pamela Brown: And, you know, at some point he confirms there's somebody there. Not if there's anyone engaged in sex, not engaged in free term that was used there, or that there was an assault, or that someone was incoherent, or that there was drugs. Facts matter. Critical thinking matters. And we have to not just jump from frat boys are bad, and they are guilty of everything. Again, I can't speak to what else happened other than I'm talking about specifically my client. I understand. We're just focusing on the facts. That's why I'm drilling down on. Just to further try to get some clarity, the AFK part, what does that mean?

1:25:12Do you have any understanding within the context? Away from keyboard. But do you understand what it means in relation to what was happening at that moment?

1:25:22Pamela Brown: I think at that moment my client was in his room or A room of someone else where he was with this other party, to my recollection, and that other party was no longer at the keyboard or at his computer and he had left. Nothing to do with anything. Okay, gotcha. So, and you talk about how your client introduced himself. Are you saying that because he was polite in introducing himself, that that is somehow evidence that he didn't do anything untoward or violate the law in any way? I'm saying that the fact is he did not do anything wrong with this woman. He is not complicit. He did not fail to report something.

1:25:58Pamela Brown: He did not see anything wrong. What I'm saying to you is there's a medical scientific material that says he had no ketamine. I'm saying to you that he did not observe anything. I'm saying to you that he introduced himself. I'm saying to you he didn't do the things and no one would say he did the things about starting the academy. I'm saying to you that when she reported in that complaint initially, which was, in my opinion, somewhat bombastic against him, that he is one of the rapists when she's really not alleging he's a rapist, that is not true. We maintain this. He's not ever found responsible for that.

1:26:32Pamela Brown: I am confident when the DA does his job again, once again be exonerated. And you'll look at whatever inconsistencies she said in terms of consent or not consent. That's for the DA to decide. You say when the DA does its job, do you think the DA should have convened a grand jury then, investigate it? Because you say you welcome this grand jury investigation, you think it will exonerate your client. Was it a mistake for the DA not to have done more at the time? Well, you know, listen, I'm not the DA. I understand he has public pressure now and he's looking like the bad guy, right or wrong. We're going to have him on the show, too.

1:27:08Pamela Brown: I'm giving him an opportunity to talk. I welcome the opportunity to sit across with him. So, you know, if the information that he received was that there was consent as opposed to no consent, that it was voluntary consumption as opposed to involuntary consumption, you know, that's his determination to make at that point in time. The information he received, and I understand from another network that there may be some other things out there that people are reviewing in terms of consent or not. So, you know, there's a lot of information that we don't have, meaning we're not law enforcement. I can speak to what I know.

1:27:44Pamela Brown: I can speak to my client. But his decision is his decision. But if he's going back to a grand jury, we welcome it because my client did nothing wrong. My client is innocent. I understand what you're saying there. You are very adamant your client is innocent. I'm just wondering, when you go back to 2024, was he ever interviewed by the police? We know that there was a Cornell Title IX investigation, but did the police ever interview him as part of this? I do not recall if the police interviewed him. Certainly not while I was his counsel. Whether it happened before, I do not know or recall. But, again, he was never accused of raping her.

1:28:21Pamela Brown: You don't know if he spoke to police? Surely you've checked into whether he gave a statement to police. So, as I just said, when I was his counsel, I did not. Whether he spoke to someone, I don't recall, and I have no recollection, so the answer would be likely no, because to your point, I would know. But that does not mean that law enforcement, did they subpoena and get the materials from the Title IX office of Cornell? I can't answer that question. Have you reviewed the Title IX investigation? I was involved in the Title IX investigation. Okay, so what can you tell us? So what more can you tell us about what's in that?

1:29:01Pamela Brown: Well, there's certain restrictions on the Title IX investigation in terms of the privacy of it. And I do not want to run afoul of that other than to say, and when I say I wish I could because it would benefit my client, because the allegations for which he was accused, he is not responsible for. My client was not suspended. My client was not expelled. Again, if other people did bad acts, true or not, on that lower standard, which is a very low standard of a preponderance of the evidence, then they accepted accountability from the school and the school did what it believed was important. But the evidence did not corroborate at all that my client committed these acts.

1:29:39Pamela Brown: And we'll go through that again. That doesn't mean she may not be a victim from someone else. Fair enough. just really quickly as we wrap up, the Title IX investigation by the university, as you all know, is different from a criminal investigation by the authorities. Do you think that the police, because it sounds like from what your understanding is and from what we know, they didn't interview the defendants in the civil suit, that they should have taken that extra strap rather than just take the statement from the woman and actually interview if your client is innocent, as you say, and the other defendants and find out what they say about this.

1:30:12Should they have done that at the time?

1:30:16Pamela Brown: you know, playing, you know, backseat or after the fact quarterback, you know, backseat driver. Well, it's all relevant now, though, because there's real questions about what we've done. Yeah. I'm going to answer that. I couldn't find the right term. What I was looking for was Monday morning quarterback here. But yeah, I mean, in retrospect, one could say you should have done your job more thoroughly. And that's a fair statement. And I know you just said he's going to be on the show. He can answer that question. At the same time, if you have statements from somebody saying I was not, I did something consensually, the DA's office, in my experience, is not chasing down every matter when someone says, I did something consensually.

1:30:51Pamela Brown: Whether we should or shouldn't, that's a very fair question. Whether the police at Cornell did their job adequately, that's a fair question. And I think you should answer those things. And the aspect of consensual, we're going to ask about that because it's not so simple. We welcome it. And I think it would have really saved everybody, including my client more specifically, I should say everybody, a lot of heartache, a lot of doxing. I've been doxed, threatened to be raped and killed in my family. It's out of control because I'm working with someone who is innocent and I've said as such, and that's just not okay.

1:31:25Pamela Brown: So you know what, from a moral standpoint, if she was victimized, that should have been thoroughly investigated and resolved and she should be made whole, however that means. But from a moral standpoint too, this young man would have benefited him if the police got involved more thoroughly and had been able to make a statement back then and had an investigation because we would have been done in this sort of mid-over. All right, Jeremy Sullen, I'm really sorry to hear that you're getting threats, you and your family. That's unacceptable. That shouldn't happen, right? Thank you for coming on. I'm sorry to hear that.

1:31:58All right, so you just heard our conversation. I now want to bring in Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten. Thank you so much for being here. I just want to start where I just ended there with Jeremy. He said there at the end that it was fair to question, why didn't police do more? Why didn't your office do more in the very beginning? He talks about the fact that in the very beginning, police didn't interview his client. Your understanding is they didn't interview the other defendants. He believes that had a thorough investigation been done then, that this would be over, we wouldn't be in the place that we are in now.

1:32:29What do you say to that? Well, I say that we knew what happened. We knew everything that happened and we knew it and we believed it because Jane Doe told us through her six-page written statement what happened. There were no blanks. There were no question marks. There was no additional need to find information because we knew all of the information that the police collected from Jane Doe through her very detailed, very comprehensive statement that she provided. And we start out with the foundation that we believe that. We keep that until there is some objective evidence to believe to the contrary.

1:33:10And we always believed it. We still believe Jane Doe's statement. So when you know that that very detailed, comprehensive account does not establish a crime, it's not ethical for a prosecutor or for the police to go out and look for or cross-examine her to find evidence of a crime. We don't have an agenda to make a criminal prosecution. Our agenda is the truth. I understand that. Your agenda is the truth. But clearly, she went to police for a reason. She alleges she was sexually assaulted and gang-raped on October 19, 2024. What is your understanding of why she went to the Cornell police in the first place?

1:33:59So first of all, Jane Doe never alleged that she was quote unquote gang raped. And that's from social media. That's well, in her civil suit. We all know better. In the civil suit. Show me those words in the civil suit. They're not there. Okay. But let's move on to your question, which is, why did Jane Doe go to the police? People don't know. I think we all agree that what happened is morally disgusting. It's the wrong thing. Those young men did the wrong thing, and it's repugnant. It's disgusting. People don't know whether that disgusting, morally reprehensible conduct is a crime. She went to the police because she knew it wasn't right.

1:34:48And the police investigated it. They sat down with her, an experienced investigator who was trained in sexual assault and trauma-informed investigations, sat down with her and took her statement that was incredibly detailed. She made over 20 handwritten annotations to it, which means that she was being very careful and thorough and complete with the information she gave. So what was, okay, so just to follow up with you, because I think this is important, in the civil suit, I have it right here, section 163, it says, in doing so, the defendant organized and encouraged other chapter members to join in on the gang rape of plaintiff in the fraternity house.

1:35:29So it does say gang rape in the civil suit. If you want to read it again, it's on page 28. But just to follow up with you, why would she go to police? As you well know, people don't go to the police after having consensual sex. So even if her original statement didn't rise to the level of sexual assault or rape in your office's view, why did you not press for more at the time to figure out why she was reporting this incident? Well, as I mentioned, whether whatever the legal conclusions are based upon New York state penal law, she felt that something was wrong and she was right. The young men who engaged in that conduct were morally wrong.

1:36:10It was disgusting. And so she reported that to the police and the police investigated it. That does not mean if it's morally wrong or disgusting or offensive, all those things, it does not mean that the penal law was violated. So I just use the use of. Go ahead. Well, I just in terms of reading her statement and looking at the civil suit, I've read both multiple times just to make sure I fully understand. And we're not jumping into any of these things here. You've read her sworn statement. I've worn what you released. I've worn what you, I have read what you have released, which I would love to see everything so that we can make sure we're getting the full picture here.

1:36:51But there are parts of here. I know that what you're saying is, you know, she's saying that she consented to everything. She clearly, she said there is no evidence in Jane Doe's statement indicating she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. But in reading through this, her statement from what you released, Are there parts that didn't raise questions to you at the very least, that, you know, where she said a male member walked in, grabbed her face, started kissing her, she quickly backed away to stop the member from kissing her, that many of the men walked into the room and she hid under the covers at that moment?

1:37:25Did that not raise a question to you of maybe there should be more I should be looking into here? We credited her testimony, her statement, as true. and we looked at it, we reviewed it very carefully and we determined that when there was some level, when someone moved their hand toward her vagina that she pushed them away. That was the lack of consent and that person did not continue that behavior. But if the person tried to assault her, I mean, tried to do that, would that be okay under these circumstances? Without her consent? When someone tries, if someone makes an advance to you and you reject it and they accept your rejection, which is what happened, that is not a crime.

1:38:14But how do you know if you didn't further investigate and talk to the defendants at hand and talk to the witnesses? How can you say that with such certainty? Because, as I said, we know. She told us. She told us what happened. But you never talked to her. She told the police and the police gave you the report. You never talked to her. we told the police that we wanted to talk with her if she wanted to talk with us we would sit down and explain to her the law answer all of her questions explain the basis for our assessment of her statement and that never happened and i don't know why it happened it didn't happen but we would have done that okay you said you told the police you wanted to talk with her we told the police as we do in every case where we review their investigation, that we would sit down with her.

1:39:08And in terms of the Snapchat that we now know is in the civil suit that I have right here, when did you actually receive that? Because I was watching your interview yesterday with my colleague Jake Tapper. You said it was the police eventually gave it to your office. My understanding is that you didn't see it right away. Can you just help us, can you clear that up and help us better understand? So that's a red herring in the sense of the legal analysis because we received it, but it was not relevant to the assessment of whether Jane Doe consented or whether there was any evidence of lack of consent on her part as defined by the penal law.

1:39:43So that's that's it's relevant in the sense that it's disgusting and it's evidence that these men did the wrong thing and that and it's repulsive. But it is not evidence as it relates to the penal law assessment of whether there was a crime. I we will hope we're going to have our attorney on and ask him about that. I know he argues that it it provides context around what they are alleging. But that is that is your position. Just really quick. Have you talked to her, to Jane Doe or her attorney, and is there a timeline for this grand jury? I reached out last week to Jane Doe's attorney. We eventually, he got back to me and we communicated via email.

1:40:25I understand he's out of the country. What? He is back tomorrow. I've expressed to him our desire to meet with Jane Doe, to start the conversation, to understand what insights she has gained over the last two years, what additional reflections and healing that she's done that she can provide to us in terms of additional evidence that we could present to the grand jury. My hope is that we can start that process tomorrow. And will you? I mean, walk us through that, what that will take to get this going and who you want to bring before the grand jury exactly. Sure. I assigned an experienced female prosecutor from my office to this case.

1:41:08She, in fact, tried a case less than a year ago of a Cornell student who was alleged to have raped another Cornell student, and she got a guilty verdict on that case. She is very experienced in this kind of a case, and she is trauma-informed. And what I want to do is first set up a meeting via Zoom between Jane Doe and that attorney to start a connection, to start the conversation. And that will be an extensive conversation where Jane Doe will be as comfortable as possible going into the grand jury and have as much confidence as possible that we are at. Oh, well, we just lost him. But we appreciated the time that Matthew Van Houten gave us.

1:41:54we do have a statement from Cornell University. It says it barred the fraternity chapter from its campus and launched a sexual assault task force shortly after the incident. The school says, quote, any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault. And we also just want to note that if you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted or abused, you can contact RAINN 24-7 to connect with someone who can help.

1:42:30All you have to do is go to RAINN.org or call 1-800-656-HOPE. Wolf?

1:42:36Pamela Brown: An important interview indeed, Pamela. Thank you very much. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media, at Wolf Blitzer and at Pamela Brown CNN. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning, every weekday morning, 10 a.m. Eastern for two hours. Inside Politics with our friend and colleague, Dana Bash, starts right now.

1:43:05Still wearing those old cargo shorts? If your wardrobe's due for an upgrade, but you don't know where to start, you need Stitch Fix. Your stylist learns your size, your style, and your budget, then sends a box pick just for you. They always nail the fit. No store, no hassle, no subscription required. Get started today at stitchfix.com. That's stitchfix.com. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website, to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need.

1:43:47There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your$1 per month trial at shopify.com slash special offer.