Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Sheriff's Helicopter Flying Over Home Of Savannah Guthrie's Mother; Search For Nancy Guthrie Extends Into Third Day; Rationalizing The Nationalizing; Trump Repeats Call To "Nationalize" Elections After White House Tried To Walk It Back; WH: Trump Tapped DNI Gabbard To Oversee Election Security; Senator Mark Kelly Appears In Court To Challenge Efforts To Punish Him Over "Illegal Orders" Video; Renee Good's Brothers Testify On Capitol Hill; Scott Galloway Calls For Boycott Of Big Tech To Protest ICE; Epstein Files Rock Britain From Palace To Parliament; Former U.K. Ambassador To Face Criminal Investigation. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired February 03, 2026 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: They are grateful for the attention, grateful the tip line is being publicized, but also trying to keep some of the details out of the media. And of course, it probably goes without saying, but as of today, NBC confirmed Savannah no longer going to the Olympics in Italy. She was going to host the opening ceremonies on Friday. Obviously, that's off. Everything is on hold now as she focuses on Tucson, on her family.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Yes, and her mother. All right, Brian Stelter, thank you very much. And thanks so much to all of you for joining us. AC360 starts now.

[20:00:32]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, breaking news, the abduction of Savannah Guthrie's mother Nancy, the local sheriff, acknowledging reports of ransom notes, "The L.A. Times" reporting that blood was found at her home.

Also tonight, the President has called for Republicans to nationalize elections in 15 states. His supporters said that's not what he meant at all. Late today, he made it clear he did and more.

Also tonight, new fallout from the Epstein files involving two former British Royals, Andrew and Fergie, and a former British Lord who is now facing a criminal investigation.

Good evening, thanks for joining us. Shortly before air time, we got new video of the Pima County Sheriff's office helicopter flying over Nancy Guthrie's home outside Tucson, Arizona. It's now been almost three days since she was last seen, two days since she was reported missing and a day since authorities said she was abducted. Officials say they have no suspects and would give no details on reporting in "The Los Angeles Times" that blood was found at the scene.

CNN has obtained dispatch audio from the Sheriff's Office in the hours after she was reported missing. You hear details about someone named Nancy who matches the description of Nancy Guthrie.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

FIRST RESPONDER: We referenced missing person at the PCSD at 5820 58- 20 approximate Escalante. Have you referenced Nancy, a white female 84 years of age, approximately medium build, 5'2". Missing after 2200 hours as of yesterday. Nancy has high blood pressure, pacemaker, and cardiac issues.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COOPER: CNN's Ed Lavandera is in Tucson tonight. So, Ed, the sheriff had said earlier that the crime scene had been processed. The house had been turned back over to the Guthrie family. I think we just, we do have him. Is it clear to you why the department's helicopter was hovering a short time ago? What's the latest you are hearing?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now, all we're hearing, Anderson, is that this was just part of the investigation. But it did seem significant. That helicopter made six or seven passes over the house over the course of 20 to 30 minutes, and we hadn't really seen that throughout the course of the day at all today. And here at a time when investigators say they have no idea where Nancy Guthrie is and there is a rush to find out just where she is.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FIRST RESPONDER: "Nancy, a white, female, 84 years of age.

LAVANDERA (voice over): As the mystery of what happened to Nancy Guthrie in her Tucson home deepens, investigators face the heartbreaking reality. At this moment.

CHRIS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF: We don't know where she is. We have a lot of work in front of us.

LAVANDERA (voice over): On Tuesday afternoon, the Pima County Sheriff's office said they're aware of reports of possible ransom notes for the 84-year-old mother of "Today Show" co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, saying, "We are taking all tips and leads very seriously."

It started with a TMZ report claiming they received a note that appears to be a ransom demand, which they turned over to authorities and at least one other media organization in Tucson says they have received what appears to be a ransom note as well. But it's not clear if these notes are authentic. The sheriff was asked earlier Tuesday if ransom demands had been made.

REPORTER: You were asked if there was any ransom and you didn't say no. You said we're following all leads. Does that mean a ransom has come in?

NANOS: We're following all leads we have. That's all I can tell you. We got hundreds of leads.

LAVANDERA (voice over): Authorities say Nancy Guthrie was brought back to her home just before 10 P.M. Saturday night.

LAVANDERA (on camera): Investigators are trying to piece together a visual timeline of that crucial late night and early morning hours leading up to the moment when Nancy Guthrie's friends realized she had not shown up for Church services on Sunday morning.

LAVANDERA (voice over): This is what the roads around Guthrie's home looked like in the darkness. Investigators are asking for anyone to share home camera videos or photos that could help them find clues, but this search is hampered by the darkness and homes scattered behind the desert landscape. Nancy Guthrie was reported missing around noon on Sunday.

Law enforcement says there are no suspects in her disappearance, and a reward of up to $2,500.00 has been offered for information leading to an arrest.

NANOS: Nancy was taken from her home against her will and that's we're at.

LAVANDERA (voice over): But there is an almost 14-hour window from when Guthrie was last seen to when the family determined she was missing.

REPORTER: Is there any way to narrow down the window of time from when she was last seen to when she was reported missing?

NANOS: You know, I really don't want to get into narrowing down the time, because narrowing it down means we could miss some tips and leads.

LAVANDERA (voice over): The sheriff and the FBI say they don't know if multiple people are involved in Guthrie's apparent abduction. And according to "The L.A. Times," investigators say they're also trying to track leads from cameras inside the house and possible blood evidence.

NANOS: We've submitted all, all kinds of samples for DNA, and we've gotten some back, but nothing to indicate any suspects.

JON EDWARDS, FBI ASST. SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, TUCSON, AZ: We're downloading and analyzing cell phones, obtaining cell tower information, conducting interviews. The FBI is doing everything in our power to bring Nancy Guthrie home.

[20:05:41]

LAVANDERA (voice over): Officials also say they don't know what she was wearing or how she left her home. But that critical medication was left behind.

In recent years, Nancy Guthrie made frequent appearances on the "Today Show" with her daughter, Savannah Guthrie, who has traveled to Tucson, posted this plea overnight asking for prayers and Nancy's neighbors are showing their support for the family. We truly hope that they find her. LAVANDERA (voice over): As the investigation into her disappearance continues for a third day.

NANOS: We have someone's life who is in jeopardy. And so, job number one is we got to find her and we got to we got to work hard to do that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: So, Ed the Sheriff's Department sent an update to the media just a few moments ago. Part of it reads, "We have been in close contact with the Guthrie family and they continue to receive updates as the investigation progresses. At this point, there is no credible information indicating this was a targeted incident."

Is it clear to you what that means exactly?

LAVANDERA: Well, we've kind of gone back and forth with these questions, with investigators. And I think what we're seeing here is kind of a just a realization of just how little information they have on who or how many people might be behind all of this.

So, I'm not sure at this point we can put to like, read too much into that, that it suggests that it would be the opposite of that, that this would be some sort of random attack. I think what we've heard over and over from investigators is that they don't really know what the motive is behind all of this, and that they're not ruling anything out.

So, it could turn out that this is some sort of targeted event or maybe it's not. At this point, investigators simply don't know.

COOPER: All right, Ed Lavandera, thanks very much.

Joining me now, CNN law enforcement analyst Jonathan Wackrow and criminologist and behavioral analyst, Casey Jordan.

Jonathan, I mean, obviously, the timeline here is not good. And the lack of information, you know, now saying, you know, no evidence is targeted. That seems if, you know, there's these reports of alleged ransom notes, hard to know what to make of it all.

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I think the way you just categorize this is uncertainty, right? Law enforcement just does not know where this investigation is in the moment and where it's going to go next. The walking back of the fact that this is, you know, was targeted. I mean, I think that's a big deal because now, does that shift into, is there a public safety concern that's broader than miss Guthrie that you were not addressing.

So, today's communication from law enforcement has been very questionable. It actually speaks to what Ed was saying is that the totality of this investigation, the weight of it is, now coming full bear.

Everyone wants answers, the family is there. Theres this pressure we already know that there is time pressure just because of her medical condition. But the fact that we don't have anything that's solid, that's being discussed publicly is of a real concern right now from an investigative standpoint.

COOPER: Does that statement about targeted not targeted, does that mean the alleged, you know, or the reports of ransom notes, they're not putting much validity into those? I mean, they weren't sent to law enforcement. They were sent to TMZ and a local news agency.

WACKROW: Yes, anytime you have a notable, you know, disappearance of anybody or potential abduction that becomes public, you are going to see a slew of different ransom notes in communications, come in. Validating those is essential.

Law enforcement does have the capabilities to assess what is real and what is not real, but you're going to see a lot more action if they were real, bona fide, ransom notes in. And right now, we're just not seeing again, we're not seeing that that activity --

COOPER: If those had come in prior to the widespread pickup of this, of this incident, you'd see --

WACKROW: You'd see a different posture by law enforcement. What you wouldn't see is the frustration and uncertainty today in today's press conference, you would actually see basically a tick tock of what the where the investigation is today, the actions that they're taking, not this vacillation of, I don't know, we're unsure. We were sure yesterday, we're not sure now.

Again, this is not a criticism of law enforcement. It's just the reality of the pressures of these types of investigations when time is critical.

[20:10:10]

COOPER: Casey, I mean, first of all, Casey, just from your experience, what stands out to you? What are the data points of you think are significant and don't know?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST AND BEHAVIORAL ANALYST: Well, we seem to know a lot less than we do know and now that were coming up on 72 hours, I mean, this is really unusual. You know, what bothers me is that there just is no video or digital evidence. I mean, she has cameras, but you would think if they had any imagery that they wanted to share with the public, it would be out by now.

They said there are no footprints, there are no tire tracks. This would indicate to me that this was incredibly well planned, and that would suggest that it was targeted. But as you said, they're walking that back. I mean, what are the chances this is just an unhinged, random intruder who kidnaped an 84-year-old lady?

I mean, Anderson, kidnapers rarely take old folks who can't walk more than 150ft or babies, because they are a liability, they're high maintenance, they need taking care of if you want to keep them alive and get a ransom. So, yes, we have reports of ransom demands, but I would put money on the fact that they're all pranksters at this point.

Generally, if you want to present a ransom demand, you give it directly to the family or the FBI, not to TMZ. And I have to say, I've been wondering if they have holdbacks that they're not letting us have. Maybe they're negotiating with kidnapers behind the scenes. And all of this is a red herring, but I don't think so. I think truly, as of this evening, we have no idea where she is or if she's even officially kidnaped for ransom.

COOPER: So, Jonathan, just in terms of what you would be doing in an investigation like this at this stage, given all the limitations, you know, first of all, the fact that a lot of these homes are set back from the road, the idea that there's going to be RING cameras that show, you know, people walking or driving down that road, that clearly not, it's not that kind of a neighborhood.

WACKROW: No, it definitely is not. And we've seen recent investigations where those RING cameras actually show a direct pathway of a potential suspect.

COOPER: The Brown University shooting.

WACKROW: Exactly, exactly my point. We don't have that right now. So, what are what are investigators looking at, right?

When they think about a threat, they think about means opportunity and intent to cause harm. Now, in this case, they really need to look at opportunity. Who had the opportunity to go to the house after, you know, 8:00 or 9:00 on Saturday night get into the house. So, who knew that, Miss Guthrie was vulnerable? Who knew that she was there? Who knew that they could potentially have access to her? That starts limiting down your pool of potential suspects.

Now, you take that and you start creating this victimology, which is, a law enforcement assessment process of seeing where there were vulnerable points, patterns of behavior that intersect with those people who may have opportunity and that's how you start thinking.

COOPER: What's interesting about that is it does not does not seem like the neighborhood where a car is sitting on the street for days monitoring somebody's comings and goings would go unnoticed. I mean, it's not like a busy street in New York City.

WACKROW: Exactly. I mean, they may be hiding in plain sight, but that's not the neighborhood. We just saw with Ed's reporting how wide open those roads were and the setbacks of the homes.

COOPER: Jonathan Wackrow, I appreciate it, Casey Jordan as well.

Up next, we'll get an update on the search for Miss Guthrie from the lead detective of the Pima County attorney's office.

Later, Senator Mark Kelly joins us after he gets his day in court. What a judge today made of Defense Secretary Hegseth's attempt to reduce the senators and former astronaut's rank over the video he made telling service members they could refuse unlawful orders. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:17:59]

COOPER: And more on tonight's breaking news, the disappearance of Savannah Guthrie's 84-year-old mom, Nancy. The Pima County Sheriff's Office acknowledging reports of possible ransom notes tied to the disappearance of Savannah Guthrie's mother and saying they're taking all tips and leads seriously. They now have about 100 detectives, they say, working on the case.

Joining us is Fabian Pacheco, Chief of Detectives at the Pima County Attorney's Office. Chief Pacheco, I appreciate your time. I know you are helping run point on the tips coming in from the public. How many tips has law enforcement received so far?

FABIAN PACHECO, CHIEF OF DETECTIVES, PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Well, Anderson, thank you so much for having me on your show and for taking the time. I oversee the 88-CRIME program, which is an anonymous tip reporting system here that's based out of the Pima County Attorney's Office. We are working closely and assisting the Pima County Sheriff's Department with a huge number of tips that we have received for the past two days. These tips are coming from across the country, not just locally. And they're being forwarded immediately to the investigating detectives.

Now, as indicated earlier, the Pima County Sheriff's Department is the lead agency investigating this case and they are being assisted by the FBI, who's providing analytical and technical support. It is a difficult case.

COOPER: Yes, so, I mean, how do you, given the volume of calls coming in, contacts coming in, and as you said, they're coming from all over. How do you kind of triage them? How do you, I assume you're able to kind of put them in some sort of order of most, you know, most urgent or most feasible to, you know, more, something we'll get to later.

PACHECO: Yes, absolutely, those are all forwarded, like I mentioned, the Pima County Sheriff's Department set up an intel unit, a group of detectives specifically sifting through all these tips. Now, naturally, some have limited information, some you can quickly assess that, don't represent much credible information, but there have been a number of tips coming forward, that they spend some time looking into.

So, they triage them. They find, they determine after reading what the tipsters reporting, whether this this is something, this tip is something they need to send out detectives to the area or contact these people directly, maybe get more additional information, that sort of thing. So, they are going through them pretty quickly. We have gotten in excess of a hundred.

[20:20:45]

COOPER: In excess of a hundred. You're a former homicide detective. Have you ever seen a case in which an elderly woman was taken from her home as she slept, or taken against her will from her home as she slept?

PACHECO: No, this has got to be, this is a first for me. I know we've had a number of high-profile cases here in Tucson and Pima County. They are challenging, and they're very difficult. I know that we all have a lot of questions, and we're working, the detectives are working diligently tirelessly, to get answers to those questions. But first and foremost, we want to locate Nancy and bring her back to her family.

And for that, we're relying on the public as we do oftentimes in these types of cases, there are, there may be people out in the community that have information regarding her disappearance or abduction. We're reaching out to them. We want them to please come forward, provide that information to the Pima County sheriff tip line. Or if they choose, if they're more comfortable reporting to the 88-CRIME tip line and remain anonymous that's also another avenue for them.

So, we're encouraging people to please continue to send those tips regardless of what they think, if they have some value or not. We have the detectives that are going to make that determination.

COOPER: Well, Chief Pacheco, I appreciate your time and your efforts. We've been putting the numbers on the screen. Thank you so much. I wish you luck and speed in the investigation.

Coming up next, even as the people around him try to soften the President's demand for some kind of federal takeover of elections in 15 states, the President undoes the spin and we're keeping them honest. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:26:45]

COOPER: Keeping them honest tonight, a simple notion that the President of the United States actually means what he says, not what his collection of spokespeople or supporters or friends or hangers on say he means. What he really says, his actual words, for example. And yes, it's admittedly an extreme example, these words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear.

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That I will faithfully execute.

TRUMP: That I will faithfully execute.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The office of President of the United States.

TRUMP: The office of President of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: That was the President's second inauguration, and no one raced

in front of the cameras afterward to explain that he did not really mean that, because that would be preposterous. Yet somehow, when it comes to so much else the President has said since then, that's exactly what we've seen the people around him do. Most recently, today over this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting, at least many 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. And we have states that are so crooked and they're counting votes. We have states that I won that show I didn't win. Now, you're going to see something in Georgia where they were able to get with a court order, the ballots. You're going to see some interesting things coming out. But, you know, like the 2020 election, I won that election by so much.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COOPER: First, quickly and obviously, no, he did not win the 2020 election. But he's been saying that part for years. The part about nationalizing the elections, though, which Article I Section 4 of the constitution says are to be left to the states, that certainly is new and presumably for many people, troubling enough that it was not long before the people around him were explaining what he really meant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: He said specifically that they should take over elections in 15 states. Can you tell us what he meant by that? What 15 states he's referring to in terms of Republicans taking over elections?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Again, what I was just telling you is that with the passage of the SAVE Act, voter I.D. will be implemented across all 50 states. The President was referring to specific states in which we have seen a high degree of fraud. There are millions of people who have questions about that, as does the President. He wants to make it right and the SAVE Act is a solution to doing it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, first of all, historically, not a high degree of fraud in states. Millions of people may have questions about that, but that's because the President has been lying about it for years. Second, the SAVE Act is legislation that the President Republicans are pushing for, but it's a voter I.D. measure and does not call for taking over elections, which is what you heard the President say he wants.

Now, keeping them honest. What Karoline Leavitt was doing, it seems, was spinning, not to mention reading from talking points. Here's House speaker Johnson essentially doing the same.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The President is expressing his frustration about the problems we have in some of these blue states, where election integrity is not always guaranteed. So, we have to figure out solutions to that problem. And that's what I think the Save America Act will do, so we're working on it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, guys.

JOHNSON: No, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, in case you're wondering, if Senate Majority Leader John Thune also got the talking points that the President was not really calling for a federal election takeover, listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): I think the President has clarified what he meant by that, and that is that he supports the SAVE Act. So, with respect to whether or not, that signifies ensuring that only citizens of this country vote in our elections, that's something I think we all agree with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:30:16]

COOPER: Leader Thune, Speaker Johnson, Press Secretary Leavitt certainly agree on that, namely, that the President did not mean what he said about nationalizing elections. And then, after all that explaining today all the hard work they were doing by those three and more, CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked the President directly about it while he was in the Oval Office, sitting in front of a group of Republican lawmakers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What exactly did you mean when you said that you should nationalize elections and which 15 states are you talking about?

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to see elections be honest. And if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it. Because, you know, if you think about it, a state is an agent for the federal government in elections.

I don't know why the federal government doesn't do them anyway, but when you see some of these states about how horribly they run their elections, what a disgrace it is, the federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: You'll notice in answer to Kaitlan's direct question, he didn't say anything about voter ID laws in all 50 states. He said the federal government should get involved and should take over the counting of the votes. We edited out some of it for time because it went on, but no mention of voter ID. About eight minutes earlier in opening remarks, he did however mention voter ID saying we should have voter ID and he talked about how Democrats don't even know in his opinion how to explain why they don't want it.

Joining us now is Conservative Radio Host Erick Erickson. Erick, it's good to have you on the program. You heard the president doubling down on the calls to nationalize elections, which is unconstitutional. Should Americans take that opinion, threat, those comments seriously? Where do you think this is heading?

ERICK ERICKSON, HOST, "THE ERICK ERICKSON SHOW": Well, yes and no. You know, I was an elections lawyer in Georgia in a former life and in the second part of Article 1, Section 4, after saying the state set the laws for elections, is Congress can essentially preempt those laws and pass its own, which the SAVE Act does, but only for voter ID. It's not helpful of the president to have a, say he wants a federal takeover of elections, whether he means the SAVE Act or not.

I'm not sure he knows all it is is voter ID. Congress could actually, if it wanted to, preempt the states because to a degree agents are, the states are agents of the federal government in carrying out national elections, not local elections. In fact, you can have a set of rules for federal elections and be different from state elections.

But the president doesn't seem to understand what the SAVE Act is in this case. It's not a takeover by the federal government. And Congress has never shown a desire to take over state elections, so he can't do it. Maybe he thinks he can, but he can't.

COOPER: Do you think -- I mean, does the administration's explanation earlier in the day of the president's comments make sense to you that this was, what he's really talking about is voter ID? Because he's --

ERICKSON: Yes. So, you know, I'm willing to criticizing, but I do actually think that that's what he's talking about, is imposing federal requirements on the states. Right now, every state has a different voter ID requirement and Republicans --

COOPER: But if that was true, why 15 states?

ERICKSON: Yes, because those are the 15 states that don't have voter ID and in fact in some cases have same-day voter registration, which the president doesn't like. Ironically, he did win a couple of those states.

COOPER: The White House said that the President Trump tapped the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to oversee domestic election security while describing her unusual involvement in that FBI search of a Fulton County election office last week. Did -- does her role in that make sense to you? ERICKSON: Only to the extent she's trying to get back in the president's good graces. She's been gabberded by the president. I mean, Waldo (ph) is easier to find than Tulsi Gabbard these days, particularly there's a national security meeting, so she's trying to make herself relevant and he's given her something where she can try to be relevant.

COOPER: You think that's why she showed up?

ERICKSON: Yes, I mean, it also shows how the Director of National Intelligence is an impotent job, which is why John Ratcliffe didn't want it. He wanted to be the CIA director where there's real power. It's a almost figurehead position and she's trying to figure out a way to use it to get back in good graces.

They shut her out of the Venezuela conversations, the Syria conversations. They deny it, but everybody knows it's true. So go down to Georgia and do a dog and pony show to get the president's attention.

COOPER: You heard the president tease that something, quote, "interesting was going to come out of Georgia." Do you have any sense of what that means?

ERICKSON: No one in Georgia knows. The Republicans and Democrats alike have no idea what they're talking about. You know, when the president was indicted by Jack Smith, he claimed that if you dig deep enough and broad enough, you'll eventually find something to indict someone with.

A good DA can indict a ham sandwich. I guess if they dig long enough, they can find something they think shows a question about the election.

[20:35:01]

The problem is there are always questions about elections. No election is perfect because people run them and people aren't perfect, but they've completely missed over turning the election. This is just score settling with Democrats.

COOPER: Erick Erickson. It's good to have you on, Erick. Thank you so much.

ERICKSON: Thank you.

COOPER: Up next, Senator Mark Kelly in federal court today over his battle with the Pentagon over the so-called illegal orders video. The senator joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: At a high stakes court hearing in Washington today, a federal judge indicated he's likely to side with Senator Mark Kelly in his battle with the Pentagon over the video recorded by him and other Democrats urging U.S. service members to refuse possible illegal orders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has moved to reduce Kelly's last military rank, which would lower the pay he receives as a retired Navy captain and issue a letter of censure. Kelly alleges the administration is trying to squelch his First Amendment rights, and he joins us now.

[20:40:02]

Senator, good to have you on. CNN is reporting that the judge at your hearing today told a Justice Department lawyer, quote, "You're asking me to do something the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit Court has never done. That's a bit of a stretch," end quote. How confident are you that the judge will ultimately rule in your favor?

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Well, Anderson, I think the law is on our side. The Constitution is on our side. I was in court today for my constitutional rights, but beyond that for the rights of millions of retired service members and millions, hundreds of millions of more Americans where this administration thinks it's OK to violate people's constitutional rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.

I'm not going to, you know, speculate on, you know, what the judge meant by anything he said or try to get in front of how he's going to rule. But I do really believe, and I feel there's a lot of support out there, you know, for, you know, my side of this issue that the law is on our side and the Constitution is on our side.

COOPER: If you're successful in federal court and Secretary Hegseth -- he could still try to -- or could he still try to go after through military courts after you? Could he recall you to active duty and try to court martial you?

KELLY: He has said some wild things in his censure letter to me. He said he's going to still watch what I say, and if they don't like it, they're going to prosecute me criminally. So he's made some threats. And these threats do not just affect me.

I mean, there are folks that Anderson you have on your show all the time, right, that are retired admirals and generals to speak about issues that are important to the American people. If they're successful in getting -- in punishing me for something I said that was lawful, it could, and I think it actually does stifle the rights of those admirals and generals that are on your show. But millions of retired members, service members who currently have a right to speak out about the government, talk about things that they don't think is appropriate, that is a right we all have, and this administration doesn't like it.

COOPER: I mean, it is remarkable that you fought for and everybody fights for people's rights for the rights that we have in this country. And yet the secretary of Defense is attempting to silence you to and to stop others, threatening others or warning others not to speak out, not to exercise those rights, which is one of the many things, one of the many incredible rights that you and others have fought for. KELLY: Yes, you're right. I wore the uniform for 25 years fighting for this country and the Constitution, and they're coming after me for one reason. They want to set an example to everybody else. And I think it even extends beyond retired -- I mean, this goes to people who currently serve in the military who have, you know, First Amendment rights to speak out about issues, to say things.

You know, and I've been thinking a lot about your colleague, former colleague Don Lemon. He was doing his job reporting to the American people about an issue that they should understand and they have a right to receive information on. And then suddenly he finds himself in jail, locked up and now in a criminal process. That's what they threatened me with.

And I've heard from retired service members, Anderson, who already have changed what they say because of how Pete Hegseth has gone after me. So that's why -- and you probably heard me say this before. This doesn't -- isn't just about me. I'm just like the first one through the breach here that has to stick up for the rights of all of us.

I was happy with how the proceeding went today. I'm not going to, you know, try to get in front of the judge. I respect his position. And I look forward to, you know, hearing what he has to say about this case.

COOPER: Yes. Senator Mark Kelly, thank you for your time.

Powerful testimony on Capitol Hill today by the brothers of Renee Good, the 37-year-old mom who was shot to death by an ice officer in Minneapolis nearly one month ago. Here's some of what Luke and Brent Gang Ganger told lawmakers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUKE GANGER, RENEE GOOD'S BROTHER: The prayers and words of support have truly brought us comfort, and it is meaningful that these sentiments have come from people of all colors, faiths and ideals. That is a perfect reflection of Renee.

BRENT GANGER, RENEE GOOD'S BROTHER: When I think of Renee, I think of dandelions and sunlight. Dandelions don't ask permission to grow. They push through cracks in the sidewalk, through hard soil, through places where you don't expect beauty. And suddenly there they are bright, alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:45:19]

COOPER: Also testifying today was Aliya Rahman, who was violently pulled out of her car by ICE agents in Minneapolis last month. It's hard to forget those images just a couple of blocks from where Renee Good was killed. She tried to tell officers she was disabled.

She has autism and a traumatic brain injury and was on her way to a medical appointment when they cut the seatbelt strap to grab her. She was detained, but says she was never told she was under arrest, never read her rights, never charged with a crime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALIYA RAHMAN, AMERICAN CITIZEN DETAINED BY ICE: I received no medical screening, phone call or access to a lawyer. I was denied a communication navigator when my speech began to slur. Agents laughed as I tried to immobilize my own neck.

I asked for my cane and was told, no, pulled up my arms and prided forward and leg irons by agents laughing and saying, walk, you can do it, walk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: She also testified that she ended up in an emergency room after that experience.

One man with unique approach to putting pressure on the Trump administration to curtail ICE and its heavy-handed immigration tactics is Scott Galloway, a professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business and an influential podcaster. His solution is not protesting the streets, but for -- or not protesting alone, but for Americans to protest with their wallets, unsubscribing from and boycotting products made by American giant tech companies.

Scott Galloway is here to explain his plan. So Scott, can you just explain what this resist and unsubscribe movement is?

SCOTT GALLOWAY, HOST, "THE PROF G POD": It's an effort to sort of hit the president and the administration with a message that's not only right, but effective. And that is, I think our secret weapon hiding in plain sight is that the president doesn't necessarily listen to the courts, to citizenry. What he listens to is the markets.

And if you look at when he's pulled back from ideas around annexing Greenland, or when he's pulled back from tariffs, it's been when the bond market collapses or the S&P goes down. And if you look at the place, the soft tissue of the market, it's around big tech and specifically subscription programs that are fueling big tech.

And I'm trying to -- or I think, Anderson, have come up with the soft tissue where we can have the greatest impact with the least amount of consumer interference. And that is maybe going from two or three subscription LLMs to one from five or six streaming platforms to one, two ride hailing programs to one.

But I think that the president and the people he surrounds himself with, specifically big tech leaders that now account for 40 percent of the market, that the best way to send a message is through the markets and specifically through big tech subscriptions by canceling or pausing.

COOPER: Have you heard from any of the CEOs of companies that you're focusing on?

GALLOWAY: I've heard from about a third of them. They're very polite, they understand and then they go on to say how upset they are about the president's programs, but that they can't speak publicly. And I'm empathetic to that. A good autocrat rewards his allies and punishes his enemies.

So unless it's a collective action, unless they all speak together, I think it's going to be very hard for anyone to go first. But what I remind them is that in early 30s, Germany, Hitler made a deal with the largest captains of the manufacturing industry that if they said nothing about his rise and what they sensed was a slow burn to fascism, that they would crush the -- that he would crush the trade unions and they would make a lot more money.

And then when he rose to power, it was too late. And I think that is a decent or an apt analogy for what's going on here. And that is according to the private text messages I get from these individuals, they do not like what's going on, but they're afraid to speak up. And also they see money at the end of the day.

Notice how the tariffs do not affect these companies, that there's been carve outs, that there's talk of all kinds of loans to backstop the incredible infrastructure expenses here. This, to believe that it could not happen here is naive to history. These folks are enabling what I believe is pretty depraved behavior. And it is time for CEOs to collectively speak up and say what they're saying privately, explicitly to the markets and to the president.

COOPER: Lastly, President Trump is calling on Republicans to take over control of elections in states that he baselessly claims are rife with fraud. Jeff Toobin was on last night. He said it's not even a close call. It would be unconstitutional.

Do you think this is a diversion from, you know, he's trying to divert attention from Minneapolis and other places? Do you think this is a real concern?

GALLOWAY: I can't figure out which weapon of mass distraction is distracting us from what. Is it distracting us from the Epstein files? Is it distracting us from parents shot in the face three times? From ICU nurses taking care of veterans being shot 10 times where their 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights or 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights are violated within about 15 seconds?

[20:50:19]

So distraction from distraction from distraction and just on something quite mundane around elections. The reason we have decided to have 50 distinct electoral bodies in different technologies and methodologies for elections is such that we didn't have one system that could be hacked.

So the idea of nationalizing elections is not only irrational and makes us less safe than ring fencing every single state with different technologies. But it's clearly an attempt to set us up for normalizing violence or government interference at the polls and also to create a back door for a federal government to manipulate elections. I don't see what this has to do with immigration. So when Secretary Noem, after calling Alex Pretti a domestic terrorist and saying he was there to mask federal agents, then demanding the voter rolls, this all sounds very clear to me, Anderson. It feels like slowly but surely a total denial or overrun of our democracy and voting.

COOPER: Scott Galloway, it's good to have you on. Thank you.

GALLOWAY: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Up next, what President Trump said late this afternoon about the Epstein files and how the latest batch has rocked Britain for Buckingham Palace to the House of Lords. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:55:45]

COOPER: At the White House late today, CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked President Trump about the DOJ's release of more than 3 million documents in the Epstein files. Here's some of their exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: A lot of women who were -- are survivors of Epstein's are unhappy with those redactions that came out. Some of them entire witness interviews are totally blacked out. Do you think that they should be more --

TRUMP: Well, they're also unhappy with the fact that they thought they released too much. You know, I heard that and you tell me something else. No. I think it's really time for the country to get onto something else really.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, the president of the White House today. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the Epstein files are raising new questions from Buckingham Palace to the House of Parliament. The latest tonight from CNN's Max Foster.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR & ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Epstein files are rocking the British establishment. In the latest tranche of documents, these three undated photos appear to show the king's brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, kneeling over what appears to be a woman or girl whose face has been redacted, lying fully clothed and supine on the floor.

It's unclear when or where the images were taken. No captions or context of the photographs was provided with the document release, and neither the photographs nor the email messages suggest any wrongdoing. But they are a further embarrassment for Mountbatten-Windsor, who previously faced pressure to explain a 2001 photograph, which showed him standing with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend and a convicted child sex trafficker, and Virginia Giuffre, a prominent accuser of Epstein and Andrew, who died by suicide in April.

Today, Mountbatten-Windsor's brother, Prince Edward, telling CNN in Dubai --

PRINCE EDWARD, DUKE OF EDINBURGH: I think it's really important always to remember the victims.

FOSTER (voice-over): The king stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of his royal titles in October and began the process to evict him from the royal estate at Windsor. Now, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged Mountbatten-Windsor to testify before the U.S. Congress.

Meanwhile, the former prince's ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, is back in the headlines for her links to Epstein. The latest files revealing emails she sent to Epstein after he was found guilty of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008, including one where she thanked him "for being the brother I've always wished for."

And in January 2010, she wrote, "You are a legend. I really don't have the words to describe my love, gratitude for your generosity and kindness. Kiss, kiss. I am at you services. Just marry me.

In another, she complained, "It was so crystal clear to me that you were only friends with me to get to Andrew. And that really hurt me deeply more than you will know."

Ferguson was dropped last year as the patron or ambassador to several British charities, after earlier documents showed she had called Epstein her supreme friend. At the time, a spokesperson for Ferguson said she regretted her association with Epstein.

On Monday evening, Ferguson's charitable foundation, Sarah's Trust, announced it will shortly close for the foreseeable future, after some months of discussion, according to the U.K.'s PA media news agency. The U.K.'s former ambassador to Washington, Lord Peter Mandelson, also dragged into deeper scandal in the latest release of Epstein files.

He was fired from his post in September over the scandal when U.S. lawmakers released a birthday book compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003, in which Mandelson penned a handwritten note describing the financier as my best pal. The latest tranche of documents has revealed that in 2009, when Mandelson was business secretary, he appeared to leak a sensitive U.K. government document to the financier.

They also show that Mandelson's partner, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, regularly received undisclosed payments from Epstein. A spokesperson for Mandelson told British media that neither the former ambassador nor da Silva has any record or recollection of receiving payments in 2003 and 2004, or know whether the documentation is authentic.

Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party on Sunday and is set to quit the House of Lords on Wednesday. In his resignation, he apologized to the women and girls whose voices should have been heard long before now. CNN was unable to contact Mandelson for further comment.

Max Foster, CNN London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Yes. That's it for us. The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now. See you tomorrow.