Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

FBI: Ransom Note In Guthrie Case Has Deadline Of "5 P.M. Today"; White House Again Downplays Trump's Call To "Nationalize" Elections; Hillary Clinton Calls For Public Hearing In Epstein Investigation. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired February 05, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: -- told "The Associated Press" he's pretty confident she can still pull off this dream.

[16:00:04]

How does that not hurt? How does that not hurt?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: I need her to hold up a newspaper to show that that wasn't done before, right? Wild.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, a headline in the abduction of Nancy Guthrie, fast approaching at this hour.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.

As we come on the air, we are rapidly approaching that deadline. Investigators say was listed in a ransom note linked to the abduction of 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEITH JANKE, FBI SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: The ransom note that was distributed to the media did make a demand for 5:00 p.m. today. And if, if a transfer wasn't made, then I think a second demand was for next Monday. We're not going to go beyond that. That the media received.

REPORTER: Did it indicate what would happen if they didn't meet that ransom? Did they --

JANKE: We're not going to go into those specifics

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, investigators today were unable to clarify the time zone for that 5:00 p.m. deadline, but did say that a second deadline of Monday was also listed. Police today announced that the Guthrie family has not been contacted by anyone claiming to hold their mother, that despite this direct appeal from Nancy's children, Savannah, Annie and Camron.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC "TODAY SHOW" HOST: We are ready to talk. However, we live in a world where voices and images are easily manipulated. We need to know without a doubt that she is alive and that you have her. We want to hear from you and we are ready to listen. Please reach out to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: It's really difficult to watch. As these critical moments tick by, we are learning much more about the night that authorities believe that Guthrie was forcibly taken from her home. Investigators today provided a new timeline of events, saying that approximately 2:12 a.m. on Sunday, a video doorbell at the home detected a person on camera. That footage, however, appears to have been automatically deleted or overwritten.

Just minutes later, Guthrie's pacemaker, disconnected from the app on her phone. Blood spatter was found in the entryway to the home, with investigators today confirming that it does belong to Nancy Guthrie. That was Sunday, but for more than four days, Nancy Guthrie has been separated from her children, her grandchildren, her friends, from everyone who cherishes her and cares for her, and the pain that her loved ones are experiencing right now is frankly, unimaginable as they pray, as they ask us to pray every second for their mother's safe return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Everyone is looking for you, mommy, everywhere. We will not rest. Your children will not rest until we are together again. We speak to you every moment and we pray without ceasing. And we rejoice in advance for the day that we hold you in our arms again. We love you, mom.

ANNIE GUTHRIE, NANCY'S DAUGHTER: Love you, mom.

CAMRON GUTHRIE, NANCY'S SON: We love you, mom. Stay strong.

ANNIE GUTHRIE: We love you. We love you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: We're praying for Savannah, for her family and for her mother here as well.

Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My law enforcement experts are standing by.

But we're going to start with CNN's senior national correspondent, Ed Lavandera. He's in Tucson, and he just spoke to the sheriff who's leading the case. I want to show you some of that interview. Ed is going to join us to talk more about it on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF CHRIS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: This one came to me in a text, and I read it, and it concerned me right away where I thought, all right, I have a great search and rescue team. Very robust. They do amazing things, but I felt like something didn't sound right to me.

And so, I advised him, right then, you should be calling our homicide team.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What didn't sound right?

NANOS: You know, I don't -- I can't get into that because it's part of the case. But they described to me a scene that just disturbed me. So --

LAVANDERA: And then when did you connect the dots that this was Savannah Guthrie's mom?

NANOS: Oh, that was quite a few hours later. What we were told was what I was told in my text is you have an 84-year-old woman who is missing from her home and that she was -- had medical ailments that wouldn't allow her to walk. I think the 50 yards is what the family said. She just couldn't have walked away from there. But she's been missing.

So, search and rescue was in the area, and the helicopter, air assets, drones, our ground teams, and they do a great job. And I have no, no doubt about it. But again, the scene description was a little alarming to me. So usually our homicide team, when we never call them out unless you have a body of some sort.

[16:05:04]

But I thought this one, we needed them and so we got them out there. It was -- I went out to that scene. So, 2:00, I get the call probably about 7:00. I'm going to say sometime, maybe an hour or two before 7:00, I learned that it was Savannah's mom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Ed Lavandera joins us now.

And, Ed, you, of course, had that conversation with the Pima County sheriff after he held that news conference. What more did you learn from your conversation with him?

LAVANDERA: Well, we wanted to try to go back and clarify a few things on that was talked about extensively during the press conference this afternoon. But let me go over a couple of them. We wanted to dig in a little bit more.

If you remember, the sheriff talked about Savannah Guthrie's mom, Nancy, being taken an Uber ride Saturday night from her home to her daughter and family members home, where she had dinner. And the sheriff said that they played games that night before she returned home.

The sheriff said that there is a video of Nancy in that car. They wanted to see to make sure that she looked fine and everything was okay. And they, the sheriff believes, tells us that they believe that their conversations with that Uber driver was a female driver, that everything appears to be honest, that is coming from that person. So, it does not appear in any way that that Uber driver is a potential suspect at this moment.

So, a lot of conversation around that. But then it was another family member that then brought Nancy Guthrie back to her home after that night at dinner at her daughter's house here in the Tucson area.

And then we also wanted to clarify, there's been a lot of talk about whether or not there was a forced entry into the home of Nancy Guthrie. Now, you might have heard the sheriff talk about that, that were not saying -- that there were the reports of whether or not there was a forced entry, that the sheriff said that they do not know where that is coming from.

I want to just to kind of clarify this. What the sheriff is saying is that they are not going to say whether or not there was a forced entry at the home. That is a detail they want to keep close to investigators, because that is clearly something that only the perpetrator of this abduction would know.

So, because of that, that is something they're not saying. They're not saying it did happen. They're not saying it didn't happen. They're just not saying either way, they clearly know and they have the specifics of that detail, but they didn't want to get into that.

And we also talked to the sheriff. We'll play a little bit of this sound where he talked about just her -- their communication with Savannah Guthrie's family.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANOS: Video last night, I didn't even know that was coming out. And somebody told me and I went on -- I think my wife went on Facebook and showed it to me. That family's devastated. And anybody watches that video, I don't know how they can sit there and not say, my goodness, we need -- we need to get this lady back. We need -- we need Nancy back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: And we also talked to the sheriff. He told us that they've had about a little more than 100 tips that have come in since they've been making these pleas for the public to help them in their investigation. Sheriff clearly thinks that at this stage, five days into this, without any clear indication where Nancy Guthrie might be, they clearly believe that it's going to be a tip that comes in at some point that is going to break all of this wide open for them.

But that tip clearly has not come through. He also did say, Kasie, that everyone that they've talking to, including family members, have been cooperative with investigators.

HUNT: All right. Ed Lavandera, thanks very much for bringing us your interview. Really appreciate that reporting.

I want to bring in now CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller, and CNN law enforcement contributor, the retired FBI agent Steve Moore.

Thank you both for being with us.

And, John Miller, I'd like to go first to you. You watched that press conference along with the rest of us. You heard Ed kind of lay out what they are saying, what they aren't saying about what they know. Can you help us understand why some details they want to keep and others they're willing to put out there?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, part of trying to vet people who come forward, for instance, these ransom letters that have been delivered to media organizations is, you know, if you open a channel of communication, you want to prove they're real. What the family needs is a proof of life. They want to be able to talk to their mom, make sure that whoever demanding this money actually has her and that she's okay.

But law enforcement also wants to know, short of that, can you prove that you're the person who, you know, was there at the house? So how did you get in? What did you knock over? Where was this and where was that? The blood on the porch that has leaked out. The presence of the pacemaker to the iPhone left behind that's been released. A couple of these things.

[16:10:02]

But they are holding back a number of key facts that have not come out. So if someone says, I'm the kidnapper and can't answer those questions, that's going to cast doubt.

HUNT: Interesting.

Steve Moore, there were some questions asked at the news conference about the FBI being at the family home last night as this, you know, around the time that this video was then posted, they acknowledged having been there.

Can you help us understand how the FBI might interact with the family in a case like this? What they might say about making a video like the one that we saw, Savannah and her siblings put out?

STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the FBI is going to want to manage the communication that goes to the -- goes to the alleged kidnapper, the person who sent the ransom note, because there are certain things you can say that would set them off, certain things that you could say, which might make them more amenable to dealing with you. And there are certain demands that you have to make. And certain information you need to get, as John was saying. The family obviously has never and will never God willing, go through

something like this again. But the FBI deals with it every week in and has for the last several decades.

So, they have extensive knowledge on how to go forward with this, how to speak to the potential, kidnapers here because they have profilers, hostage negotiators. And so they probably were very valuable in giving the type of statement that was necessary and best utilized.

HUNT: John Miller for this kind of question in this day and age, right? The proof of life question in particular. I mean, we are way past a world where you can just hold up today's newspaper and have people believe the image that they see.

I mean, how does that even how is that even possible in the age of A.I.?

MILLER: Well, ultimately, you want to get -- you want to get her on the phone and you want to have a conversation, the kind of which could not be programmed or rehearsed. That's going to be a big ask, but it may be necessary because, you know, Kasie, as you've already pointed out, you can pull up an interview she did on "The Today Show", feed that into an A.I. thing, give it a script, and convert that voice to say almost anything you want it to.

So interactive phone call where you exchange information that only that victim would know is the best way to establish a real proof of life.

HUNT: Steve Moore, how does the FBI think about this particular problem where again, as John points out, not everyone has recordings of their voice out in the public domain, but of course, Nancy Guthrie does?

MOORE: Yeah. As John alluded to, it's not going to be the voice that convinces people. I mean, we're not back in the in the 40s. We do have A.I. to contend with, but there are certain things that only Nancy would know that the kidnapers would not know. And you could compile a list of questions for the kidnappers to answer. You wouldn't even have to have her on the phone necessarily, if they refuse to do that.

But if you say on such and such a birthday, we all went to a restaurant and it was where and what did you have? And do you remember what birthday it was? I mean, things like that will come back. Those are things that the kidnappers could not possibly know.

HUNT: Right. I want to play a little bit more of Ed Lavandera's interview with the Pima County sheriff. He talked to him about how many the volume of tips that have been coming in to the sheriff's office as investigators try to figure, to find Nancy Guthrie. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAVANDERA: This case has clearly generated an immense amount of publicity and has gotten a lot of attention, I imagine. Are you flooded with tips? Are you? Is it the phones ringing nonstop?

NANOS: We probably gone through well over 100 tips. What -- I don't want to discourage anybody. All tips -- no, there's no tip too small. We want all that information. We can't solve this case without those.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: John Miller, what is the balance for that? Because obviously there are finite resources, although clearly, you know, an enormous amount of resources are being applied. In this case, it's still finite.

But that said, any one of these tips could potentially lead them in the right direction. I mean, as someone who's been an investigator, how do you think about this?

MILLER: Well, you think about it like triage in an emergency room. What are the tips that rise to the top? One tip says she's being, you know, held by Martians on the planet X, that goes to the bottom.

[16:15:03]

A tip that says, here's a car and a license plate. And here's what was suspicious about it. And here's what I saw, you know, that will -- that will get resources faster.

But I'm not sure in this case that the resources are finite. You've got the Pima County sheriff's department, which then today brought in all the other law enforcement agencies in the area to contribute people and resources. And you have the FBI, which is Steve will tell you if the tip is on the ground there. They've got agents from Phoenix who have been shipped in. They've got agents there, they've got agents from Quantico have been shipped in. You have all those other departments, they'll cover those leads.

But more importantly, as Steve Moore knows, if the lead says in Henderson, Nevada, there's a sighting that was very suspicious. They'll call the Las Vegas field office, the New York field office, the L.A. field office. And they'll put people out on the street right away. There's a lot of resources in this case.

HUNT: Steve Moore. I mean, can you speak a little bit to that? I mean, what this looks like from a from a broad picture and especially given the time horizon here, you know, the hours that have gone by, I mean, it's possible she could be very far from Tucson. No?

MOORE: Yeah. There -- there is a possibility she could. But I don't think we're working -- I don't think logical investigation would take that as a -- as a high priority. And as John said, the FBI can just flood, they can outdo the number of hotel rooms in the Phoenix area just to get agents in there.

What they're looking for in these tips, they could have teams off of -- teams working on five tips at a time. But what they might be doing is looking for connections. You say you have 20 people come up with the same name as a possibility. Those things rise to the top. And so, it was -- you know, it's -- it is -- there is some science to it, but a hundred leads, believe it or not, I don't think that's a whole bunch.

I mean, John may remember we were getting 100 tips in L.A. an hour after 9/11. So, this is -- these may be more focused tips, and we don't know how many of the tips actually agree with each other.

HUNT: All right. John Miller, Steve Moore, thank you both very much. Or I think you may stand by for us because we -- we're possibly going to continue this conversation throughout the hour.

But coming up next here in THE ARENA, we are going to talk with someone at the center of one of the country's most infamous kidnaping cases. Ed Smart, who is, of course, the father of Elizabeth Smart, will be here in THE ARENA.

Plus, who asked what to do and when. The White House's evolving story on the search of that Georgia elections center.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:12]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

We are continuing to follow breaking news out of Arizona as authorities search for Nancy Guthrie. The little evidence in this case is similar to one that happened nearly 24 years ago. And we are going to talk to the father of Elizabeth Smart later on in the hour. But we're going to shift gears here, and we're going to talk a little bit about politics. We're going to bring our panel in.

The White House today is once again downplaying President Trump's suggestion that the federal government take over U.S. elections, emphasizing that when Trump called Republicans to, quote, "nationalize" the voting earlier in the week, he was in fact referencing the SAVE Act, a piece of legislation that has reignited a longstanding debate over voter identification and election security.

President Trump himself explained his comments in an interview with NBC yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM LLAMAS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: You've recently suggested nationalizing elections. What do you mean by that?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When -- and I didn't say national, I said there are some areas in our country that are extremely corrupt. They have very corrupt elections.

Take a look at Detroit, take a look at Philadelphia, take a look at Atlanta. There are some areas that are unbelievably corrupt. I could give you plenty of more, too.

I say that we cannot have corrupt elections, if we have to -- if they don't straighten it out. As an example, voter ID, why don't the Democrats want voter ID? Do you know who does want voter ID? Democrat voters want it, but Democrat politicians don't.

Why don't they want it? Because they want to cheat on elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. My panel is here in THE ARENA.

CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN political director, Washington bureau chief David Chalian; former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield, former Trump campaign adviser David Urban, of course, both CNN political commentators.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.

David Chalian, what do these cities that the president listed have in common?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, they're all blue cities.

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They're all corrupt.

CHALIAN: So there's that. I will note that they are cities in states he just won in 2024. He won Pennsylvania, which has Philadelphia inside of it, obviously, in Philadelphia. He won Michigan. He won Georgia. And yet he's still on this because he's really going back to 2020 where he lost these states. And obviously that is still something that is under his skin.

I just -- I think we've been pretty clear in dispatching with the notion that, like, it's not constitutional to nationalize the election. So we can leave that to the side.

But just listening to this interview, when the interview has to ask, what did you mean by that? And he says, I didn't say that. And his staff and members of his party on the Hill are all scrambling to define what he means by that.

He means exactly what he said.

[16:25:00]

He means that he wants to take control of these local elections because he believes, wrongly, that they are completely fraudulent.

HUNT: Yeah. And I want to play a little bit more also of what he said about a third term in this interview, which is, you know, another one, David, references -- well, you should believe what he has to say about things. You know, the White House has often said he's joking when he talks about this particular topic. Let's watch his latest comments about this particular topic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LLAMAS: On January 21st, 2029, do you see any scenario where you are still president?

TRUMP: I don't know. It would be interesting, but wouldn't it be terrible if I agreed with you, if I gave you the answer that you're looking for, it would make life so much less exciting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: It would make life so much less exciting, David Urban?

URBAN: He's trolling everybody. Come on, the guys going. Listen, the worst part is going to be can you imagine? Let's say J.D. Vance is the nominee. He's going to be our nominee. Do you want to be sitting on your J.D. Vance out campaigning? And guess who's sitting on the couch at home tweeting all day long? Donald J. Trump. That's almost worse than a third term for poor J.D. Vance, right?

He is joking. But what he's not joking about is, you know, our Harry Enten had a very good piece this past week on voter ID. It's not controversial, 83 percent of Americans support voter ID and overwhelming support, something in the high 70s amongst African Americans. People of color support voter ID.

The SAVE Act is something that needs to be passed. We need to have people have IDs to go to vote. And this is the president's game.

You know, he puts a piece way out here and he wants to negotiate back to here. Wants to talk about something here. So, something outrageous, and we retreat to something that's not outrageous. Passing the SAVE Act, having voter ID, people want to see it. We have more secure elections. And we're chatting very briefly.

We need to do better in elections. We need to know on election night who wins. We should -- we shouldn't have to wait for like two weeks. In some cases, we sit on the sets on this network and we worry about, is there going to be like a protracted outcome of this, of this election.

In India, Brazil, other countries on election day, they know who wins. We could do better in America.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think treating what Donald Trump is saying here as a good faith effort to ensure that our elections are somehow fair, is ludicrous. I mean, that is -- that is maybe the most, I --

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: Kate doesn't agree with me. Kate doesn't agree with me. She's shocked. I'm shocked.

BEDINGFIELD: I don't want to call it laughable because of his record of actively saying --

HUNT: She's usually pretty measured. Ludicrous is very strong for Kate. BEDINGFIELD: Trying to undermine our elections. This is the person

who has -- who spent months and months after he lost the election in 2020 trying to -- trying to force Republican officials in the state of Georgia to find votes, trying to interfere in the courts aiding and abetting a mob on January 6th, attacking the Capitol in his name.

So, the idea that we would have this conversation and even suggest that it's about trying to improve, the integrity of our elections when it's really about Donald Trump not ever wanting to admit that he has lost an election.

URBAN: Okay. But we need to improve --

BEDINGFIELD: And it's about --

URBAN: Do we need to improve the integrity of our elections?

BEDINGFIELD: And it's about --

URBAN: You agree that we do?

BEDINGFIELD: Of course, we should have safe and fair elections, and we do.

URBAN: And we should pass the SAVE Act. We agree? We agree?

BEDINGFIELD: And we have for 200 -- we have for 250 years in this country. Right? I mean, as you know well.

URBAN: We agree?

BEDINGFIELD: So this is also Donald Trump trying to lay the groundwork for a midterm election that he expects in November is not going to be good for his party. And he's trying to sow distrust now. And it is a dangerous thing.

HUNT: The backdrop of this, Lulu, is that the FBI just went to Fulton, Georgia, with the director of national intelligence to seize voting boxes.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Sure did. And she has absolutely 0.00 percent to use some voting language here of authority over that. So, what she is doing there is anyone's good guess because, you know, last I heard, the DNI -- the head of the DNI isn't supposed to be going and looking at ballots from an election that happened now six years ago.

You know, and this is the thing that I think is really worrying people. You know, when you look at what Donald Trump has done, regardless of what he said, because I have before talked about how everyone is always scrambling to, you know, kind of gussy up his language when you look at what he's done. He is not trustworthy on this issue.

And so, therefore, you know, people have real concerns about whether our elections are secure and safe, not because of how the ballots are counted, but because who is sitting in the White House.

HUNT: David, I mean, you have been involved in, you know, not the direct counting of votes, but certainly the reading of them, as --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Don't put that out there, don't put it out there.

HUNT: Yes. But you understand kind of the way this -- the way the system works, the way the system doesn't work. What do you think is actually needed? Because, I mean, I do take the point. I mean, New York and California, like counting in house races is --

CHALIAN: Sign me up to have results in on that.

(CROSSTALK)

[16:30:02]

URBAN: I'm a consensus builder, Kasie. This is great. Loving this.

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: I wish that were the case.

Listen, first of all, we don't vote in one way. So, like because it is a diffuse system and it is decentralized, Americans vote in lots of different ways. We saw obviously with the with COVID like that, there was a big increase in mail voting. And states have different rules about when those mail ballots can be legitimately returned and counted.

That's why none of that is illegitimate. Those are the rules of the road. I'm not suggesting people can't get together and change those rules to make it more uniform, but those are the rules of the road and they're legitimate.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But I want to ask this to David Urban, because, you know, as a former military person, what you're actually saying is you would disenfranchise the military because a lot of what that -- a lot of the reason that it takes so long is because people are overseas. Those ballots take a while to come in and you want to be -- they want to vote on election day, and you're waiting for them to actually be counted in.

URBAN: Listen, the state of Florida --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's not easy.

URBAN: The state of Florida -- I live in the state of Florida. You mail -- I vote by absentee ballot because I'm campaigning lots of places, right? So, I put in the mail and then on election day, guess what? They magically open them on election day. Just mail your stuff in earlier. It can happen.

There's -- there's so many ways to make the system run more functionally, and Americans deserve better because what sows distrust in America is all these like, you know, all these like, you know, urban legends, you know, what's going on in different places because people don't know.

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: The president, you know David, fans the flames of what you're calling urban legends and sows discord. What would also help the system is to encourage confidence in the system, not encourage --

(CROSSTALK)

BEDINGFIELD: Question the integrity of an election, that of a state, of a city, of a jurisdiction that he won?

URBAN: No, no.

BEDINGFIELD: Has he ever.

URBAN: No. But listen -- but let's go. Let's just -- let's go.

BEDINGFIELD: Be concerned about fraud here. No, because this is not a conversation he's having on the level. It's not.

URBAN: I think that if we -- if we just started with the basics, let's just have a voter ID, let's everybody have a vote -- that builds so much confidence in this system. You want to take away doubt. You want to take away distrust, have people have to have an ID, you have an ID?

HUNT: No one is arguing that. You're not making sense.

URBAN: No, I'm saying --

HUNT: You're not parroting what the president is doing.

URBAN: I'm channeling the president here, Kasie. I'm channeling the president.

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: Okay, listen, this is what we need to do. We need. There are so many easy ways to fix this in America.

(CROSSTALK)

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right. Let's talk about voter ID for one second -- last, last, last idea.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: -- going to have my head. So last one.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, but the last idea on this. You want to talk about voter IDs. Let's talk about it. The problem with the SAVE Act is not that it's like you can bring your driver's license.

URBAN: You can.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's you're asking -- you're actually asking for a passport or a birth certificate. And a lot of people don't have those.

URBAN: Proof of citizenship.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: A lot of people don't have those.

HUNT: You know, where your birth certificate is?

URBAN: Yeah.

HUNT: Okay. Well, I think you're in the minority of Americans.

URBAN: I'm just responsible. That's why.

HUNT: I mean, I am, I am, I am, too. But anyway.

All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, we're going to have more for the search on the search for Nancy Guthrie. Our interview with Ed Smart, the father of Elizabeth Smart, is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:37:22]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANOS: What's going on? People are always asking, do I believe she's alive? Absolutely, absolutely. Theres nothing to say she isn't. And so we have to live on that. And we have to that -- that, I hope, keeps us motivated. Because we do know the dangers of each passing day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: We are continuing to follow the breaking news out of Arizona as authorities search for Nancy Guthrie. The little evidence in this case is similar to one nearly 24 years ago. In June 2002, 14 year old Elizabeth Smart was taken from her bed in the middle of the night, she shared a room with her younger sister, who eventually identified the voice she heard that night, and Elizabeth was found alive nine months after being taken.

Earlier, I spoke with Elizabeth's father.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: And Ed Smart joins us now.

Ed, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. I think -- I just want to start this is an experience that your family went through, was forced to go through. Obviously, you had an ending. That is the ending everyone prays for.

What would you say to Savannah Guthrie and her family as they navigate this without knowing what the end is going to look like?

ED SMART, FATHER OF KIDNAPPING SURVIVOR ELIZABETH SMART: You know, it's something that's so surreal that you can't imagine that its actually happening to you. And certainly, you know, we had to look at this. I mean, I had this this feeling inside that Elizabeth was still out there. And I've talked with a number of families and some have a feeling for how the situation might be.

But my message to her would be to, you know, keep the faith and keep hope alive until there's some other word out there. You know, her, their hope and their faith, you know, can help sustain her and keep her alive. I really appreciated the fact that in her letter that she was reading, that she spoke to her mother and, you know, tried to let her know that they were doing everything possible to try and get her back and how wonderful, what a wonderful person she is.

So, I -- you know, our hearts go out to Savannah and her family. It's such an incredibly difficult time.

[16:40:02]

But staying positive and moving forward in a -- in a meaningful way is really the most important thing that can be done.

HUNT: So, of course, I know every story is different. Your story with Elizabeth is different than what Savannah is going through with her mother. But can you take us into how it feels to have to grapple with what to do when someone says, give me something and I'll give you this person that you love more than anything in the world, back to you.

SMART: You know, there wasn't any question that we were willing to do whatever we had to get Elizabeth back, and we, you know, certainly worked and cooperated with law enforcement, which was -- is so important. And following their directive you know, unfortunately, people, whether they are legitimate or in, in this case, I've heard that -- they've had, you know, someone that was trying to extort money from them and was arrested this morning that that same thing happened with us.

So, you know, everyone comes crawling out from under these dark places and you know, you have to deal with it as best you can, but certainly, you know, there isn't a price tag that you can place on a person's head. That is such an important part of your life. So, you know, we certainly wanted to do everything that we needed to, to bring Elizabeth home. And I'm sure that, you know, Savannah and her family feel the same way, but it just seems unbelievable that that can be something that somebody would come after and abduct an elderly person to, you know, get a ransom. I mean, it's just unbelievable.

HUNT: Can you help us understand? In these early days, the FBI acknowledged at their press conference they were at the home with the family. Obviously, they put out this video in public.

What is the advice families are given in these situations from the FBI? What are they trying to protect? Can you help us understand a little bit better how they think about these situations and how they advise families?

SMART: You know, I know that we initially had you know, the police came and did a full search of the house and processed it. The FBI came in, did the same thing, and, you know, they have to essentially clear the family. And once that's done, they're moving on to -- we did not work directly with the FBI. I mean, I spoke with them a number of times, but we were not with them on a daily basis, as it appears savannah and her family are, but certainly taking the directive from them.

Also, I mean, I felt like there was a real advantage to having a buffer in between law enforcement and the family because I think, you know, law enforcement have their agenda. And of course, most of the time, that agenda is the same agenda that the family has. But sometimes there are conflicting issues that come up. And being able to have someone there to help be kind of a liaison with law enforcement is very helpful.

It, you know, gives you a little breathing space. And you're not just following their directive all the time. Certainly, in our case my brothers, my siblings were out there, you know, doing their own type of detective work and trying to follow up on information that they received. And, you know, everybody's different. So it's difficult.

I certainly believe strongly in working with law enforcement to the best of their ability and our ability, but we also, you know, felt like, you know, is there something that's being missed? And, and there was in our case.

HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough. These situations just absolutely so difficult.

Ed Smart, I do appreciate you taking some time to be with us today. Thank you.

SMART: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Anyone with information about Nancy Guthrie's disappearance is encouraged to contact the Pima County Sheriff's Department at 520-351-4900, or the FBI's tip line, 1-800-CALL-FBI.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[16:45:01]

HUNT: And ahead, here in THE ARENA, the he said/she said over the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and why Democrats are sounding the alarm.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What do you think the objective was with Tulsi Gabbard? And do you think that she is trying to interfere with the 2026 midterms?

REP. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I think unfortunately, it appears there may be a coordinated effort to try to interfere in the '26 midterms. They may even start to interfere prior to in the primaries.

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

Joining me now in THE ARENA to continue our conversation about President Trump's calls to nationalize future elections, Democratic congressman from Maryland, Jamie Raskin.

[16:50:01]

He's also the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman, it's always great to have you on the show. Thank you for being here.

Now, you, of course, are also a professor of constitutional law. So, let's read together the relevant portion of the United States Constitution. Article One, Section Four, clause one. It says, quote, "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. But the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators."

So, what, in your view, does this say about what the president is proposing to do here?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, notice the president is not mentioned anywhere. The states are the primary regulators of federal elections for members of the House and the Senate, and Congress can decide to regulate over the states, as we've done under Article One, Section Four, and under Section Five of the 14th Amendment with the Voting Rights Act.

But of course, Donald Trump and MAGA have been at war with the Voting Rights Act, which is an attempt to make sure that everybody gets the right to vote. They want to create a magical new power that the president of the United States himself has to go around and to mop up voter data from the states to do God knows what with either to go back and to try to revive his absolute fantasy that he won the 2020 election, or more likely to look ahead in order to deny people the right to vote.

So the president doesn't have a formal constitutional role. And when people say, well, is he going to cancel the midterm elections? He's got no power to do that. I mean, we had midterm congressional elections in the middle of the Civil War, in the middle of World War Two. Why would we cancel them now? It makes no sense.

HUNT: All right. Congressman, of course, the president's allies say that this is all about the SAVE Act, which would require voter ID, although a fairly stringent form of it. Voter ID is supported by the majority of Americans. But there are Democrats on the hill. You voted against this.

Why not support voter ID? RASKIN: Well, look, first of all, this is not a problem that people

are identifying or recognizing in the states, the states and local governments are perfectly capable of identifying when there are problems. This is obviously being cooked up by Donald Trump to justify his persistent and utterly bogus claim that he won the 2020 election, when Biden beat him by more than seven million votes.

But what's wrong with the SAVE Act? What's wrong with it is that it might violate the 19th Amendment, which gives women the right to vote, because you've got to show that all of your different IDs match. So, if you're a woman who's gotten married and you've changed your name to your husband's name, but your -- so now your current name is different from your name at birth, now you've got to go ahead and document that. You need an affidavit explaining why.

And why would we go to all of these troubles in order to keep people from voting when none of the states that are actually running the elections are telling us that there's any problem?

HUNT: All right. We're running out of time. So, I want to shift gears to talk about Jeffrey Epstein, because, of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton are slated to talk to the House Oversight Committee to testify. Hillary Clinton today out there saying, let's turn on the cameras. Let's do it in public.

Do you think the Clintons are handling this situation the right way?

RASKIN: Well, look, they have entered into an agreement to come in and testify. So, yes, absolutely. I mean, unlike Attorney General Bondi, who is withholding three out of 6 million documents that were supposed to be turned over and meantime failed to redact the names, the identities, the ages, the other kinds of identifying information from actual victims.

So, the Clintons seem to be complying with their subpoena, and they're coming forward, and they're saying that they want to testify as they should, as everybody should, who's subpoenaed by Congress. But we have a major problem with the Trump administration working with the Department of Justice to continue to sandbag the investigation and withhold millions of documents that have been compelled by subpoena and by a federal law.

HUNT: What kind of precedent does it set to have a former president come in to testify under subpoena?

RASKIN: It sets a very clear precedent. You know, I know that Chairman Comer has been patting himself on the back, that he's bringing the Clintons in because he views this through an entirely partisan lens, which is pathetic. He's not listening to the actual survivors and the victims of this billion dollar international child sex trafficking ring, which really profoundly damaged and impaired the lives of hundreds or thousands of people.

[16:55:12]

But in any event, you know, he's chortling because the Clintons are coming in. But what it means, of course, is that every future president, every future ex-president, including the current occupant of the White House, will be subject to subpoena.

HUNT: Fair enough.

Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, thanks very much for your time, sir. I appreciate it.

RASKIN: You bet.

HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Thanks to my panel for being here today. I really appreciate your time. Really appreciate all of you at home for watching as well.

But don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is here. He is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Jake.