Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Seahawks And Patriots Face-off On The NFL's Biggest Stage; Uber Held Liable In Sexual Assault Case, Ordered To Pay Passenger $8.5 Million Over Claim Driver Raped Her; TMZ's Harvey Levin Says The Purported Ransom Note Was Very Detailed And Said This Is The Only Contact; First Deadline In Purported Ransom Note Passed, Second On Monday; Judge Orders Release Of Video From CBP Shooting Of U.S. Citizen. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired February 06, 2026 - 14:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yeah.

MALCOLM BUTLER, GAME-SEALING INT FOR PATS IN SUPER BOWL XLIX: But I said, I'm just going to do my job. And I went against the odds. They did, too. It didn't work out right. God made a move like he was going to do something. And I said, I'm going to do something, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOLES: Yeah, Boris, Seahawks fans certainly don't want the game to come down to the play on the one-yard line, that's for sure.

(LAUGH)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Why didn't Pete Carroll hand the ball off to Marshawn Lynch for that one-yard run that would have secured a second consecutive Super Bowl beast mode as the MVP? It confounds me to this day. Andy Scholes live in San Francisco for us.

SCHOLES: Would have changed history.

SANCHEZ: History, man.

SCHOLES: Yeah.

SANCHEZ: A new hour of "CNN News Central" starts right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": A new plea and deadline. Nancy Guthrie's son making an appeal to her abductor or alleged abductor as we learn new details about the purported ransom notes. Plus, bipartisan outrage. President Trump sharing a racist video on Truth Social and removing the post then hours later, what the White House is now saying about all this. And Uber implications, the rideshare company found liable in a lawsuit brought by a woman who said she was sexually assaulted by a driver. Ahead, how this could influence thousands of similar cases.

We are following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

Right now, officials are working to determine if several purported ransom notes in the abduction of Nancy Guthrie are real. Harvey Levin, the founder of TMZ, told CNN that the letter his news outlet received included a detail that has not been reported, the placement of Nancy Guthrie's Apple Watch, and he also shared that the note stated that the 84-year-old is "OK but scared," but it didn't leave a way to communicate going forward. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARVEY LEVIN, TMZ FOUNDER, RECEIVED PURPORTED RANSOM LETTER: The letter says you will have no way of contacting me. This is the only contact. So, that's why they're pleading for proof of life. That's why they are begging because they have no idea how to get in touch with this person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: We're joined now by Mary Ellen O'Toole. She's a former Senior FBI Profiler and Special Agent. Mary Ellen, you heard Harvey Levin there. He also said his sense was that this came from someone in the Tucson area. What do you think that this could tell us about the veracity of these potential ransom notes which, at this point, we just don't even know if they're real?

MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SENIOR FBI PROFILER AND SPECIAL AGENT: Right, and we won't know until law enforcement gets a very specific confirmation that they are, but they have to investigate it as though it was real. That's the issue. You can't just look at it and say yeah, no, I don't think so. You really have to follow through and be as thorough as possible, and that's what they're doing.

Because at this point, it would just be an opinion. It's fake, it's not fake, and you can't do that with something as serious as this. So that's why it's frustrating, but that's why you see them handling it the way that they're handling it.

KEILAR: Law enforcement yesterday seemed to say that it was unusual that there wasn't a way to get in touch with whoever had sent these ransom notes. You know, we also live in a time where it's easier for law enforcement to trace communications. Is that in your experience unusual that there wouldn't be a way for the family to get in touch with someone who'd send a ransom note to establish, yeah, this is real?

O'TOOLE: I would say it would be unusual, but maybe not for 2026. I mean 25 years ago, you would get a phone call that would say this is where you drop the money and leave at this particular time. And obviously, you could trace that.

But nowadays, if someone is going to carry out a kidnapping like this and they're unusual, we don't see that many like this. The offender is very likely going to do everything that they can to construct the crime, construct the notes, so that they can't be identified or located. So it makes sense. And I don't think we can compare it to, say, 20 years ago, 25 years ago, when the technology just wasn't there to be able to do that.

KEILAR: And there's this second deadline in this purported note on Monday, and Harvey Levin called it far more consequential, which I -- you know, that's just something that's very concerning as he says that. What do you make of that? Why have two deadlines?

O'TOOLE: That is very concerning when he describes it like that, and I'm not sure what he means. The implication is that something terrible could happen to the victim.

[14:05:00]

And maybe that's too extreme, but that I think that's what a lot of people are thinking that there could be extreme consequences for not following through. And I think that's why we saw the video that we saw the second video by Camron that laid out what the expectations are, which included making sure that the information that was transactional -- if we do A, you'll do B. And then he also said that we're ready. We are ready to follow through, but we need this from you, talking to the note writer who could also possibly be the kidnapper.

They're working on that. But Camron said we're ready to move, but we need this. And I think that's very important because the kidnapper has to think -- if the note writer is the kidnapper, he has to think I did all this in part for money, so I'm going to walk away now. So now, he's in the position where he has to decide what to do next, so I thought that that was really well done.

And I also thought that they kind of changed their wording a little bit on that proof of life. They didn't say that. What they said was confirmed that you have our mother. There was no proof of life statement there, and I thought that was significant as well.

KEILAR: Yeah, I mean, it seems that there has to be an understanding by whoever would be holding Nancy Guthrie that they have to provide something, right? I mean, because anyone could send a note. There has to be this understanding that they have to be able to take these steps in order to show that they are who they say they are, or anyone can make these demands.

O'TOOLE: Anyone can make them an and the real kidnapper, whether that's the author of these notes or someone else that's monitoring the best investigation has to be motivated to follow through with providing some information to be able to resolve the case in the way that they wanted to resolve it, which is to get money.

That may not have been the only motive in this case, but that probably was one of the motives. So they've got to be motivated. And then the outcome is, does that person just walk away and say, yeah, I'm done with it. Five, six days, they didn't follow my instructions. I'm out of here. Not likely -- not likely.

KEILAR: Yeah, it's a very good point, and it seems like a reasonable expectation of the situation. Mary Ellen O'Toole, thank you so much for your insights. Appreciate it. Boris?

O'TOOLE: You are welcome.

SANCHEZ: A federal judge today ordered the Trump administration release body cam footage showing a Border Patrol agent shoot a Chicago protester last year. The decision clears the way for the release of key evidence, including text messages in the case of protester Marimar Martinez, a U.S. citizen who was shot five times.

CNN Anchor and Correspondent, Omar Jimenez was at today's hearing. So Omar, when should we expect that evidence to go public?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, so there's a little bit of a process that needs to take place right now in terms of redacting certain things. But as we understand, at the earliest, we would see some of this evidence come out on Monday, as the attorney for Martinez told me after the hearing itself.

Now, to give people an idea of what exactly we're expecting to see, obviously, the body camera video of this actual incident, I should note, it doesn't actually show the moment of the shooting itself because the shooting -- the shooting agent, while he had a body camera, it was not on.

And so, the body camera video that we will see will be from the perspective of other agents that sort of shows what leads up to the actual collision between the vehicles and then how quickly then you will hear gunshots on audio, I guess, at that point after that initial collision. So that's one aspect we're expecting.

But another aspect that the attorney believes is even more significant is a batch of text messages that this agent was sending to other agents and his family in the immediate aftermath of this shooting. Why? Because he believes it gets more broadly to how the Department of Homeland Security and its agents react and handle incidents like these that we know have now taken place in other cities across the country.

Minneapolis, for example, his attorney or her attorney said that Martinez specifically noted that and was motivated by what happened there in trying to get out some of these messages. Take a listen to her attorney and how he characterized things after this hearing today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER PARENTE, MARIMAR MARTINEZ'S ATTORNEY: Judges essentially, you know, ruled fully in Mrs. Martinez's favor. Everything can be released. We are going to release the body cam video, which again, I don't want to get your hopes up, but it's not going to be dispositive either way because the agent was not wearing his body camera. So I know we're talking about there's funding for this. He had a body camera. He did not have it on.

[14:10:00]

So, as we debate whether these cameras need to be funded, we should also debate instructing agents to turn on their body cameras because that would have solved everything here and would have saved a lot of time and money for Ms. Martinez. The second thing is the text messages.

So, remember, there were 220 text messages by Agent Exum. We were given 20 and then the judge ordered them to give us another 20. So now, there's 40 in total, we'll release all of them. Some are obviously more interesting than others, but those will all be released.

And then, you're going to see in the discovery itself, some really good things that just completely destroy the credibility of the narrative that she drove at these agents, that they were boxed in. And again, it's why the case was dismissed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: And Boris, again, on that last point, the criminal charges against her levied by the government were dropped at the request of the government, despite the government continuing to refer to her as a domestic terrorist. And that's part of what's motivating, at least this aspect to release more of this, is that even after those charges have been dropped, you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Her attorney is saying, well, the government is acting as though she was convicted of being a domestic terrorist and continues to characterize her in that manner. And this release of evidence is the only way that she can significantly push back and clear her name, as they describe, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Omar Jimenez, live for us in Chicago. Thank you so much, Omar.

Still to come, a major verdict rocking Uber as a jury finds the company liable in a high-profile safety case. See how this decision could reshape the ride-hailing industry. Plus, Donald Trump sharing a racist video depicting the Obamas as apes. It sparked bipartisan outrage. The White House initially claimed it was fake outrage. Now, they say it was a mistake.

And later, A.I. is reshaping the job market, forcing teens to rethink their career plans before graduation. We'll discuss next on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:34]

KEILAR: A bellwether case for the ride-hailing industry could influence thousands of other cases. According to "The New York Times," a federal jury in Phoenix has ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to passenger Jaylynn Dean. Dean filed a lawsuit against the company saying her Uber driver raped her during a ride in 2023.

Uber has long maintained it's not responsible for driver's misconduct because drivers are independent contractors, not employees. The jury rejected that defense.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, but "The Times" reports the jury's award fell away short of the $144 million Dean's lawyers were asking for. It did not find that the company's actions were outrageous, oppressive or intolerable, and did not create substantial risk or harm. In a statement to "The New York Times," a spokesperson for Uber says, quote, "This verdict affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in riders' safety. We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do."

Uber says it plans to appeal. Experts say this ruling now provides a legal road map for thousands of similar cases across the country.

CNN Legal Analyst, Joey Jackson joins us now. Joey, what is your reaction to this ruling?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is huge, Boris and Brianna. Spin this however you want. If you're Uber, you are very concerned about future liability. Why? Uber has defended these cases with great success, making one argument. And that argument is, is that every driver is an independent contractor. They're not controlled by us. We don't control the terms and conditions of their employment. And by the way, they're not employees at all.

They decide when they want to drive, where they want to drive, whether they want to deny driving or taking a specific job. And as a result of that, you can't sue us because the law essentially is, we all know, that if you are an employee to an employer and you do something in the scope of that work, your employer is responsible. Uber has been able to say, because we're not an employee-employer relationship, too bad, so sad, you're on your own.

Well, guess what, Boris and Brianna? There was a loophole here. And what the attorneys argued successfully was that, OK, you are independent contractors, but isn't there something called the parent authority? Doesn't a person, when they show up to get into a car, believe that that driver is an agent of Uber, they're trained by Uber, and otherwise Uber is warranting, essentially because you're doing all these safety campaigns, that it's OK to get into the car?

And do I not detrimentally rely, based on your branding and marketing, when I see that nice Uber symbol and I'm always told you're so safe, do I not detrimentally rely upon you when I get in that car and something happens to me? And so they made that argument, and the jury said, yes, in fact, you are an agent, the driver of Uber, and as a result, that's how we capture you into the net of liability.

And so you could say, hey, no big deal, the jury verdict is inconsistent. They didn't say we were negligent, and the jury did not, to be clear, say that Uber was negligent in any way, that it was a defective product, but they did say that that driver was an agent. They did say that the passengers rely detrimentally when they get into that car, and they did say that there was liability here. So this is a huge deal, and it is a shockwave in terms of the other cases that are pending -- 3,000 of them, by the way, to be heard in the future.

[14:20:00]

KEILAR: Yeah, because $8.5 million, I mean, you'd think, how much is that for Uber? Well, $8.5 million times 3,000, right? That's a lot.

So, what do you see changing here in terms of maybe how Uber does business or how they let people know? I mean, if it is said when you went into your app, you're taking this ride at your own risk, I mean, would that somehow veto this warranting? What do you think?

JACKSON: So I think they could never do that because people then would be, it'd be horrific for business, right? You'd never, Brianna, Boris, get into some kind of car where it says, hey, you know, you're at your own risk. Good luck, too bad, so sad.

And so let's talk first about the appeal. Oh, we're going to appeal. That's dangerous because let's go back to what you just said, Brianna. $8.5 million, nothing for Uber. You times that by 3,000 cases that are pending, that's $25 billion. So let's say they appeal. And let's say, for example, that the appellate court, which is the 9th Circuit here in Arizona, says, you know what? Why are you appealing? We affirm, you do do branding that says you're safe. You do do branding, in essence, warranting that the driver is trained, they're responsible. The driver is your agent.

Now, these other 3,000 lawyers, right? There's blood in the water. Wait a second, there's a path to get Uber? Remember what happened here. The jury did not award punitive damages. Let me explain briefly. Punitive damages are designed to punish. They just awarded the jury, when I say just, $8.5 million is a lot of money. They awarded those damages to compensate this rape victim for what she had to endure, lost wages, what she will endure in the future, the fact that she's struggling mentally, the dark is really a bad thing for her because of what happened. That compensates you for your losses.

Punitive damages punishes Uber, saying, hey, you acted in such a violent, intentional way that it's going to be a problem. Now, why am I talking about that? Because they didn't award them. I'm talking about it because imagine, Brianna, I just told you 3,000 times $8.5 million is $25 billion. Imagine in those lawsuits that jurors decide, now that there's a path to get Uber liable, that we are going to award punitive damages. Could you imagine? Here, they asked for about $127 million by way of punitive damages, didn't get any.

But what if the next case is egregious enough to get those punitive damages? Then you got a problem. And so, I see this as a whirlwind. It's a sea change here, and it leads to a lot of issues. Of course, Uber is saying that we're going to look at the app. We're going to allow women to be paired with women. We're going to look at the assessment and risk in terms of when you're getting picked up, et cetera.

But boy, oh boy, is this sending shockwaves in the industry now, and if they're going to appeal and it's their right, they really better think carefully. Because if that court affirms, everybody is going to smell blood and say, hey, I'm not settling, I'm going and I'm getting my money. So we'll see what happens in the future. KEILAR: Yeah, really interesting. Joey, thank you so much, really appreciate it, Joey Jackson.

And still to come, what was your first job?

SANCHEZ: I had many. I worked at a CVS photo lab.

KEILAR: The stories are great.

(LAUGH)

SANCHEZ: I worked at the mall selling jeans, I had a tagline I had to say when people walked in.

KEILAR: I did the jeans at the mall.

SANCHEZ: Yeah?

KEILAR: Folding the shirts --

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

KEILAR: -- the little thing with the -- yeah.

SANCHEZ: Check out -- everybody, check out our jeans, we have the sexiest fits. I had to say it to everybody that walked in.

KEILAR: Yeah, I didn't have to say that. I just --

SANCHEZ: You say it now, though.

(LAUGH)

KEILAR: Yeah, I -- all the time. So we're going to talk about how high schoolers are facing a very different job market because of A.I. We'll have that and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

[14:28:20]

KEILAR: We all remember our first job, right? Well, today's high school students will face a very different world when it comes to careers and A.I. is a big reason why. The way it's revolutionizing companies as we speak could make finding an entry-level position a huge challenge for the next generation of workers. Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei estimates that half of all white-collar entry-level jobs could be wiped out here in the next few years. Let's talk to CNN Tech Reporter, Clare Duffy about this.

Clare, how is this impacting the way young people are looking for work?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Right, Brianna, we have heard so much about the impact of A.I. on entry-level jobs and so I was really curious how high school students are responding to this. And what I found is that this is really top of mind for so many students right now. I heard about students deciding to change their career plans to focus on fields like health care that they think will be more A.I.- proof.

Other students who are trying to learn how to apply A.I. to their future jobs. And I'll just walk you through three of the high school students who I spoke with who had sort of different perspectives on this.

I talked to Savilla Ruby Brodhead. She's a junior from California. She said she doesn't use A.I. very much right now because she's worried about it negatively impacting her critical thinking abilities, but she does worry about what it could mean for her dream career as a dancer or theater actor. She told me, my concern is for acting because there was that issue with using actor's faces and voices for A.I., especially seeing how much A.I. visual art has been used and that it's putting actual artists out of work who are already struggling enough. She said, I hate it.

Sort of on the other end of the spectrum, I spoke with Lincoln Vonk. He's a sophomore from Georgia. He said he is hoping to be a politician or a business owner, and he's already trying to learn how to use A.I., for example, to write up mock bills.