Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Guthrie's Neighbors asked for Video; Calls for Bondi's Resignation; Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) is Interviewed about the Bondi Hearing; Numbers on the Democratic Party; Ivo Daalder is Interviewed about NATO; Instagram CEO Testifies in Social Media Trial. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired February 12, 2026 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:49]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, breaking this morning, in the search for Nancy Guthrie, authorities are now on the lookout for a what they think could be a suspicious vehicle. And the sheriff sent out an alert to Guthrie's neighbor in Arizona asking them to check their doorbell camera footage on two specific days. You're getting a picture right now of the actual alert that neighbors got. It says, "look at the dates January 11th between 9:00 p.m. and midnight. Now, that's significant because it's three weeks before Nancy Guthrie disappeared. They also want folks to look for January 31st between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. That's the day Guthrie was last seen. She went missing that night. They have a feeling there was a suspicious vehicle spotted around 10:00 a.m. that day.

Let's get to CNN's Leigh Waldman, who's on the scene there with all these new developments.

Good morning, Leigh.

LEIGH WALDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.

So, with that alert, something else that's standing out to us is kind of near the top of it. There's a line from the alert and it says they're piecing together, quote, "a new timeline in this case." That's why they're asking neighbors around this area who have those Ring doorbell cameras to go ahead and look at those specific dates, January 11th and January 31st. There's no description of what that suspicious vehicle is in this instance, but they are asking neighbors to go through, check their footage and to submit anything that they can from those two dates.

This comes, as we know, the FBI has been canvasing the area around Nancy Guthrie's home, looking for any clues that might have been left behind by the people or persons involved in this case here. This comes after that doorbell camera footage was released showing that armed person, that person with a mask over their face, a backpack on. Our CNN team has been analyzing that video. They have determined the kind of backpack that it is. An Ozark Trail backpack. Investigators looking into that specific kind of backpack.

This also comes as "The New York Post" is reporting that investigators have picked up a black glove, seemingly, they believe, related to this. But investigators not saying at this point if that black glove is the one that the person in that video was wearing that day.

Now, that was found less than two miles away from Nancy Guthrie's home. But we know this has been an extensive search that is continuing on almost two weeks after Nancy Guthrie disappeared from her home here.

BERMAN: Obviously, time is of the essence, but interesting they're going back and looking at specific times now almost three weeks ago or more in some cases.

Leigh Waldman, thank you very much for your reporting on this.

Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, the dust is still settling this morning after Attorney General Pam Bondi sat for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Shouting matches and talk of a burn book then filled hours of clashes with lawmakers, really like we haven't seen in a long time. She was facing questions about issues that are before, and handled by, under the purview of her department, like the ICE crackdowns, the fatal shootings in Minneapolis, investigations into President Trump's perceived political foes. But it was questions about the department -- DOJ's handling of the Epstein files that triggered the most fierce reaction from the A.G.

Kevin Liptak joining us right now from the White House for more on this.

And what more are you hearing this morning from the White House about what happened yesterday?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and it was almost a Trumpian appearance from the attorney general. And I think that particular aspect of it will probably have gone over fairly well. But listen, the White House has made no secret that it is less than thrilled at how the attorney general has handled the Epstein matter. You know, Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, who is ostensibly one of Pam Bondi's friends, said that she had whiffed the entire thing, which I think sort of embodies how the West Wing has viewed this generally.

And so, when she went out into that hearing room to engage in this really sort of bitter theatrical appearance, I think it did reflect an attorney general very much under fire for how she is handling all of this. You know, she came armed with these personalized insults for anyone who asked about anything she didn't want to talk about, which was virtually anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein.

[08:35:09]

She really shrugged off questions from Democrats about why none of Epstein's coconspirators had been indicted. She blamed that on the Biden administration. She refused to apologize to Epstein's victims, who were sitting in the very room where she was, for how some of these files had been redacted or not redacted, as the case may be, showing to the general public some of the victims' names and faces. That was the line of questioning from Thomas Massie, who was kind of the only Republican in the room to ask her about any of this.

Listen to sort of their back and forth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Is guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to -- you're a failed politician.

My position is, any victim who comes forward, of course, we would love to hear from them. 1-800-CALL-FBI. Did you ask Merrick Garland that the last four years? Did you talk about Epstein at all the last four years?

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I am reclaiming my time. I'm glad you're asking about Merrick Garland because this is bigger than Watergate.

BONDI: You don't get to reclaim time when you don't -- when you -- when I don't answer a question the way you want.

MASSIE: This -- this goes over four administrations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: So, Massie was really the only Republican to bring this matter up. It was interesting to see how his fellow Republicans handled all of this. They really tried to steer this hearing away from the Epstein matter. They really didn't make any attempt to defend how Bondi had handled all of this.

At the end of the day, this is really kind of a matter of her own making. Remember some months ago she said that the Epstein files were sitting on her desk. In a lot of ways she's still contending with that statement.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

Thank you so much, Kevin. Really appreciate it.

John.

BERMAN: All right, a little more of the back and forth here between the attorney general and members of the committee. I say back and forth, mostly forth in some cases.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D-PA): So, can we assume that you or persons under your direction at the Department of Justice have prepared that list of groups or entities who are designated as domestic terrorist organizations? And I'd just remind you, that's a yes or no question. Did you prepare the list?

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I'm not going to answer it yes or no. But what I -- what I will say is, I know Antifa is part of that.

SCANLON: OK.

BONDI: I will -- I will talk to you about. And on February --

SCANLON: I'm reclaiming my time.

Will you commit to provide this committee with your list of entities that you recommend be designated as domestic terrorist organizations?

BONDI: I'm not going to commit to anything to you because you won't let me answer questions.

SCANLON: OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right, with us now is the member of Congress on the other end of that questioning, Mary Gay Scanlon, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.

Thank you so much for being with us this morning.

REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D-PA): Thank you.

BERMAN: We all watched that hearing over several hours. Just, big picture, what was gained there?

SCANLON: I mean, that was the real frustration of the hearing. We have the attorney general of the United States in every year to talk about policy and what's going on in the country and where Congress needs to enact new laws, et cetera. And that's clearly not why this attorney general came to Congress. She didn't answer any questions. She didn't want to talk about any policy. She really didn't want to talk about anything except whatever was in her burn book, as it started to be called.

BERMAN: Talk to me a little bit more about that burn book. You had all seen what she had done in a Senate hearing before. So, I don't think you were surprised by this, but what did it signify to you that she had came -- come with this?

SCANLON: Well, so, as I said, usually the A.G. comes prepared to talk about things like what we need to do with respect to antitrust. Should we be making immigration judges into Article Three judges instead of Article One? It's specific policy things. Or, what is going on? You know, why is this administration refusing to get warrants when it's breaking into Americans' homes, if they can just tie it somehow to immigration? Those are all legitimate policy issues we should be talking about. She didn't come prepared to talk about any of that. She came prepared to not answer any questions as long as they were asked by Democrats. And she came prepared to attack. So, we'd seen what she'd done in the Senate, and we saw her trying to

do it again in her appearance before the House. She had a tab for each member and she would flip to that tab and start talking about some crime that had occurred in their district or anything in order to engage talking about whatever question she'd been asked. And it got pretty far afield.

BERMAN: And then in one specific case, and it was I believe a Getty photographer that captured this image.

SCANLON: Yes.

BERMAN: An image that had a headline in the photo, we've got to put this up so people can see what I'm talking about. And it says, "Jayapal," well, it's supposed to be Pramila Jayapal. But "Jayapal Pramila search history" there.

[08:40:01]

And it seems to be a log of what Congresswoman Jayapal searched for when she was trying to read the full, unredacted Epstein files there.

SCANLON: Yes.

BERMAN: What -- how -- you know, what do you make of that? What's your takeaway from that if someone's keeping track and logging what members of Congress are doing?

SCANLON: Well -- so, it relates to the fact that they made the Epstein files available on computer with the ability to redact some parts of it for members of Congress two days before this hearing. Now it appears they were trying to do some kind of sting or setup in order to spy on members of Congress. Members had to log in on one of their computers, and it appears that they were tracking what the members of Congress were looking at. I believe it was only, other than Representative Massie, it was only Democrats. So, they wanted to know what the Democrats were looking at.

The Department of Justice spying on members of Congress for political reasons is really, really disturbing. And there, obviously, is going to be a lot of pushback. But that's something that was breaking as we were in the room. Thank you, free press, for doing your job and taking the photo and starting to expose what was really going on here. Everything for the sake of attacks. Nothing for the sake of the country.

BERMAN: So, it all begs -- you know, what are you going to do about all of this? And there are calls for the attorney general to step aside or be fired, including from some conservatives. And I just want to put this out there. Erick Erickson, who's a conservative podcaster and radio host, said in a Substack overnight, "before Congress yesterday, the attorney general played the role of insult and drama queen for an audience of one back at the White House. Had she any gasoline, her performance would have been an act of self-immolation. Impressive even to the most committed Buddhist monk. She should resign or be fired after that ridiculous performance." Will you take action to remove her from office?

SCANLON: Well certainly we have called -- many of our members have called for her resignation. There is a letter being put together now that's going to demand an investigation into what happened. But to hear Republican members calling for her resignation while refusing to acknowledge the hypocrisy. I mean we saw the Senate pass a bill that would allow senators to get hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers because they complained about the January 6th investigation when phone records were seized from members who were contacted by the White House in the midst of the January 6th insurrection. Now they seem willing to, you know, just roll over once again. So, I think the hypocrisy is what's really important here.

BERMAN: Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon from Pennsylvania, we appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: So, we are weeks away from the first primaries of the midterm elections. And Democrats are clearly hoping to do well enough to win back power in the House, the Senate. And with that, some of the spotlight is on New Jersey, the 11th congressional district, where Democrats were pitted against each other until former Congressman Tom Malinowski dropped out, conceding to a more progressive far left candidate now in the race.

CNN's Harry Enten is joining us now to run the numbers on that.

And this gets at a question that has really been swirling amongst the Democratic Party since the 2024 election, which is, where is the majority of this party, and what do we need to do in order to win?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes, I think that's right. And I think the results from that special election, that Democratic primary in the 11th District of New Jersey, speak to a larger point within the Democratic Party, and that is that the far left is significantly more powerful than they once were. This sort of gives the game away here.

Democrats who identify as very liberal or conservative. You know, there used to be a lot of conservative Democrats, right? Back in 1999, 26 percent of Democrats self-identified as conservative Just five percent said that they were very liberal. It was a smidgen, a smidgen, a smidgen. Now, that far left has gained considerably in power. Look at this. Now we're talking about a fifth of Democrats. 21 percent say they're very liberal. That conservative part of the Democratic Party, adios amigos, goodbye. Just eight percent. And when you combine the 21 percent who are very liberal with those who say that they're somewhat liberal, we're talking about three in five Democrats who identify as either somewhat liberal or very liberal, with the very liberals, a much larger portion of the party, the far left, which used to just be a smidgen within the Democratic Party, has gained considerable power, as you saw in New Jersey's 11th District.

BOLDUAN: What about Democratic socialists like the likes of, you know, we've got Bernie Sanders and -- or Zohran Mamdani here in New York City? Where does that line up?

ENTEN: OK. So, on a separate question where you -- essentially CNN asked this last year, which was, OK, Democrats who think of themselves as Democratic socialists. Among all Democrats, including those independents who lean towards the Democratic Party, look at this, we're talking about a third, a third of all Democrats who identify as Democratic socialist.

[08:45:02]

Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani are not alone. They are a considerable part of the Democratic base at this point. And more than that, if you look at Democrats under the age of 35, they are nearly half -- nearly half of the Democratic Party. Look at this, 42 percent of Democrats think of themselves as Democratic socialists under the age of 35, just like Zohran Mamdani. That -- what happened to New York City is not some aberration, right? It is not something that just happened in New York City. It is something that we are seeing grow within the Democratic Party at this particular point, when we're talking about 42 percent of Democrats under the age of 35 identifying as Democratic socialists and a third of all Democrats, my goodness gracious.

BOLDUAN: So, if the ideology of the Democratic Party is shifting or changing --

ENTEN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: How are people feeling about it?

ENTEN: OK, so we're talking about the Democratic base, right? But what about all the -- what about all Americans, right? How about all voters? Voters who say the Democrats are now too liberal? Look at this percentage. It was 42 percent in '96, 48 percent in 2013, now 58 percent in 2025 of all Democrat -- of all voters say that the Democratic Party is too liberal. The Democrats are moving to the left, the far left is gaining power, and there could be some electoral repercussions because what we see right now is voters, the clear majority, say that they are too liberal.

BOLDUAN: This is really interesting. Thanks so much, Harry.

ENTEN: Thank you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Really appreciate it.

Coming up for us, can people be clinically addicted to social media? That question is at the center of a major trial now underway in Los Angeles. A trial that's expected to bring Meta's CEO Mark Zuckerberg to the stand.

And surfers rushing in to rescue after that happens. A family, their boat, capsizes off the coast of California.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:50:51]

BOLDUAN: Breaking overnight, Russia is continuing its campaign to essentially freeze Ukraine to death and into submission. Officials are reporting power and heat outages across the country after a barrage of new strikes overnight. A Ukrainian official says some 2,600 residential buildings in Kyiv have lost heat. Nearly 300,000 people in Odessa are without water and power because of outages caused by these new strikes. All of this as Ukraine is facing one of its worst winters in years. How to end this war is a key topic for the major gathering of international security policy at the Munich Security Conference. That kicks off tomorrow. And there are huge questions and, quite frankly, jitters around what's going to happen this year after J.D. Vance attended last year and chastised European partners to their faces.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. If you're running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.

Speaking up and expressing opinions isn't election interference, even when people express views outside your own country, and even when those people are very influential.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: So, what this year?

Joining me right now is the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder.

It's good to see you, Ambassador, again. Thanks for coming in.

And you are spearheading an effort ahead of this conference, a letter signed by nearly every living former NATO ambassador and NATO supreme allied commander, defending essentially the purpose and existence of NATO. I want to read for our viewers part of it, which really speaks to a little bit of where things are going to head. "NATO is not an act of American generosity. It is a strategic bargain that ensures the United States remains the world's most powerful and economically secure nation at a fraction of the cost of going it alone. America's allies are its single greatest geostrategic advantage. Russia and China, despite their efforts to align with other nations like North Korea and Iran, simply have nothing to compare."

What drove you to pull this effort together?

IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Well, I think the most important thing was there were serious questions being raised by some members of the administration, at times even the president, about the value of NATO. He had said that NATO is nothing without the United States. That the contributions our allies had made for -- in the war in Afghanistan, which was a war to protect U.S. national security interests, that came out of the first and only time the collective security agreement of Article Five was invoked after the 9/11 attacks against the United States. And we, as people who had represented the United States on the diplomatic table and also who had led NATO as U.S. commanders thought it was important to make the case for not just that the United States is critical to NATO, but NATO's critical to the United States. It provides a whole variety of benefits to U.S. national security. That without NATO would make the United States weaker, less powerful, less prosperous and perhaps even less capable of dealing with the threats that are out there in the world. So, we thought it was important to reiterate something that most people in the United States have long believed, NATO is vital to America's security.

BOLDUAN: Also ahead of the conference, the Pentagon's policy chief, Elbridge Colby, laid out -- I'll describe it -- well, you tell me what you think of it, that may be a new view or the current U.S. view toward NATO. Let me play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELBRIDGE COLBY, PENTAGON POLICY CHIEF: And I think we have a really strong basis for working together in partnership, but putting NATO kind of a 3.0 NATO that's based -- a partnership rather than dependency and really a return to what NATO was originally intended for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Does that bring you comfort, Ambassador?

DAALDER: Yes, I'm fine with the idea of a partnership as long as we also remember what NATO was originally about was collective security and collective defense. The understanding that American security was inextricably tied to the security of Europe.

[08:55:07]

And that security between the United States and Europe was indivisible.

This idea of a partnership where Europe should take care of the security in Europe and the United States should do whatever it wants to do elsewhere sort of defies that idea that that there is indivisibility of security. When the United States says it needs to own Greenland because otherwise it will not be able to defend it, well, Greenland is a member of NATO. Anyone who says that you can't defend Greenland, part of NATO, unless you own it, suggests that unless you own Europe you're not going to be able to defend Europe. So, that's where the problem lies.

The administration has not made as strong a case. And I hope that Secretary of State Rubio, who will be speaking on Saturday at Munich, will make the case that NATO is vital to American security, that it is vital to what we are able to achieve, either -- each and every day. NATO provides protection for the Atlantic sea lanes, over which $1.6 trillion, $1.6 trillion of goods travel each and every year. Those are major, major stakes for American security, American prosperity and American freedom. And NATO is there to help guarantee it.

BOLDUAN: Yes. You raise an interesting -- an interesting concept, which is maybe the definition of partnership now maybe needs to be clarified by everybody as we move forward.

It's really good to see you, Ambassador. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it.

John.

BERMAN: All right, new video this morning. A group of California surfers dove into action when a wave capsized a boat carrying a family of six. They rescued four children and their parents. City officials are considering a ceremony to honor the surface. Again, maybe someday we'll see the surfers dive into action there.

Three-time Olympic medalist Lindsey Vonn thanked the medical staff, as well as friends and family, after a third surgery on her broken leg. Vonn crashed 13 seconds into her run after trying to make a comeback just days after rupturing her ACL. She says she has no regrets about her decision to compete.

Police in England say a suspected drug dealer set booby traps on his property inspired by the movie "Home Alone." Officials say the 60 year old rigged his house with tripwires, pipe bombs and a flamethrower to protect his cannabis growing operation from potential intruders. I wonder if he used the same, like, movie clip, like the black and white movie clip that -- that Macaulay Culkin did in "Home Alone." That would have been awesome. This guy in the U.K. is now serving a seven year sentence. Not as awesome for him.

All right, this morning, a landmark lawsuit accuses social media platforms of intentionally developing features to hook younger users and harm their mental health. Instagram head Adam Mosseri testified that addiction is not possible, but problematic use, he says, is. Now, I just spoke with Maurine Molak, whose son David died by suicide after she says he did get addicted to social media. This is what she had to say about Mosseri's testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAURINE MOLAK, CO-FOUNDER, PARENTSSOS: Well, he can call it whatever he wants to call it, but I can say from my experience, because it impacted David's everyday life, and it caused him great distress to the fact that we had to move schools, and the end result was him taking his life. So, I don't know how, you know if we want a wordsmith that in the way that makes it easy for him to say that, then that's on him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right, CNN's Clare Duffy has been covering this case from the very beginning.

So, where are we in this trial, and what are the social media companies, now that we've heard from Mosseri, seem to be saying? CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS TECH REPORTER: Well, so this was a really

rare opportunity to hear directly testimony from Adam Mosseri on this issue. Of course, Mark Zuckerberg has been called in front of Congress a number of times. He has once. But this was a sort of rare opportunity to hear from him and was interesting to hear him try to draw this line. He said it is possible to use Instagram more than maybe is good for you, but social media is not clinically addictive. Although he did concede that he is not a doctor. He said, "it's relative. Yes, for an individual there's such a thing as using Instagram more than you feel good about."

He was also asked about Instagram's beauty filters, these A.I. filters that can alter the appearance of someone's face. And the lawyer for the plaintiff, Kaley, brought up some internal documents that depicted a 2019 debate over whether to ban those filters on Instagram. He showed one Meta executive in an email saying, "we are talking about encouraging young girls into body dysmorphia." Another Meta employee saying in an email that "removing those filters would limit our ability to be competitive in Asian markets, including in India."

Ultimately, Meta decided to ban filters that explicitly promote surgery, like showing scars on someone's face, but it did keep filters that will alter the appearance of your face, like slimming your nose. Meta says it just doesn't recommend those filters.

Now, Mosseri ultimately denied that he put profits over safety as he ran this platform, but we're getting a sense, again, of how the plaintiffs in this case are building their argument ahead of trial.

[09:00:06]