Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Poll Numbers on Mamdani; Mamdani Visits White House; Mayor Mike Johnson is Interviewed about Restricting ICE Activity; Utah Trial for Mother Accused of Killing her Husband; Michael Horowitz is Interviewed about Anthropic Rejecting the Pentagon's Ultimatum; Net Negative Migration in U.S. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired February 27, 2026 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:12]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, a look at the perhaps growing bromance between New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and President Trump. He's also raising some new questions about the Democrats' potentially political strength. In Mamdani's latest visit to the White House yesterday, he not only pitched a massive federal housing plan for the city, but he came with props, playing directly into the president's love of building and perhaps the press, or at least attention of the press. And it may have worked. Mamdani also brought up a Columbia student being detained by ICE while he was at the White House. Trump phoned him shortly after the meeting to say that the woman had actually been released.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten joining us now with more on the New York City mayor's growing popularity.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes.

HILL: Walk us through.

ENTEN: Yes, OK. You know, President Trump is not the only one who gets the vapors when it comes to Zohran Mamdani. I mean, my goodness gracious. He likes popular politicians.

Here's a popular politician for you. Take a look here. Mamdani's net favorable rating in New York City. In September of 2025, plus 14 points. December of 2025, plus 38. Now, look at this, plus 48 points. A more popular mayor to start off than either of his two Democratic predecessors, either Eric Adams or Bill de Blasio. The most popular Democrat in New York City in a generation. And President Trump, who likes to get on board with popular politicians, is getting on board right now with this guy.

HILL: Getting on board with this guy. OK, so what about statewide?

ENTEN: Yes.

HILL: What are we seeing statewide? ENTEN: OK. So, you know what, a lot of Republicans are like, oh, we're

going to run statewide in New York and run against Zohran Mamdani. There's a slight problem with that. And that is, Zohran Mamdani isn't just popular in New York City, he's actually the most popular Democrat statewide.

Take a look at this, net favorable of New York -- New York Democrats statewide. Look at this. Zohran Mamdani with a positive net favorable rating of plus 16 points. More popular than Kirsten Gillibrand at plus 12, more popular than Kathy Hochul at plus nine, more popular than Chuck Schumer at minus seven.

The bottom line is this, Zohran Mamdani is the most popular Democrat in the state of New York right now. Republicans are not going to be able to run against him in the midterms because the bottom line is this, he's popular not just in his home city, but he's popular in New York state as well.

HILL: OK, but what about the popularity with the president? What is it that President Trump seems to like about him?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So, I think what he likes about him is the fact that he is very much the type of politician who is able to attract the media attention in the same way while sticking, sticking with what he believes is right, right? You know, Donald Trump has always been this type of politician who goes out there, says a whole heck of a lot of things, but then is still able to maintain his base. And Zohran Mamdani is the type of guy who's been able to bring in President Trump, but also has basically been sticking to his campaign platform.

I mean, take a look at this, chance Mamdani freezes the rent. The thing he had run on. The thing he had run on. Look at this. According to the prediction markets, the Kalshi prediction market, this year, there's still an 81 percent chance that Zohran Mamdani actually freezes the rent.

So, he is maintaining his popularity citywide. You see him right here. It's been going up like a rocket. He is maintaining -- in fact, being the most popular Democrat in the state of New York right here, plus 16 points. And he is doing so while also at this point looking like he is going to actually keep that big campaign promise of freezing the rent.

At this point, as I said, President Trump isn't the only one who has the vapors, because the bottom line is this, a lot of New Yorkers have the vapors about Zohran Mamdani as well, as he is sticking to his quite progressive platform.

HILL: Harry Enten, always a pleasure, my friend.

ENTEN: Thank you.

HILL: Thank you.

ENTEN: The pleasure is mine.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, if Harry Enten is going to use the word "vapors," we got to talk more about it, clearly.

With us now, Republican strategist Doug Heye and Democratic strategist Meghan Hays.

I really do have two questions about this because this is a remarkable image. When you see the mayor of New York City in the Oval Office, the picture that he clearly pre-staged. I mean Mamdani went in with the goal of getting this picture we've all seen now of the men holding up the two newspapers there.

My question first to you, Doug, is how is it that a socialist -- Democratic socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, seems to get Trump better than maybe anybody, a? And, b, I feel like this is going to have an impact next October in the first week of November. Go.

DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, look, we all know the phrase flattery gets you everywhere. And certainly, Mamdani has learned that with Donald Trump. And -- because he's watched how other people have tried and failed to do this. So, he played to his ego. And I don't say that in a negative way. And he did so on Donald Trump's home turf of New York City and the construction industry. So, showing up with props that talk up Donald Trump as a builder is very smart.

And, you know, John, I was always skeptical that Mamdani was going to be the poster child for Republicans in this election. It's that much harder, not just because of what Harry said about his popularity in upstate New York, but also because how he's worked well with Donald Trump makes it harder for Republicans to attack him.

[08:35:04]

If Donald Trump likes the guy, how do you run against him in, pick your congressional district, that's not even in New York state?

BERMAN: Yes, that's the point, Doug, because Republicans were champing at the bit, Meghan, when Mamdani -- when it was clear Mamdani was going to win the election. I mean I think a lot of people thought they were going to run against him in the midterms. How much harder is that if the president of the United States genuinely seems to like the guy?

MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, I think it takes the wind right out of the sails of the Republican Party that wanted to paint Mamdani as the boogeyman and his policies as failing, and everybody is going to be a government-run grocery stores, and you're not going to have things. I mean, it's just -- it's ludicrous, one, that that was even part of the Republican platform, but also that now that Donald Trump is seen doing deals with him, having him in the Oval Office, and putting out these chummy photos, you know, Republicans can't run against him and can't use those same -- that same narrative against other Democrats saying that everyone's going to turn into socialists. So, Donald Trump is definitely giving the Democrats a gift in this one.

BERMAN: All right, Meghan, I want to ask you about former President Bill Clinton, who is facing questions today in Chappaqua over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. How do Democrats feel -- we're in 2026. How do Democrats feel about former President Bill Clinton at this point? This is complicated, right, because Democrats on this committee voted to hold him in contempt when he didn't want to answer questions here. And I think a lot of Democrats just don't feel like they want to defend him anymore.

HAYS: I don't necessarily think that is the case. I think that this is something that it's been well documented that President Clinton has not had a relationship or any correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein since before his first conviction in 2008. So, I just think that there's a lot to do about nothing here.

But I do think it is smart for Democrats to want answers from people and to hold people accountable. And that's probably why they voted for President Trump to come in and give this testimony, just like what they did with Hillary Clinton. And then Republicans just made it a clown show in asking them about -- asking her about UFOs and pizza- gate. It has nothing to do with it.

So, if they're going to hold Democrats accountable, then they also need to be holding Republicans accountable. This isn't a partizan issue anymore. Most people want to see whoever is responsible held accountable. So, bring every single person, Democrat or Republican or independent in and ask questions.

There are -- Donald Trump is mentioned over 38,000 times in just the files we have seen. Why isn't he coming up? Why isn't Melania Trump coming up? Why isn't Howard Lutnick coming up and testifying in front of the Oversight Committee?

So, you know, I don't think it's necessarily Democrats don't want to defend the Clintons. Great, he's going to answer questions today. He's going to do his part. But then what? What happens next in this committee and in this investigation?

BERMAN: Yes, to be clear, Bill Clinton has denied any wrongdoing. There have been no accusations by law enforcement against him in this, to be clear. I was just saying, politically speaking, Democrats weren't going to get in the way of questioning here.

There is that issue, Doug, that Meghan did bring up, though, which is that by bringing the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in for testimony, who says she never met Jeffrey Epstein, doesn't that really open the door for First Lady Melania Trump to face questions? Because she did know Jeffrey Epstein. And if the standard is, hey, what did you know about your husband's relationship with the guy, doesn't she fit that description?

HEYE: One hundred percent. Precedent is everything in Congress. It's really legislative nerd speak, but it -- but it's 100 percent true. And if you think that Democrats may win the House of Representatives come November, that means in, you know, ten months from now you would have a Democratic chair of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee who would have that same subpoena power that James Comer has right now. And given the images that we've seen of Bill Clinton in the hot tub, of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein, very fair game for the current president and the former president to be called to account on this. But calling Hillary Clinton means that James Comer and Nancy Mace did Melania Trump, which ultimately means Donald Trump, a real disservice here, because when Melania Trump is subpoenaed, if Democrats take back the House, Republicans are going to find themselves in a difficult situation of their own choosing.

BERMAN: All right, Doug Heye, Meghan Hays, great to speak with you both this morning. Have wonderful weekends collectively.

Erica.

HILL: Well, new this morning, Denver taking on ICE. The mayor signing an order that would ban ICE officers from operating on city property without a court order and also ordering local police to protect protesters who are peacefully protesting ICE.

This, of course, comes after what we saw in Minneapolis, those weeks of protests and two deaths earlier this year. Those two protesters killed by federal agents. Denver's mayor, Mike Johnston, joins us now.

It's good to have you with us, Mr. Mayor.

So, I know you said this is part of your effort to make clear to your residents where the city stands. Do you have concerns, though, that this order could actually invite more federal scrutiny and potentially federal activity in your city?

MAYOR MIKE JOHNSTON (D), DENVER: Thanks for having me this morning.

I made clear yesterday our goal here is not to provoke, but it's to protect. You know, we get questions from residents every day about what will happen if we see the kind of forces of troops descend on Denver that they saw in Minneapolis. I think what our residents want to know is that any law enforcement officer that operates in Denver will be transparent, will be accountable, and that the rule of law still applies.

[08:40:05]

And that's what we wanted to let people know is that we will have a duty to intervene. If someone is injured, we will have a duty to investigate if there is a crime committed, and we'll have a duty to interfere and step in and take an officer who might be using excessive force out of that situation, whether that's a Denver police officer or whether that's an ICE officer. And I think that's what residents expect from us in terms of public safety and that's what we're committing to.

HILL: So just to be clear on that point, you're saying if that's a federal officer, if it's an ICE agent, does this mean that effectively local police could arrest federal agents?

JOHNSTON: Officers in Denver right now have what's called a duty to intervene, which is, if you see a fellow officer who's using excessive force in a way that's inappropriate, you have an obligation as an officer to step in and remove that officer from the situation. Officers around the country do that every day. What we're saying is that same expectation extends to federal officers who might be operating on our streets. That's the way we've done it in the past. That's the way we'll do it now. And I think that is what all residents should come to expect is that if you do that and use excessive force, we'll stop it, we'll hold you accountable, we'll investigate it.

HILL: In response to the order, the Department of Homeland Security told "The Hill" the order is, quote, "legally illiterate," noting that the enforcement of federal immigration laws is a clear federal responsibility. How do you respond to that?

JOHNSTON: So, the enforcement of federal immigration laws is a federal responsibility, which is why our local officers are not going to aid it, support it, or be a part of it. But they still have the obligation to uphold the basic state criminal laws in our city and our state, which is, you cannot use excessive force, you cannot injure or shoot someone without appropriate cause. And if you do, you can face charges like any other officer would face in the city and county in Denver.

HILL: As I understand it, there's also an ordinance before the Denver City Council that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face masks and also require they show their name and badge number. Exceptions there for SWAT and undercover operations. Where does that stand?

JOHNSTON: That's in the city council. They'll vote for it again on Monday. And we assume it will pass. And I will sign it. We think, again, this is why previously you didn't have the founders wanting military policing American streets is because our residents have different expectations of officers. And we think one of those basic expectations is we should be able to see your face, know your name. We should have body worn camera to hold you accountable for how you behave. That's what our residents expect from law enforcement. If you want to operate in our city, you have to meet those standards.

HILL: DHS is looking to open a new immigration detention center about 30 miles north of Denver. We know that Congresswoman Peterson, Senator Hickenlooper and Bennet have cosigned a letter to Secretary Noem. They say they're deeply concerned. Congresswoman Peterson said that "ICE is out of control," and "takes a bad situation and would make it worse."

What more do you know about where things stand?

JOHNSTON: We know they're pursuing it. We also know what we've seen in every city is when ICE arrives, and that city does not make it safer, it makes it less safe. You know, in Denver, we do not have violent criminals running around the streets. In fact, Denver delivered the largest drop in violent crime of any big city in the country last year. We've delivered the largest drop in street homelessness of any city in American history. So, we're seeing that this is a safe, vibrant place right now. We don't need federal action. And what we're afraid of, like most cities, is that that federal action doesn't make the city safer, it makes it more dangerous.

HILL: Quickly, before I let you go, some Democratic lawmakers, as I know you're aware, have called for ICE to be abolished. Do you support that? JOHNSTON: I think there can be a role for appropriate enforcement of

civil immigration and appropriate enforcement of folks who are in the country illegally and have committed violent crimes. We work right now to identify anyone who's committed violent crimes. We detain them. We arrest them. We partner with federal agencies to deport them. Those are violent criminals. That's where we should focus.

What we don't need to spend time doing is focusing on picking up five year olds in the school drop off line or taking grandmothers out of church pews, or picking up single moms when they come off their shift at Target. That is not a safety threat in this country. We should focus on where the actual safety threats are, which are violent criminals. That's what we've done in Denver. That's what we'll keep doing.

HILL: So, just pinning you down on that question, you don't believe ICE should be abolished wholesale? Are you saying there's just room for perhaps some changes?

JOHNSTON: Yes, I think they should restrict their focus to partnering with local law enforcement on those folks who are here illegally who have committed violent crimes. That's what ICE was designed to do. That's what we would partner in helping them do now. But what they shouldn't be doing is terrorizing neighborhoods for residents who are nonviolent.

HILL: Mayor Mike Johnston, appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

John.

BERMAN: This morning, new testimony in the trial of a Utah mother accused of killing her husband, then publishing a children's book to help their sons cope with their grief. A former housekeeper and key witness in Kouri Richins' murder trial testified that she got fentanyl pills for Kouri several times before her husband's death. Kouri has pleaded not guilty to charges that she fatally poisoned him with a lethal dose of fentanyl in 2022.

CNN's Jean Casarez, covering the twists and turns in this case, is with us now. What else did this witness say?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Pivotal, pivotal witness. Carmen Lauber is her name. She was the housekeeper. Every other Friday she cleaned the Richins home.

[08:45:03]

And Kouri knew that she had been in trouble with the law with drugs. So, in early January of 2022, she went to her and said, hey, you know, I've got an investor and he needs some pain medication. Can you get me anything? She said, yes, I can get you opiates. And so, Kouri paid her. She got the opiates. She gave her the opiates in an envelope in the driveway of the home.

Now, early February, Kouri goes to her again, says, you know, this investor, he wants something stronger. Can you get him something stronger? So, she went, and I'm talking about Carmen, went to a woman that she had dealt with before who told her, introduced her to a man. He said, I can get fentanyl. She goes back to Kouri Richins, I can get you fentanyl. Get it. She gives her $1,000. It's sort of hidden in a home that she's flipping, Kouri Richins. She goes, makes the deal in the gas station parking lot, Carmen does, gives her the fentanyl.

And then after Eric dies, I have to tell you this, three days after she goes, Kouri wants more fentanyl. And she says, hey, look, your husband didn't die of fentanyl, did he? No, she said, it was a brain aneurysm. I want you to listen to Carmen testifying in court yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did Kouri Richins ever ask you to purchase for her illicit drugs?

CARMEN LAUBER, FORMER HOUSEKEEPER: Yes

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many times?

LAUBER: Four.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you purchase illicit drugs for her?

LAUBER: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many times?

LAUBER: Four.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: On cross-examination, the defense said you know that you were in violation of drug court. You had serious potential of incarceration here, and you just wanted a get out of jail card free.

Listen to the cross-examination.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're looking to pull your drug court deal and ask for seven years. The only exception to that, and the only thing that they're willing to kind of help you out with is if you can help us out with this. So --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And by help, he means like give us the details that will ensure Kouri gets convicted of murder.

DEFENSE: You tell them, I'll do whatever it takes.

CARMEN LAUBER, FORMER HOUSEKEEPER: Yes. If that means incriminating me, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CASAREZ: And the trial continues later this morning.

BERMAN: Wow, this is something. And, Jean, of course, you're going to be covering all of this. People can watch it right on CNN All Access, cnn.com/watch.

Thanks so much, Jean.

Erica.

HILL: The fight is now heating up over how the U.S. military can use A.I. This after tech company Anthropic rejected that ultimatum from the Pentagon.

And hawk loves him some buzz ball. Why that post landed a guy in jail.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:51:38]

HILL: New this morning, Anthropic is rejecting an ultimatum from the Pentagon to lift the company's A.I. safeguards or risk being blacklisted. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to use Anthropic's A.I. model Claude for, quote, "all lawful purposes." Anthropic, though, has been very clear, it's a hard no when it comes to using its A.I. technology for autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of Americans.

Joining me now to discuss is Michael Horowitz. He's a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and also a drone and military technology expert.

It's good to have you with us.

So, we got the statement from Anthropic last night. The deadline is technically today, 5:01 p.m., I believe. What do you make of the response from Anthropic?

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: I think the response from Anthropic demonstrates something that's been clear from the start, which is they really want to work with it with the Pentagon. Anthropic was the first company in the door of the frontier A.I. labs to do classified work. And one of the really interesting things about this whole dispute is that every single thing that the Pentagon has wanted Anthropic to work on, Anthropic has been happy to work on. And even the statement last night from Anthropic's leader suggested that they're happy to work on something like autonomous weapons, they just don't think their technology is ready -- is ready for it, ready for it right now.

HILL: Which is -- which is fascinating, right? They're saying, to your point, we will work on this. And as my colleague, Hadas Gold, our A.I. correspondent here was reporting, look, folks in the military, this is seen as the best A.I. option for them right now. They would have to then basically offboard everything that they already have, bring in something else. It's interesting that if there is a solution that seems to somewhat be working and the company is saying, hey, our technology is not even there yet to do this, it would seem that from a national security standpoint you wouldn't want to use something that wasn't ready for prime time.

HOROWITZ: One of the interesting things here is this feels to me like a personality dispute dressed up as a policy disagreement, in that given -- there's no current thing that the -- that the Pentagon wants Anthropic to work on, that the -- that Anthropic is not willing to work on. And that suggests to me that this in some ways is a theoretical dispute about future potential use cases. And really what this reflects is a breakdown in trust in that the Pentagon doesn't trust that Anthropic will be there for future potential uses where it might want to contract with a frontier A.I. lab. And Anthropic, for its part, doesn't seem to trust that the Pentagon will necessarily use its technology responsibly. This is something that they should be able to work out, given that both sides seem to be benefiting from the arrangement at present.

HILL: Anthropic, correct me if I'm wrong here. Anthropic has also been pushing for some guardrails when it comes to A.I. technology, which is not necessarily been where the administration stands. Do you think that could be playing a role here?

HOROWITZ: Absolutely. I think Anthropic publicly has been very -- has been out front. They're the -- they're the frontier A.I. lab most known for their stance on A.I. safety and have been very vocal about these guardrails against mass surveillance and autonomous weapon systems.

But one of the really interesting things is, you know, from the statement by Anthropic last night, it appears as though their objections are less philosophical and more practical.

[08:55:06]

You know, more a question of, you know, this technology isn't ready for this kind of task yet. And frankly, for example, when it comes to autonomous weapons, they're not wrong. If you were going to train an autonomous weapon system today, you'd probably be better off with a bespoke algorithm trained on a data set of, you know, whatever the specific kinds of targets you were trying to hit, rather than a, you know, large language model trained on the internet or something -- or something like that.

The -- what Anthropic's saying is that, our technology isn't ready yet to do certain things, and we need guardrails against using it for those things until it's ready.

HILL: Yes.

HOROWITZ: And the Pentagon is saying, we want those guardrails down now, and we find the idea that you might have guardrails to be the problem in the first place, because you're doing business with the Pentagon.

And to be fair to the Pentagon here, Anthropic is in business with the Pentagon. And the Pentagon is in the business of war. And so, we can't be surprised in some ways that the Pentagon wants access to technology from one of its contractors to do the things that it wishes to do to try to improve the American military.

HILL: Real quickly, before I let you go, for people who are not following every twist and turn here, when you hear Pentagon and mass surveillance, I think it does raise some issues for average Americans. How concerned should Americans be about mass surveillance from the Department of Defense on them, the average citizen?

HOROWITZ: It's a great question. I think people have reasons to be concerned about mass surveillance, though it's not clear to me that that concern comes from the Pentagon per se. The, you know, public statements from the Pentagon have suggested that they're not doing mass surveillance, which is one reason they think that Anthropic's -- that Anthropic's guardrails here are not -- are not necessary, you know, reflecting that lack of trust between Anthropic and the Pentagon I mentioned before.

HILL: Right.

HOROWITZ: But, yes, I would be worried about mass surveillance in an age of this technology. The Pentagon is not necessarily the locust point I'd be most worried about.

HILL: OK. Michael Horowitz, really appreciate it. Thanks for your expertise this morning.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this member -- this morning, I should, say one member of Team USA's gold winning hockey team is doing some damage control. Brady Tkachuk is distancing himself from an A.I.-generated video posted by the White House that made it appear he was insulting Canadians with a string of slurs. Tkachuk, who is captain of NHL's Ottawa Senators -- Ottawa, by the way, very much in Canada -- calls the clip clearly fake and says those words would never come out of his mouth.

A California man who poured alcohol into a hawk's mouth has been sentenced to 45 days in jail and community service after pleading no contest to animal cruelty. The man captured a coopers hawk, one of the prettiest of all hawks, which is protected under federal and state law, then recorded himself feeding the bird a buzz balls cocktail. He was charged after people reported the YouTube video. Investigators say Diaz released the hawk before the investigation started.

Erica.

HILL: For the first time in about a half century the U.S. had negative net migration. So that means more people actually left the United States than entered the country. That's according to the Brookings Institution. The policy organization says both voluntary and involuntary deportations helped to drive down those numbers.

CNN anchor and correspondent Omar Jimenez recently traveled to the Mexico/Guatemala border for his new report on President Trump's immigration crackdown, which airs this weekend.

So, talk to us a little bit more about what you found.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, this reporting that we were doing is we actually wanted to focus on sort of the immigration enforcement crackdown in the United States. So, we went to cities like Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Chicago, places that have really been sort of the focal points of that immigration enforcement.

But one aspect of that, too, that we wanted to see was, well, how is this actually affecting migration patterns? These are obviously very tough tactics. And the internet makes the world a much smaller place.

And so, we went to the Mexico/Guatemala border that typically has been this major transit point of migrants coming up from Central and South America to the United States to see if anything has had any impact since President Trump took office. Here's some of what we found.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: We're heading to the Suchiate River, separating southern Mexico and Guatemala. It was a major transit point for migrants on their way north to the U.S./Mexico border. This was 2023 some days. The river was full of migrants on makeshift rafts that day, hoping to continue their journey. In 2026, many of those same types of rafts sit empty or handle everyday commerce. Those who run them remember what it used to be like.

JIMENEZ (through translator): You were working here in 2023.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Yes, 2023.

JIMENEZ (through translator): And what did you see here that year?

[09:00:02]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This was when all the migrants passed by. The whole place was full of just migrants.