Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Bill Clinton Testifies in House Epstein Probe; Trump Says He's Not Considering National Emergency Declaration for Midterms. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired February 27, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are bringing you the latest updates as former President Bill Clinton testifies in the House Oversight Committee's Jeffrey Epstein probe. There was an interesting moment not long ago where, during a break, Republican Chairman James Comer said this about Clinton's testimony regarding President Trump. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: A ranking member, Garcia, asked President Clinton, quote, "Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?" And President Clinton said, "That's for you to decide." And the president went on to say that the president, Trump, has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved, and he meant with Epstein.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:35:00]

KEILAR: Now ranking member, Congressman Robert Garcia, responded to Comer's description of the former president's testimony, kind of questioning how he characterized it there. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, RANKING MEMBER: I think that the president, President Clinton, did bring up some additional information about some discussions with President Trump. I think that, the way Chairman Comer described it, I don't think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let's release the full transcript, so you can all get a full record of what actually was said, which brings up some very important new questions about comments that President Trump has actually said in the past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: We're joined now by James Marsh. He's an attorney for Epstein accusers. James, thanks for being -- James, thank you for being with us. I just wonder, generally speaking, what do you think the former president can shed light on here during this deposition?

JAMES MARSH, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN ACCUSERS: Thanks for having me on this afternoon. I think what's important about this deposition are probably the questions that are not going to be asked, which is, when my client Maria Farmer made her complaint to the FBI in 1996, Bill Clinton was president. It was also a time when Jeffrey Epstein was the unindicted co-conspirator of the largest financial crime in U.S. history, Tower Financial, which was prosecuted by Clinton's Justice Department. Mary Jo White, who was the U.S. attorney at the time, she eventually went on to be the SEC chair under Bill Clinton. And so within this context, Jeffrey Epstein was a key witness. And this was Bill Clinton's watch.

Obviously, there's a lot of testimony, presumably today, about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein during these years. But at this point in time, when Maria Farmer made her complaint, this was on Bill Clinton's watch. And these are the questions that we've been urging the committee and the press and everyone else to be asking about Jeffrey Epstein in context in the mid-1990s.

KEILAR: She obviously made that report in 1996 about child pornography-related concerns. And at the same time, James, as you are well aware, the Republican chairman of this committee says that Jeffrey Epstein, during the Clinton administration, visited the White House 17 times. So there's just kind of a lot of questions.

I mean, we spoke yesterday with someone who worked in the Clinton DOJ who said there really was this sort of separation of church and state between DOJ and the White House. But there are questions about, well, you know, would someone in the DOJ see that this was someone who frequented the White House? I guess the question that I have to you is, I have asked Democratic members, are you going to ask about that?

And they have indicated that is an area of interest. So if that is not asked about, if they don't kind of get to that or at least get Clinton to discuss what concerns that may raise for him, what concerns does that raise for you?

MARSH: Well, this is what's so frustrating for a lot of the victims and survivors that I represent. You know, this is political theater. We know what it is.

We know that there's a lot of political posturing on both sides and that this, you know, is taking in a political context. It's not really getting at the answers to the questions that many people have, which was how was Jeffrey Epstein allowed to amass such power, privilege, and access? Those are very key questions.

And clearly what we've known from our research is that Jeffrey Epstein was not an unknown person in 1996. He was actually very well known. And whether there was a separation between DOJ and the White House, which there should be, clearly, it's like inviting Bernie Madoff over for dinner.

You know, I mean, clearly the White House wasn't that clueless. I don't even know how many people know who Bernie Madoff is anymore. But clearly, you know, he was someone in the mix of some very serious criminal allegations. He was an unindicted co-conspirator. He was renting the Iranian consulate from the State Department during this period of time too. And that resulted in litigation.

So he was not an unknown. And that, I think, is what my client knows and what the FBI should have known when she made her complaint. And so these are unanswered questions.

And regardless of the reasons he was in the White House or should have been in the White House or whatever, we need to get to the root of the issue here, which was why was Jeffrey Epstein given a pass in Tower Financial and why was he given access to the president? Those are key questions that my clients would like to have answered.

KEILAR: It was a huge Ponzi scheme that he was involved in. Virginia Giuffre has said, as has Steve Scully, an employee on Epstein's island, that they both themselves saw him, saw Bill Clinton on the island. Through a spokesperson, Bill Clinton has said he was never on the island.

His former top aide, Doug Band, said that he did go to the island. What are you hoping is sorted out today about those discrepancies?

[14:40:00]

MARSH: Well, here's the issue with the island and who was on the island and when. This is part of a pattern and practice of Jeffrey Epstein, whether it was money, sex, access connections. This is how he established power.

So whether or not Clinton was having sex on the island, just the fact that he was on the island is part and parcel of how Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to commit his crimes because he had this unprecedented access. He had access to presidents, kings, princes, bankers, academics. You know, he amassed power.

And I think in order to really appreciate what happened here in all of its dimensions, we really need to go back to the beginning to find out how Jeffrey Epstein was able to leverage his contacts to get access to the president, 17 times, apparently, president on his jet, president on his island.

That is not just about sex or power or money. That's about access. And what we've seen with Jeffrey Epstein is that access was leveraged to create access to other people.

Maybe some of those people are interested in sex. Maybe some of those people are interested in money. Maybe some of those people are interested in clients.

I mean, that is really at the root of this scandal. And those questions are going to take a long time to get answered.

KEILAR: Yes, he used those connections as currency in a vast network, to your point.

MARSH: Absolutely.

KEILAR: And sometimes the currency was different. I do just want to note, James, before I let you go, law enforcement has not accused Bill Clinton of doing anything criminal related to Jeffrey Epstein. It's very important.

There are a lot of allegations out there and a lot of questions to be answered. But I just want to make that note.

MARSH: Absolutely.

KEILAR: James Marsh, great to speak with you. Thank you so much.

MARSH: Great. Thanks for having me on.

KEILAR: Yes, definitely.

MARSH: Thank you very much.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: This just into CNN, President Trump says he is not considering declaring a national emergency tied to the midterm elections. The president telling reporters moments ago that he hasn't heard about the idea.

This stems from a Washington Post report that says quote, "Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17 page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting."

Florida attorney Peter Tickton has reportedly been advocating for the proposal since last April, arguing that such an emergency would empower the president to ban mail ballots and voting machines. While the Post reporting doesn't indicate to what level the administration is considering this move, Trump has repeatedly called for Congress to pass stricter voter ID measures and to ban mail in ballots, including during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

Let's discuss with Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. Secretary, thanks for being with us. I want to get your thoughts on this proposal, in part because there is an intelligence report going back to 2021 that found that China considered deploying influence efforts but ultimately did not.

Given that, what do you make of this proposal?

JENA GRISWOLD, (D) COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first off, thanks for having me on. That's exactly right. National intelligence already determined that China did not interfere in the 2020 election.

And I think it is very important to note that in the Washington Post reporting, there was not confirmation that Trump was actually considering this executive order. But of course, he has conspiracy theorists all around him urging him to do God knows what on any given day when it comes to our elections. And he is a threat to American democracy.

I'm glad to hear that the White House is not considering this executive order. If they would go down that path, we would absolutely stop them in court. But make no mistake, they are trying to undermine our democracy, attack our elections and power grab.

And we will absolutely stop them in 2026.

SANCHEZ: It's notable that the same intelligence report that we're just talking about found that Russia meddled in the 2020 election with an influence campaign that denigrated then President Joe Biden and tried to bolster President Trump. Are you aware of any effort by the administration to safeguard this coming up -- this midterms that are coming up this year against foreign influence?

GRISWOLD: No, I'm not aware that they're doing anything to stop foreign interference. But we are aware that Trump has pulled down programs to counter foreign interference both by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. So he has made our elections less secure since assuming the presidency for the second time and is using the apparatus of the federal government to undermine American democracy, including, by the way, suing nearly 30 states to try to collect data, sensitive data on American voters.

Many states are in litigation. I told the DOJ to take a hike when they wanted Colorado's -- Coloradans' sensitive voter data. So I just think it underlines the point that anything this administration says about safeguarding elections is probably a lie because we have seen their actions.

They have made our elections less secure. And at this point, states are building contingencies against illegal federal action in the 2026 election.

SANCHEZ: The lawsuit from DOJ, they're essentially looking for partial Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. I wonder what you think they're trying to do with this information.

GRISWOLD: Yes. And to be clear, the DOJ does not have a lawful right to this information.

[14:50:00]

That's why so many secretaries of state have refused to hand it over. What I believe they're trying to do is take over states constitutional duty to oversee our elections to then push out disinformation and likely purge eligible Americans from the voter rolls.

They know that MAGA is so unpopular, that Trump is so unpopular that they are trying to suppress the vote. They're even going so far in doing corrupt mid-decade redistricting. I believe we have to fight fire with fire.

That's why I refuse to hand over the voter data. That's why I hope to see Coloradans redistrict and vote on that in 2026. We cannot allow MAGA to take a hold of Congress corruptly.

And frankly, that's why I'm running for attorney general in Colorado, to continue to protect our democracy, our freedoms, and all of our rights.

SANCHEZ: Wow. Jena Griswold, we have to leave the conversation there. We do appreciate your time.

GRISWOLD: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Brianna.

KEILAR: Now to some of the other headlines that we're watching this hour. Winter is typically Florida's driest season, but this one has been extreme even for the Sunshine State. Two-thirds of Florida are facing an extreme drought, and every portion of the state is experiencing at least moderate drought conditions, something that we haven't seen since the monitoring began more than 25 years ago.

Wildfires continue to burn in South Florida's Big Cypress National Preserve, and water restrictions are in place in some areas.

Also, Kansas is invalidating driver's licenses and birth certificates for roughly 1,700 transgender residents. A new law now in effect bans state documents from listing a sex that is different from the one assigned at birth. The bill reverses changes previously made for trans residents and requires them to turn in their old license and pay for a new one. They'll also be given new birth certificates.

And Uber is rolling out an on-demand air taxi that you can book right on the app. The flights will be part of a partnership with Joby Aviation and their all-electric fleet. Just plug in your destination, and if the route qualifies, the air taxi appears as an option. Dubai will get to try it out first before any U.S. launch. The air rides still need FAA certification.

And still ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL, the father of an alleged school shooter in Georgia takes the stand in his own defense. What he revealed about his son's actions leading up to that horrific day.

[14:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: 40 years after the world's worst nuclear accident, the CNN original series "DISASTER, THE CHERNOBYL MELTDOWN," uncovers the full story from the explosion and cover-up to today's war in Ukraine. CNN's chief global affairs correspondent, Matthew Chance, explores the history of that catastrophe and the nuclear risk that still exists to this day.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, a radioactive nightmare that woefully unprepared Soviet firefighters struggled to contain. PETRO SHAVREY, FIREFIGHTER (through translated text): Darkness, smoke, pockets of fire, parts of the roof collapsing and guys covered with bitumen. There was not time to speak, to look around.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translated text): Was it scary?

SHAVREY: What do you mean scary? I had to focus on moving quickly. Those shouting, "Where are the hoses?" I could only think of them. Not about how scary it was.

CHANCE (voice-over): But the catastrophic meltdown was at first kept under wraps by the Soviet authorities, exposing oblivious locals to radioactive contamination.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We woke up as normal, and as usual, we went to school. Before the accident, we never talked about safety measures. The power plant was perceived as the safest thing.

CHANCE (voice-over): Even the annual May Day parade in Kyiv went ahead. Soviet authorities desperately tried to cover up the unfolding catastrophe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translated text): They should have been evacuated a lot earlier. Information was always controlled. This was our usual practice.

CHANCE (voice-over): And the casualties were high. 31 killed in the immediate blast aftermath, thousands more believed to have died since then from the fallout. A tragic indictment of how the disaster was managed from start to finish.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Soviets' initial attempt to try to cover over the destroyed reactor building, it was leaky, it was not as structurally strong as it could have been. Because of these concerns, Ukraine and Western donors got together and created a structure to cover over the entire building, a very large structure called the New Safe Confinement.

CHANCE (voice-over): It was finished in 2016, significantly reducing the dangers around the disaster zone, even allowing it to become a tourist attraction. But in February 2022, Russia launched its full- scale invasion of Ukraine. The exclusion zone around Chernobyl was used as a backdoor in.

CHANCE: There's a potentially dangerous military confrontation around that nuclear reactor. That could kick up all sorts of horrific radioactive material and cause that massive catastrophe to repeat itself all over again.

CHANCE (voice-over): Russian forces ploughed through, even digging trenches in the highly contaminated Chernobyl forest, threatening troops with dangerous radioactive contamination.

Even four decades on, amid a war that has seen at least one drone strike on the protective cover, Chernobyl remains a looming nuclear threat. Matthew Chance, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Thanks to ...

END