Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Indirect U.S.-Iran Talks and U.S.-Ukraine Talks Underway; Concerns within U.S. Military over Potential Attack on Iran; Four Killed in Cuba in Shootout with Florida Speedboat; House Oversight Committee Chair Speaks before Hillary Clinton Deposition in Epstein Investigation; U.S. Justice Department Failed to Redact Problematic Images for Nearly One Month; FIFA President Reassures Fans after Violence in Mexico. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired February 26, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD.
ELENI GIOKOS, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Welcome to the second hour of the show. I'm Eleni Giokos, live in Abu Dhabi.
It is a big day for diplomacy in Geneva, where two sets of critical talks are taking place, one aimed at ending war, the other aimed at preventing
one.
The common thread for both, the United States. Its negotiating team of special envoy Steve Witkoff and president Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, has been meeting with Oman's foreign minister for what is the third round of indirect talks with Iran.
Iran's foreign minister also meeting with Oman's top diplomats. The sides paused for consultations after several hours of negotiations and are set to
resume talking quite soon.
The Omani foreign minister is giving a positive assessment so far.
The Ukrainians' top negotiator says Kushner and Witkoff are also participants in U.S.-Ukraine talks that started a few hours ago.
And we are covering all the angles. We've got Fred Pleitgen in Geneva and we've got Zachary Cohen in Washington for us.
Good to see both of you. Talks are paused right now when it comes to Iran and the United States and they're set to restart in a few hours.
Are we seeing any promising signs?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly the fact that they are going to meet again seems to be a promising sign.
And also the fact that the Iranians, Eleni, have come out and said, yes, the talks for now are paused.
But they also said -- and this comes in the form of the spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry -- that the talks so far have been intensive and
very serious as well.
Also, the foreign minister of Oman, he went to X and he also said that, so far, there's been a constructive atmosphere. And when aimed at trying to
make progress -- and they hope that more progress can be made when the two sides come back.
As I stand here right now, we believe that in about maybe an hour, 1.5 hours, possibly two hours, the two parties are going to then return to try
and move things forward even more.
Of course, the main issues that we've seen on the table, they do remain. The United States, of course, insisting that Iran stop enriching uranium.
We have heard from president Trump, just over the past couple of days, several times saying that he would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
The Iranians are saying, look, they don't want a nuclear weapon. They never have wanted a nuclear weapon but they do believe that it is their inherent
right to enrich uranium.
And that certainly is one of the main centerpieces that they've been talking about, how both sides could possibly get their way or reach some
compromise that they could get out of these talks and then possibly move forward toward a larger agreement between Iran and the United States to try
and get this conflict.
Not resolved but at least for the meantime, to make it a little less intense than it is right now. What we're hearing from the spokesman for
Iran's foreign ministry is that both Iran's nuclear program as well as possible sanctions relief for the Iranians have so far been discussed.
And that ideas were then probed with one another, that both sides were very intensely asking for those ideas with one another. So certainly it seems as
though these negotiations are moving forward at a very high pace.
But again, of course, right now it seems as though the clock is ticking against these negotiators as that massive U.S. military buildup in the
Middle East continues, Eleni.
GIOKOS: All right.
So, Zach we're also seeing tension between Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Caine and president Trump over options for potentially striking Iran.
Explain to us what's going on there.
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there does appear to be a disconnect between what president Donald Trump has said publicly
about the prospects of a conflict with Iran and what his top military adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Caine, has been saying privately.
Now Trump has come out and has been very bullish in saying he believes the U.S. would easily win a potential conflict with Iran if things evolve to
that point.
But behind the scenes, Caine and other Pentagon leaders have acknowledged and voiced concerns about various issues related to a major military
operation targeting Iran, including the scale, the complexity and the potential for U.S. casualties if Donald Trump ultimately gives the order to
move forward.
Now, at the same time, General Caine has obviously been key in helping develop these range of military options and presenting them to president
Trump over the last several weeks now. And he's also helped facilitate this massive military buildup in the Middle East that we are currently seeing
today.
[10:05:06]
But at the same time, too, raising questions in private about what ultimately would happen after a U.S. military operation.
We're told about a Situation Room meeting just last week, where Caine could not say what would happen if the U.S. was able to successfully facilitate
regime change in Iran, which, of course, would be among the most extreme military options the president has been presented.
So not only concerns about the risks of a U.S. military buildup in operation but the uncertainty about what would come afterward.
GIOKOS: Yes.
Fred, so it is a busy day in Geneva. At the same time, we're seeing U.S.- Ukraine also, you know, engaged in negotiations and talks.
So how do Ukrainians feel about this?
PLEITGEN: Yes, those talks apparently are a little bit less formal than the ones that we're seeing here than the Iran talks. But nevertheless, of
course, very important.
And, of course, one of the things that we need to point out, that it's once again a really busy day for Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner here in Geneva,
where they did the talks with the Iranians in the morning.
They are now meeting with the Ukrainians at the moment and then will return here to continue speaking with the Iranians later today.
As far as the Ukrainian side of those talks is concerned, they are apparently bilateral talks between the United States and Ukraine. And when
we look at the efforts to end the war in Ukraine, there's really three main fields that the sides are talking about.
One is territorial issues and what concessions the Ukrainians might be willing to make as part of any peace agreement. Security guarantees by the
United States is another field.
But the one that they're talking about today is what's called the so-called prosperity package, where essentially the United States negotiators are
telling the Ukrainians that if you make these painful concessions.
If you give up, for instance, territory for a peace agreement, the united will see -- the United States will see to it that Ukraine prospers, that
there's economic opportunity, that there's U.S. investment in Ukraine, that there's investment from other countries also, of course, in rebuilding
Ukraine as well.
And that's one of the things -- or the main thing that the two sides apparently are talking about today. Ukraine's chief negotiator, Rustem
Umerov, he's there on the ground but also the economy minister of Ukraine.
Because, of course, this would be potentially a big financial and economic boost for Ukraine as well, if, indeed, a peace agreement at some point in
time is reached.
GIOKOS: Yes.
Zach, give me a sense of what message the United States is sending by doing these diplomatic talks back to back.
Z. COHEN: Yes, it really is a reflection of the president's desire to achieve two deals that are typically and historically have proven to be
very complicated issues.
Ending conflicts or ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has proven to be very elusive for president Trump. He's even acknowledged that
he thought that he could help bring an end to that conflict much sooner. And obviously, the war continues now.
And at the same time trying to grapple with a very complicated issue in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, one that President Barack Obama, when
he negotiated the JCPOA when he was president, that took two years to hammer out the details of that agreement.
President Donald Trump has obviously demanded that his negotiators come up with a deal in a much more condensed timeline.
I think, too, it's very notable that, as Fred suggested, the negotiators on the U.S. side are the same in both Ukraine and Russia negotiations and on
the Iran front.
Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, the two most trusted envoys, even though both lacking formal diplomatic experience
before entering the Trump administration
GIOKOS: Yes. And a lot at stake. Zach Cohen, good to see you.
Thank you so much, Fred Pleitgen, for that update.
And joining us now live, we've got Fawaz Gerges, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and author of the book, "The
Great Betrayal: The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East," among other books that he's written.
Good to see you, Fawaz. I mean, it's a big day of diplomacy and, frankly, I mean, so much at stake. You've got the U.S.-Iran talks now paused for what
they're saying are diplomatic considerations.
Oman is mediating and saying that negotiators are showing unprecedented openness and -- open to new creative ideas.
So what do you think that means?
FAWAZ GERGES, PROFESSOR, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS: Well, I think it means that Iran is trying to provide a win for
president Trump.
A win in terms of basically president Trump telling the American people that this particular agreement is much better than the 2015 agreement
between the Obama administration and Iran.
Iran seems also to be offering president Trump, dangling, you know, economic, an economic and commercial bonanza, trying to convince president
Trump that, if an agreement is reached between Iran and the United States, Iran is open for American companies and corporations to invest in oil and
gas and mineral resources.
The Iranians know very well that this president cares a great deal about money and oil and gas and mineral resources.
[10:10:08]
So the challenge for the Iranian team is to provide enough incentives for president Trump to say, well, look, this is really a major win, a major
victory and basically celebrate the victory as he did in Venezuela.
But, of course, it's too early. We have to wait and see whether there is any white smoke basically emerging out of the room in Geneva.
GIOKOS: So interesting. You're saying, you know, Iran is offering what you call a commercial bonanza and basically offering up resources and just the
incredible opportunities that are in Iran, resource based opportunities.
But is that going to mean that the U.S.is going to win the argument about absolutely no nuclear enrichment in Iran in exchange for lifting of
sanctions and the U.S. being able to, you know, invest heavily in those resource sectors?
GERGES: Well, I think this is the most challenging hurdle in the talks between Iran and the United States. The Iranian leadership insists that
Iran has the natural and legal right to enrich uranium. Not, you know, in terms of the 60 percent but at least in symbolic levels, you know, between
5 percent and 2 percent. This is their right.
They spent 40 years investing blood and treasure in developing their nuclear, basically program, while president Trump insists on zero
enrichment. So we again we have to wait and see whether the two sides could find -- really bridge the divide.
What I have heard so far is a bit reassuring, because the Omani foreign minister, who is basically shuttling between the two teams, he says that
creative and imaginative ideas have been presented in order to bridge the divide between the United States and Iran.
At the end of the day, this is really Donald Trump's call. We know that he's temperamental. He makes decisions unilaterally. So we have to wait and
see whether the Iranians, again, can really provide Trump with a win to go back and celebrate this major victory for him.
GIOKOS: Yes, I mean you've got an enormous military buildup in the Mediterranean and here in the Middle East.
And, you know, I think everyone here is asking the question, is this going to happen?
When is it going to happen?
And I mean, you also hear from the Chairman of Joint Chiefs, warning president Trump about the consequences of a strike in Iran.
What are the pros and cons of striking Iran?
GERGES: Well, what we need to understand is that, indeed, this is the most significant amount of American military power mobilized in the Middle East
since America invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. A third of the U.S. Navy has been deployed.
Hundreds of fighter jets have been deployed, 14 American ships and billions of dollars are being spent. So this is really real. This is very, very
serious.
What -- the reason why I'm hopeful -- and this is really very in the past 48 hours -- is that the top American Chief of Staff General Caine, who's
highly professional, reportedly warned Donald Trump that any war against Iran will not be easy, will not be simple, will be costly.
Because president Trump likes easy wars, simple wars, easy wins, like in Venezuela. And I think the American general has impressed on Donald Trump,
as we know from leaked information, this war could really be catastrophic for the region and also could really have major effects on American
ammunition in particular.
You know, the air defense system, not to mention the fact that this will not be an easy victory like the victory in Venezuela, this gives me hope
because Donald Trump likes easy wins, not costly wars.
Because it's all about him, about -- and that's why, if and when this war comes -- and I hope it does not come -- this will be seen by historians as
illegal as a war of choice, as really a war, a man's made war, Donald Trump's war, very much similar to the American invasion and occupation of
Iraq in 2003
GIOKOS: Yes. And you make a really good point there.
It's the question about, what legal justifications under international law does the United States basically have to strike Iran?
But, you know, in all of this we also we have to ask the question.
[10:15:00]
What does Israel want to see?
This is, I guess, what we've been hearing, a rare moment where you have Iran weakened. And I'm sure that's also, you know, going through their
minds. You've got this military buildup. You've got two destroyers. You have a weakened Iran.
GERGES: Well, I think if you ask me -- and there's consensus even among American strategists -- is that Israel is the only state that has been
advocating war against Iran. Even Iran's traditional rivals, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have been pleading with president
Trump not to unleash a -- trigger another war.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has spent his lifetime -- his lifetime, three decades -- trying to bring about a regime change by
convincing American presidents to basically attack Iran. And he failed.
But, of course, he found Donald Trump to be, sadly to say, gullible. He convinced him in June to attack Iran. So it's not just Israel. What we need
to understand is that --
(CROSSTALK)
GIOKOS: Fawaz, let me -- yes.
Fawaz, very quickly, because we're running out of time, I just want you to also answer this question.
Again, you can bring that into the next answer as well on that point.
If the -- if the talks fail today, are you expecting a strike as early as this weekend?
GERGES: I have no doubts in my mind. If no diplomatic breakthrough achieved today, that war could come at any moment, today, tomorrow, over
the weekend, because the American military now is positioned and is ready to attack Iran, whether it's a limited strike or all-out war. We have to
wait and see what will happen.
GIOKOS: All right, Fawaz Gerges, really good to have you on. Thank you so much for your insights. Always a pleasure.
All right. Still to come, we're following a deadly incident off the coast of Cuba. What we know about the altercation between border guards and a
speedboat full of Cuban nationals.
And as the Epstein files mar the reputation of several U.S. public figures, Microsoft's founder is issuing an apology. We'll have the details when we
come back.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
GIOKOS: We're keeping a close eye on a deadly incident off the coast of Cuba. Officials in Cuba say border guard troops shot and killed four people
on a speedboat in Cuban waters, who were trying to, quote, "infiltrate" the island nation on Wednesday.
The Cuban interior ministry says the boat was registered in Florida and was carrying Cubans who live in the United States. One of the passengers
allegedly opened fire on the border guard troops. Six other people aboard the speedboat were wounded in the shootout and are receiving medical care
while being held in custody.
[10:20:00]
We've got CNN's Stefano Pozzebon following the story for us.
Stefano, good to see you.
What do we know about this investigation and what transpired in this incident?
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, unfortunately, we don't know much. And everything we know is directly from the Cuban government. So, of
course, we need to take it with a little bit of caution.
However, we do know that the incident took place at the northernmost tip of the Cuban coast, the part of the island of Cuba that is closest to Florida.
The closest to both Miami, the Miami community of anti-Cuban, a hotbed, frankly, and the Cuban Keys, which is that -- the peninsula, that line of
archipelago that drives south from the continental United States toward Cuba in south Florida.
We know that six people have been so far apprehended by the Cuban government. The Cuban government and the interior ministry in particular
have told us that one more person have been apprehended for flying into Cuba to organize the reception of what they are saying was a tribulation
(ph) of terrorists.
These six people, together with the four that have been killed in the standoff on Wednesday, are now accused of terrorism and trying to
infiltrate the country, Cuba, in -- to stem (ph) a rebellion, to stem (ph) social disorder.
We know that the Americans have called for a thorough investigation and for clarifying all the facts, in particular not just the secretary of state,
Marco Rubio, but also the Florida attorney general, who is appointed by the Republicans, but also the mayor of Miami, who is a Democratic politician.
But still called to take everything coming out of Cuba with a pinch of salt and asking for American, U.S. investigators to clarify all the facts,
especially if they link to the southern Florida community, to people in Miami, where we know that a change of government has been demanded when it
comes to Cuba for more than 60 years.
But this has the potential to rapidly escalate into the most serious geopolitical crisis of the year so far, especially after the removal of
Nicolas Maduro down in Venezuela. It's a situation that we're monitoring very, very quickly, very, very closely because it could escalate very
quickly. Eleni.
GIOKOS: Yes, absolutely. OK. So I want to talk about the current economic realities facing people in Cuba right now. A lifeline was always Venezuelan
oil. That has dried up.
I mean, you mentioned Nicolas Maduro, you know, and, of course, the United States assault on Cuba as well. It's something that the U.S. wants to focus
on. So give me a sense of the mounting pressure and the humanitarian crisis that's currently unfolding there.
POZZEBON: The mounting pressure is the strongest that the current Cuban government has faced in recent history. Cuba does not produce nearly enough
of the energy that it needs. And it needs more energy, more oil to produce electric -- electricity to run its factories, to run its city.
And that's why we're seeing daily blackouts both in Havana and the rest of the island. One of the first reactions coming out of this incident, I think
it's important to point out, came directly from the Kremlin, Russia being a close ally of the Castros' government and the current president of Cuba,
Miguel Diaz-Canel.
This is what Dmitry Peskov, the Russian spokesperson, had to say about the incident in Cuba.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DMITRY PESKOV, PUTIN SPOKESPERSON (through translator): The situation around Cuba, as we see, is escalating. The most important thing now is the
humanitarian aspect. Of course, all humanitarian issues Cuban citizens are facing must be resolved. And no one should create obstacles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
POZZEBON: So the United States have essentially blocked all shipments of oil from neighboring countries into Cuba -- used to be Venezuela; Maduro
was removed. Venezuela is no longer sending crude oil to Cuba.
It used to be Mexico; Mexico has desisted to do that after the U.S. pressured the Mexican president. And now Canada and Mexico are sending in
humanitarian aid because, of course, the humanitarian situation could as well rapidly escalate into a crisis.
It's a sign, it's an arm-wrestle between Washington via Miami and Havana. Of course, I say via Miami because Marco Rubio himself, the secretary of
state, is from southern Florida. He has long advocated for regime change in Havana.
And he also said that yesterday, saying that the Cuba government should seize power as quickly as possible. The Cuban situation should change as
quickly as possible.
And we see that increasingly isolated. Pasco (ph), for example did not offer any concrete help coming down from Russia to Cuba. So a situation
that we're monitoring very, very closely in the days and weeks ahead, Eleni.
[10:25:00]
GIOKOS: All right. Stefano Pozzebon, good to see you, thank you.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates has apologized to staff at his foundation over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, according to "The Wall Street Journal." Gates
said it was a huge mistake to send -- spend time with the convicted sex offender. Gates has repeatedly said he did not do or see anything illicit
during his meetings with Epstein.
In the latest tranche of files released by the Department of Justice, Gates is pictured posing with women whose faces are redacted. CNN's Matt Egan has
been following the story for us and, of course, the latest on this from New York.
Matt, what more do we know about what Bill Gates told his employees at a time where we're seeing a massive fallout of a lot of people that have been
mentioned in these files?
MATT EGAN, CNN SR. BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, lots of fallout. And these do appear to be the most detailed comments to date from Bill Gates
regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And he made these comments during a town hall with employees and staffers at the Gates Foundation.
Now according to "The Wall Street Journal," Gates, he apologized and he admits that he made mistakes related to Epstein, mistakes that cast a bad
light on the organization.
He said it was a, quote, "huge mistake" to spend time with Epstein and he admitted to having two affairs with Russian women. Now Gates insisted,
however, that the affairs did not involve Epstein's victims and that he never spent time with any of the victims.
According to "The Journal," Gates said, "I did nothing illicit. I saw nothing illicit."
Now during this town hall, Gates explained that he first met Epstein in 2011, so that was around three years after Epstein's guilty plea. And Gates
concedes that he did not properly check Epstein's background.
He also acknowledged that his then wife, Melinda French Gates, had expressed concerns about Epstein back in 2013.
According to "The Journal," Gates, at this town hall, he said, "Knowing what I know now makes it, you know, 100 times worse in terms of not only
his crimes in the past but now it's clear there was ongoing bad behavior."
And Gates went on to say, speaking of his ex-wife, "To give her credit, she was always kind of skeptical of the Epstein thing."
Now Gates says that he did spend time with Epstein in New York, in Washington, in France, in Germany. He says he never stayed overnight and he
says he never visited Epstein's island.
Now is this the whole story from Gates?
His critics would argue that it might not be. But we should note that Gates has not been accused of wrongdoing here. We did reach out; the Gates
Foundation confirmed to CNN that, yes, he did have a town hall. He did speak candidly and he did take responsibility for his actions.
Of course, all of this only comes after the Justice Department was forced by Congress to release millions of Epstein-related documents.
Now, previously, Gates had said, during an interview earlier this month, that he was, quote, "foolish" to be with Epstein. Take a listen to what
Gates said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL GATES, BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION: Just reminds me every minute I spent with him, I regret and I apologize that I did that. It's
factually true that I was only at dinners, you know. I never went to the island. I never met any women.
And so, you know, the more that comes out, the more clear it will be that, although the time was a mistake, it had nothing to do with that kind of
behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EGAN: Now Gates is among the business leaders who are facing intense scrutiny over their ties to Epstein.
We've seen a number of apologies, a number of resignations, a number of abrupt retirements because these documents have raised significant
questions about these business leaders' judgment for continuing to associate with Epstein.
And look, there are those who believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that we're going to see more prominent people tied up and
caught up in this scandal.
GIOKOS: Matt Egan, thank you so much for that update.
And still to come, Hillary Clinton on the hot seat. The former first lady facing questions next hour from the congressional committee investigating
Jeffrey Epstein. A look at what we can expect from her deposition, that's coming up after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:30:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
GIOKOS (voice-over): Welcome back to CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Eleni Giokos. Here are your headlines.
The third round of indirect nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran in Geneva is currently paused for consultations, with both sides expected to
resume negotiations soon. Iran's foreign ministry says both parties are taking part with great seriousness.
A source says the U.S. is insisting on limiting Iran's nuclear enrichment and maintaining long-term verification of its nuclear activity.
Cuba says its troops shot and killed four people on a speedboat in its waters, who were trying to infiltrate the island nation. Six other people
aboard the speedboat were wounded and are in custody receiving medical care. Secretary of state Marco Rubio says the U.S. will conduct its own
investigation into the incident.
And in about 30 minutes from now, former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton will begin her testimony in the congressional investigation into
convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The former first lady has said she never met Epstein. Neither she nor her husband are accused of any
wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
Former president Bill Clinton is set to be deposed on Friday. Today's deposition is something the U.S. House Oversight Committee has been pushing
for and the Clintons resisted for months.
The former president and first lady agreed to be deposed after the committee threatened to hold them in contempt. Hillary Clinton -- all
right, we've got to take you to James Comer. Let's take a listen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): -- I think there were eight names originally, including Bill and Hillary Clinton. Everyone that was included in that
subpoena has already either been interviewed by the Oversight Committee or sent in a statement that they had never met Epstein and had no knowledge of
the investigation except the Clintons.
We worked for six months to get the Clintons to come in and then they acted like they were going to come in and then they didn't show up. And obviously
we moved to hold the Clintons in contempt.
And I think one thing that surprised the Clintons, they assumed the Democrats on the committee would vote in a -- in a partisan manner and not
vote to hold the Clintons in contempt. And what they learned was a majority of the Democrats on the committee voted to hold the Clintons in contempt or
voted present.
And I think that's a statement that this investigation is serious. It is a bipartisan investigation. The American people have a lot of questions. To
my knowledge, the Clintons haven't answered very many, if any, questions about their knowledge or involvement with Epstein and Maxwell.
Again, no one is accusing at this moment the Clintons of any wrongdoing. They're going to have due process. But we have a lot of questions. And the
purpose of the whole investigation is to try to understand many things about Epstein.
How did he accumulate so much wealth?
How was he able to surround himself with some of the most powerful men in the world?
[10:35:00]
Was he an asset for our government or any other government?
These are the questions that we're going to ask over the next two days and hopefully we'll be able to get some answers. And as always we're going to
release the transcripts. We're going to release the video as soon as everyone has approved it.
The normal process in a deposition is the attorneys would have the opportunity to review the transcript and review the video to make sure that
there are no errors. And this is going to be a long video because this is going to be a long deposition.
Today will be a long deposition, I would assume, and tomorrow will be an even longer deposition. Every member of the Oversight Committee is going to
have questions for the Clintons, as well as our trained staff that do nothing but depositions.
So after our hour of questioning, we're going to send a couple of members of the Oversight Committee out to be able to give you an update of what's
going on and answer some questions. So with that, we'll answer a question or two and then we'll go --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Mr. Comer, are you concerned that there has been a coverup of sexual abuse of a minor by president Trump?
There are missing FBI records that appear to be.
COMER: No, we're looking into the accusation by the NPR. We don't know the answer to that. We know what the administration says. We're still looking
to get a definitive answer on that.
But look, let's just be realistic here. If you go by a lot of what the Democrats have said, you had Jasmine Crockett accuse Lee Zeldin of taking
donations from Jeffrey Epstein. It was the wrong Jeffrey Epstein.
We've had Ro Khanna sit on the floor and name names of people that were -- he thought were involved in Epstein that weren't even involved. So, you
know, sometimes the Democrats on the committee aren't the best investigators.
Go ahead. Chad, yes.
QUESTION: The president --
QUESTION: What about the idea, though, that -- I understand you say that this is different with some of the members or some of the people who were
subpoenaed who didn't have as direct contact.
But some folks have said, it seems like you're -- the Clintons are basically on trial here versus people who know more about the, you know,
what was going on with Maxwell, what was going on with Epstein and that this is really kind of dragging them through the mud when there are other
witnesses.
COMER: Well, let's address that. Chad. The Democrats voted to subpoena the Clintons. The Democrats voted with the Republicans to hold the Clintons in
contempt. So the Democrats have just as many questions for the Clintons as the Republicans.
So this isn't a partisan witch hunt. This was a motion, a bipartisan motion, supported by the Democrats to bring the Clintons in. So I don't
think it's any type of being unfair in any way to the Clintons.
They've never answered questions. Unlike president Trump, who gets questioned every day by just about every one of you about his knowledge or
involvement with Epstein. To my knowledge, the Clintons haven't answered very many questions about Epstein. So we'll do we'll do one more question.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- the spirit of bipartisanship, would you then ask the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, to come testify?
It seems like he has some information.
COMER: That's very possible. And I think there --, you know, I think it's a good possibility that his name will arise in some questioning today.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It will be on my list. And I have an email I printed off for Hillary to ask about Howard Lutnick today. So...
(CROSSTALK)
COMER: We're asking again -- and I want to remind everyone, we've already brought in Alex Acosta and Bill Barr for depositions. That's two
Republicans in the -- in the Trump administration. So this isn't just about Democrats. This is about anyone that has any knowledge of Epstein, the
investigation.
I think we all agree the government failed. The government failed the victims. And what our role is, we can't -- we can't prosecute anyone. But
what we have been doing is getting transparency for the American people.
We subpoenaed the estate. That had nothing to do with the discharge petition. We subpoenaed the documents for the estate. That's what the
victims asked us to do. And what you're seeing is there is accountability finally happening.
You've seen at least a dozen very powerful people, men and women, who have already resigned, many in disgrace, from their board positions. So we're
seeing accountability. But we have a desire to see a lot more accountability. We want to get the answers.
And hopefully the next two days will be a step in the right direction on our investigation.
(CROSSTALK)
COMER: Go ahead. One more and then --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: I mean, Hillary Clinton has said she has no links to Jeffrey Epstein. She doesn't recall meeting him.
So what specific information do you believe she has that warrants her testimony?
COMER: We -- you'll see. I mean, we're going to ask a lot of questions. But with respect to when you look at all the coconspirators -- and we've
all seen the unredacted documents -- Maxwell was the main co conspirator.
No one brought more women in and lied to more women about what was going to happen with their involvement with Jeffrey Epstein than Ghislaine Maxwell.
We know that obviously Maxwell was a guest at Chelsea Clinton's wedding.
[10:40:02]
There weren't many people that went to that wedding. So again, we're not accusing Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing.
We know that Jeffrey Epstein said many times in emails that he was the first person to raise money for the Clinton initiative, The Clinton
Foundation, that he solicited money at some of his properties for The Clinton Foundation. Again, that's not saying anything illegal.
But there are a lot of questions pertaining to Secretary Clinton with respect to Epstein and his involvement in the Clinton initiative and her
relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. So we'll come out every hour when we get finished and different members will update you and answer any
questions. Thank you all.
QUESTION: -- forced to go to Washington. A taxpayer spent --
GIOKOS: All right, so that was James Comey. He is the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee. And this is just ahead of Hillary Clinton's
deposition.
And one thing that was really important in, you know, briefing the media, importantly, he said, we need to understand more about Jeffrey Epstein, how
he was able to surround himself with so many wealthy people and people in power, how he accumulated so much wealth.
And importantly, was he an asset?
Also reminding everyone that Hillary Clinton's deposition was a bipartisan motion. I want to bring in CNN senior reporter, Marshall Cohen. We've also
got CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig. Elie was the assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
And Elie, now, I want to start with you. And it's really interesting, you know, listening to what we can expect today, what the aim of this
deposition with Hillary Clinton is going to be. So give me a sense here of what we can expect from Hillary Clinton, someone that says she's never even
met Jeffrey Epstein.
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think that's the open question here.
Just how much, if any, useful, substantive information will Hillary Clinton have?
She has said she never met Jeffrey Epstein. There's been no evidence to the contrary. She did have some association with Ghislaine Maxwell but we've
still not seen anything specific put out there by Representative Comer.
The most he has said in his back-and-forth exchange with the Clintons is that Hillary Clinton in 2008 hired Ghislaine Maxwell's nephew to work on
her presidential campaign. If that's all they've got, then they're not going to get a heck of a lot out of Hillary Clinton.
So I do understand this notion of we're trying to learn more about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. I do absolutely understand that Bill Clinton
has some very serious questions to answer -- he had much more extensive dealings with the two of them -- when he testifies tomorrow.
But as for today, we'll see what Hillary Clinton has. But it doesn't seem like Representative Comer even has a precise idea of what he's aiming for
from Hillary Clinton today.
GIOKOS: Yes, it's really interesting, I mean, just on the Clintons. And he was talking about, you know, what relation Jeffrey Epstein have with The
Clinton Foundation and so forth. I mean it's really fascinating just to see. And, of course, there was a big talk -- he was talking about, this
isn't about Democrats. This isn't about Republicans.
This was a bipartisan motion. And, you know, we need to get information for transparency for the American people because they, frankly, can't take
anyone to court in terms of the efforts on the deposition. But it offers important and vital information.
HONIG: Yes, it well, could and it is important to keep in mind this was a subpoena that was approved by all the Democrats and all the Republicans on
the committee.
And then when the Clintons really played games and tried to avoid testifying, the vote for contempt on them was all the Republicans and nine
Democrats on the committee out of 19 voted for contempt on Bill Clinton and three Democrats on the committee voted for contempt on Hillary Clinton.
And I think the Clintons were taken by surprise by that. I think they assumed that Democrats would hold rank. But they didn't. So anyone who's
had dealings with Jeffrey Epstein of any substance is subject to questioning.
How good a use of a time this is with Hillary Clinton, I think, is to be determined. I do think there clearly is also an aspect of political show
here.
When you take the apparent amount that Hillary Clinton would know here, which appears to be very little and you contrast that, you weigh that
against the amount of hype that Representative Comer is putting around this, there's a bit of an imbalance there. And there are other fair
questions.
He was just asked, well, you've subpoenaed Hillary Clinton.
How about Howard Lutnick, who's in the cabinet right now?
We know Howard Lutnick had an extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. We know Howard Lutnick has publicly misstated previously the extent of his
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
So where's the subpoena for him?
So if this committee is going after information -- and they are, God bless them; they're doing a decent job of that -- I'm not sure there isn't some
element, though, of boldface name hunting here with -- particularly the subpoena to Hillary Clinton.
GIOKOS: Yes, I mean ...
Yes. And it's interesting because when they were asked about, you know, Howard Lutnick, you know, someone, another member of the House Oversight
Committee basically said, yes, we plan to ask about that.
And I mean, they're very open to it.
The other thing was really fascinating is, you know, when they were asked about, is there a cover up?
[10:45:01]
And what about president Trump?
And further redactions?
So a lot going on there.
And Marshall, I want to come to you. There is a lot of discussion on the redactions.
What are your new findings about redaction issues in those files?
MARSHALL COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we've known for a while about redaction problems in the Epstein files. But it's actually much more
widespread than we thought.
We worked with an AI company called Visual Layer (ph) to examine more than 100,000 images that the DOJ posted to the Epstein files website. And we
found more than a dozen photos that should have been redacted but weren't and remained on the public DOJ site for nearly a month now.
I'm going to show everybody some of these pictures in a second. But keep in mind, we, CNN, blurred the versions that you're about to see. But they were
available, fully unredacted on the DOJ site for weeks.
There were pictures of a young girl kissing Jeffrey Epstein on the cheek, completely unredacted. There were non-sexual but unredacted images of other
children and toddlers who were obviously minors and should have been protected.
There were also several pictures of passports and driver's licenses, revealing private data, like ID numbers, addresses and dates of birth.
CNN asked the DOJ about these images on Monday. And by Tuesday they were all taken down and replaced with properly redacted versions.
And I also want, finally, to read for you a statement that we got from the DOJ about this situation.
They said, quote, "Our team is working around the to address any victim concerns, additional redactions of potentially personally identifiable
information as well as any files that require further redactions under the law."
GIOKOS: Yes, I mean, it's -- there's a lot going on there.
You know, and here's the thing, Marshall, you also are hearing about explicit photos that the DOJ posted online.
So what happened then?
You were saying they're working through the night; they're trying to sort out these redaction issues. But just take me through the consequences of
these mishaps.
M. COHEN: Yes. They say they've been working around the clock to make sure that nothing improper was posted in the first place and when things did
slip through, they take it down quickly.
But look, we found more than 100 sexually explicit photos that the DOJ posted online last month during the previous Epstein files dump. And they
took these down pretty quickly. Some were replaced with redacted versions, which is what you're now seeing on your screen.
There were dozens of photos showing what appeared to be two naked teenagers on a beach. There were also multiple, uncensored nude selfies like you're
seeing here. And there was also one image showing Epstein with an undressed female.
We spoke to legal experts and advocates for survivors of sexual abuse. Everyone is stunned that photos like these made it through the DOJ's
review. Remember, top officials at the DOJ were adamant that they redacted every single woman in the Epstein files.
And the advocates that we spoke to said, no surprise; this situation is going to retraumatize the victims. Even though the DOJ took this stuff down
pretty quickly, we all know, once something is on the internet, it's basically impossible to take down.
GIOKOS: Yes. Yes, it spreads like wildfire.
Elie, I want to bring you in here. And, you know, there's a lot of questions around the handling of these documents.
I mean, you know, there was even a question, is there a coverup, you know, specifically relating to president Trump and so forth?
So what do you make of the matters that have been raised by Marshall's reporting?
There's a lot going on here in terms of photographs, explicit pictures, you know, not protecting victims. And then the question about a cover-up.
HONIG: Well, what the information that Marshall has uncovered and our team at CNN has uncovered shows that DOJ just absolutely screwed up. And it's
inexcusable. It's even more inexcusable when you consider that DOJ took more than a month, more than the law allowed them, to make this production
of documents.
And yet even with helping themselves to an extra 40 days or so, they still could not get it right. The number one sin you can commit as DOJ there is
to retraumatize those victims. It appears that's exactly what they've done.
On the same token, on the other hand, they've also apparently withheld certain documents that should have been produced. There is a provision of
the Epstein Files Transparency Act that says nothing is supposed to be withheld or redacted because it might cause personal embarrassment or
political harm to an individual.
Yet there are spots throughout the files, dozens of incidents, where names are redacted or documents have been withheld apparently on that exact
basis. So DOJ has both been overinclusive and underinclusive in the documents that they've made public.
GIOKOS: Elie Honig, Marshall Cohen, thank you so much for your time and your insights.
[10:50:00]
We'll be watching Hillary Clinton's deposition very soon.
All right. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD. There's more news straight ahead. Stay with CNN.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
GIOKOS: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is vowing to strengthen his country's nuclear weapons program. He told the congress of the North Korean
Workers Party that means building more weapons and increasing the means to deploy them.
At Wednesday's spectacular parade in Pyongyang, the leader was joined by his daughter, who is expected to be his successor. But no major military
hardware was wheeled out. There were no tanks, missiles or launches at the procession.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
GIOKOS (voice-over): So let's get you up to speed now on some other stories that are on our radar.
The father of Chinese pro-democracy activist, Anna Kwok, has been sentenced to eight months in prison in Hong Kong. Kwok Yin-sang was charged under
national security laws after attempting to access money linked to his daughter.
Anna Kwok helps lead a Hong Kong advocacy group and is wanted by the national security police. She is now based in the United States.
A Syrian refugee and detention camp housing thousands of families, who were alleged to have ISIS links, has been a, quote, "mass escape." That's
according to Syrian media. Last month, government forces seized control of the territory where the camp is located. It is unclear exactly how many
people fled in the escape.
The president of FIFA says he has confidence that World Cup co-host Mexico will stage a successful tournament, despite outbursts of gang violence.
[10:55:06]
The killing of the cartel boss, nicknamed El Mencho by security forces, triggered a wave of attacks on police as well as property. Gianni Infantino
says FIFA is monitoring the situation. Mexico is expecting more than 5 million visitors during the tournament, which kicks off on June 11th.
All right, that's it for CONNECT THE WORLD. Stay with CNN. "ONE WORLD" is up next. I'm Eleni Giokos. I'll see you next time
END
