Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Lindsay Clancy in Court as Prosecutors Consider Second Trial; Grand Jury to Review Alleged Cornell Gang Rape Case; U.S. Official: U.S., Iran Having "Positive" Talks Through Mediators; Trump and Top AI Executives to Meet at White House Soon; Ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies to U.S. Senate Panel; Ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies on Trump Prosecutions. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired September 29, 2026 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST, CONNECT THE WORLD: Well, on Capitol Hill this hour, Former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who twice indicted President
Trump, is today testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's 09:00 a.m. in Washington, 05:00 p.m. here in Abu Dhabi. I'm Becky Anderson
from our Middle East Programming Headquarters. You're watching "Connect the World".
And that is just one of the many live events that we'll be watching throughout the next two hours of this show. It's also 09:00 a.m. in
Plymouth, Massachusetts, where we expect to have a camera in court any moment. As Lindsay Clancy, the mother who admits to killing her children
but denies criminal responsibility, is back in front of a judge this hour. Several motions are being considered, including one to dismiss the triple
murder case.
The Prime Minister in the UK speaking this hour at the Labor Party Conference. Will he address the terror investigation that U.S. officials
are saying involved a foreign actor. More on that as we get it. And protests on the streets of France and Spain. Unions mobilizing in Paris and
fury over an unfair housing issue in Madrid.
We're watching all of this around the world. As well as trading on Wall Street, which begins around 30 minutes from now. Futures currently, I think
we can describe them as pretty flat, although U.S. bond yields do remain high, prices low, investors are in a bit of a holding pattern ahead of
Friday's U.S. jobs report. Back to Wall Street half an hour from now.
Well, Lindsay Clancy is back in court this hour for the first time since her murder trial ended in a mistrial. Today's hearing could give us our
first real indication of what prosecutors' plan to do next, whether to end this criminal case or try Clancy again for killing her three young
children. Clancy's first trial ended earlier this month with a deadlocked jury.
The judge declared a mistrial after jurors voted 11 to 1 in favor of acquitting Clancy on the murder charges. Well, CNN's Brynn Gingras
following this story for us and with us this hour, also joining me is Former Miami-Dade County Court Judge Jeff Swartz. Good to have you both.
Brynn, let me start with you. What more do we know about today's hearing? Let's just start there.
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So, Becky, you mentioned just a minute ago that there are just a number of motions that
have been filed ever since this trial was declared a mistrial just a few weeks ago. Most of those motions coming from Kevin Reddington, Lindsay
Clancy's attorney.
One of them being that he's asked the judge to drop these charges altogether, to drop this case altogether, arguing that if she were to be
retried, it would go against her protections from double jeopardy. He's basically saying that you know during that time when the jury was
deliberating, they were coming back and saying we are at a deadlock multiple-time.
The judge should have done more to question that lone juror or the whole procedure of that around that loan juror being the only holdout before
declaring a mistrial. Now, just this morning, the prosecution, as you can imagine, has filed their own filing, essentially saying that they disagree
with that, and that should not be the case.
So, we'll see how the judge kind of decides on that. Other motions that Reddington has filed deal with that holdout juror. He's asked for a number
of materials in related to that juror, essentially asking for phone records. If you remember, there's been a number of interviews done with
some of the jurors on this case who said that juror was scrolling on his phone that he expressed reasonable doubt, a number of things that made them
question his authenticity in the deliberation process.
Now his own attorney says that he, you know, those descriptions are not accurate, but certainly Kevin Reddington has asked for a number of
materials to be preserved, so we might hear that see the judge rather hear from the judge about those particular motions. And finally, one thing I do
want to mention is we might get some signaling about maybe potential plea agreement.
It's unlikely because the two sides are so far apart on this issue. We know that the district attorney has been widely criticized about bringing these,
you know, three first-degree murder charges against Lindsay Clancy, and Kevin Reddington has talked about how he would entertain a plea agreement,
but one that does not send Lindsay Clancy to jail at all.
So again, on opposite sides of this matter, but this might be something we might hear in this hearing.
ANDERSON: Brynn, good to have you. Jeff, let me bring you in here. I want to hear from that so-called lone juror who spoke to Fox. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL DESRONVIL, JUROR IN LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL: Hi, my name is Michael Peguy Desronvil, also known as the Lone Juror. I know the whole focus has
been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels that's at hand.
[09:05:00]
The ones that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the one that can't fight the battles, and those are Cora,
Dawson, and Callen. A little bit about me. I want to thank God for my Catholic faith. I want to thank God for blessing me with the ability to
love my daughter. And I'm foremost, I would like to thank everyone, every individual that have support me throughout this difficult situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Jeff, he was within his rights to stick to his decision, correct. I just wonder what this says about the strength of the defense case if they
have to go to trial again.
JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE: OK. Well, first of all, when you look at it, and it's 11 to 1, the prosecutor has to take into
consideration the fact that it was 11 to 1, and question whether they're ever going to be able to find 12 jurors who are willing to vote guilty.
And that's a consideration they now have to think about in deciding whether they want to offer some sort of plea that Mr. Reddington and Ms. Lindsay
are prepared to take. As far as this juror is concerned, yes, he was well within his rights to stand where he did and say that I consider her guilty.
I will raise this point, if it was 11 to 1 for conviction, would Mr. Reddington go into court and say, well, it's 11 to 1 for conviction, judge.
I think you should convict my client. The state certainly can't do that, and so as a result of which, it's really kind of nonsensical. He's using
this one juror as a cudgel to try to get a dismissal for other reasons.
ANDERSON: So, do you expect to see a plea deal offered at this point, and how do you believe they'll respond?
SWARTZ: OK. I personally believe that at this point, the judge, the best chance that Mr. Reddington has of some sort of victory today, would be to
say that judge, I have filed this motion for a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict. That is, the judge can overturn the verdict by saying I don't
think the state proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt either, and as a result of which, I'm going to grant this motion to dismiss or enter a
judgment of acquittal on behalf of the defendant.
That's a motion that everybody files. It's a motion that rarely is granted, but it does give the judge more power to give Mr. Reddington what he wants,
other than all these claims of double jeopardy, which are nonsensical. And because there is no double jeopardy, there was a reason to grant a
mistrial.
He can't claim there wasn't, and there's no way without the agreement of the state that they were going to try the case to 11 jurors, and certainly
they weren't going to do that. So as a result of which, it now comes down to whether there's going to be another trial or whether there's going to be
a plea in my opinion.
ANDERSON: Got it. OK, and we will continue to watch what is going on in court and report back as and when we get a decision from the judge. Good to
have you both. Thank you very much indeed.
All right, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham surged into power on a wave of enthusiasm and on promises that he will be a circuit breaker for change.
Well, now his Labor Party has a chance to see what he is prepared to deliver this hour. Mr. Burnham is due to speak at the party's conference in
Liverpool.
His speech may reveal what he plans to do about issues like the economy, immigration, and geopolitical tensions. Meanwhile, there are major
questions about what exactly happened near an air base in South West England after the dramatic arrests and now release on bail of five men who
were suspected of terrorist activity?
U.S. President Donald Trump hinted that Iran may be involved. Tehran denies it. The U.S. Secretary of State had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Suffice it to say that what happened, what almost happened, what could have happened in the UK over the weekend
is a very serious situation. It's one that clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor. I won't get into great detail about that yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, CNN's Nic Robertson joining me from London. You're just back from close to the air base at the center of the suspected terror plot
and these arrests, of course, over the weekend. I have to say that the picture does seem to be getting murkier by the day. Can you just lay out
what we do know at this point?
[09:10:00]
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I think you know aside from what we've heard from President Trump and U.S.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, I think a close examination of what the British Assistant Commissioner for Counterterrorism said yesterday when he
announced that these five were being released on bail on very strict conditions that they would continue to be investigated.
But it was the other things that he spoke about. He said there's a lot of interest. Is there a sort of a geopolitical or geo global element to all of
this? And he spoke about the possibility that they're looking at. They're keeping the counterterrorism service are keeping their minds open to the
idea that these people could have been proxies, witting or unwitting, for a foreign state.
So, you know, I think there's a certain alignment in what we're hearing coming from U.S. officials, coming from British officials. But Secretary
Marco Rubio started his interview segment there by saying, there's a lot I can't say. I have to be very careful, and that's the tone that I think that
we got from the British Counterterrorism Deputy Commission Assistant Commissioner yesterday.
That you know when he said we've searched the vans with thoroughly for explosives with the best experts, he didn't say we didn't find explosives,
but they did let the men go, which is an indication under you know British law that they didn't find explosives. So, he chose his language really,
really carefully, and that's the environment that we're in.
Although this looks murky, the bits and pieces that we do know that are very clear is there was a heightened security threat at that base over the
past week, and then into that walked these men with the three vans who've now been let go. It may look murky, but I think to counter terrorism,
they're going to look at this as one package.
That there was a lot of noise about something happening, and then something happened wasn't quite what they were expecting, and behind it all, there's
these words of you know foreign state behind it, and they will say that knowing instances where foreign states have employed petty criminals to
perpetrate criminal acts in the UK recently with geo sort of political messaging behind it.
ANDERSON: Good to have you, Nic. Thank you very much indeed. And again, more on that as we get it. It's a busy news hour. This hour prosecutors
have reopened a criminal investigation into an alleged gang rape of a Former Cornell University student in October of 2024, and will now send it
to a grand jury.
Now, these new developments come after the woman filed a civil lawsuit earlier this month. In that lawsuit, the woman identified as Jane Doe
accuses seven men of drugging and raping her. The original investigation two years ago did not result in any criminal charges. The district attorney
said the woman did not provide police with the lawsuit's key allegations in her original report. Well, her lawyer spoke to CNN yesterday. Have a
listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMAS P. GIUFFRA, ATTORNEY FOR JANE DOE: The fact is, she went to the Cornell University Police to file a complaint because she believed she was
a victim of a crime. If this was consensual, she didn't want it to participate. She wouldn't have gone to the police in the first place.
The problem is, the district attorney's office, as I've learned, had no role in investigating this. This was done by Cornell University's Police
Department, and I was surprised to learn that today because I expected a small police department on a university campus would call in outside
agencies to support them, and apparently that wasn't happening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: CNN's Gloria Pazmino has been following this story, and she is now joining us live from New York. Gloria, the lawsuit names, as I
understand it, more than a dozen defendants, including Cornell and the seven fraternity members, alleging negligence, breach of contract, sexual
assault and battery, and violations of New York's human rights law.
Can you just walk us through these allegations and why so many have been named in this case?
GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Becky. You know I think you start with a really important point, and the fact is that Jane Doe, the alleged
victim in this case, is really casting a wide net in terms of who she is seeking to target in this lawsuit. You mentioned the fraternity, the
fraternity members, her own sorority that she belonged to.
Of course, the university, Cornell University, and she's seeking monetary damages. Now, I think one of the central questions in all of this,
especially here in New York, is going to be the issue of consent because we know two things for sure at this time. We know that the incident happened
back in October of 2024.
[09:15:00]
She made a report to Cornell University and to campus police. They conducted an investigation. They did not arrest or charge anyone, although
they issued some disciplinary action to the students that were involved. However, as part of that investigation and as part of that initial
reporting by Jane Doe, she provided a sworn statement where she essentially detailed the night.
And part of what she said was that she had willingly drank alcohol and consumed drugs, and so that brings us to today. Because what the district
attorney is saying was that Jane Doe initially described her actions back in 2024 as consensual. So, he's reopening the investigation now, saying I
understand that victims go through trauma and they process things over time.
And so, we're going to take a look at this again, look at some new evidence presented to a grand jury, and potentially bring some new charges. So, I
think the question of consent is going to be central to this.
ANDERSON: Yeah, that's fascinating. What have Cornell and the seven men's response to the allegations being at this point?
PAZMINO: So, so far, we have been able to contact two attorneys for the seven young men who are named in this lawsuit. The two attorneys we've been
able to get a hold of have denied the allegations. They are defending their clients from these claims, and we are expecting this to play out.
Cornell University, so far, you know, they have defended their actions. And I think both the DA and the university are under an incredible amount of
pressure here to respond because there's been outrage and outcry about this investigation and about why there wasn't more that was done back in 2024.
I have a statement from Cornell University, in part defending how they responded back in 2024 and saying, that any suggestion that the university
did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in
this case is irresponsible.
Will make survivors feel less safe and supported, and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault. Becky, we have asked Cornell University
to clarify exactly what those sanctions were, but they have declined to do so, so far. And I think it's interesting to sort of you know parse through
what the university is saying for now, but also what they're not saying.
ANDERSON: Good to have you, Gloria. We will continue to follow this and report as and when we get more, of course. Good to have you. Thank you. All
right. Well, a political showdown unfolding on Capitol Hill this hour. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who of course indicted President Trump
twice is today testifying before a Senate Committee.
Smith is expected to defend his decision to prosecute Mr. Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and over classified documents found
at Mar-a-Lago. Both cases were dismissed before trial. Smith says the charges were based on the evidence and warns attacks on the cases are
weakening the U.S. justice system.
Republicans accuse Smith of potentially illegal tactics, and they are expected to press him on those allegations today. And we're monitoring this
hearing. I'll get you key moments from Smith's opening statement when it happens later this hour. That has just started.
Well, you're watching "Connect the World". I'm Becky Anderson for you from our Middle East Programming Headquarters here in Abu Dhabi. When we come
back, the latest on media efforts to get the U.S. and Iran back to the negotiating table. What both sides are saying about the possibility of new
talks. And later migrant children in the United States are showing up in court without a lawyer to make their case to an immigration attorney. More
with that exclusive report coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:20:00]
ANDERSON: Well, mediators are trying to get the U.S. and Iran back to the negotiating table. Officials from both nations spoke separately with
mediation teams on Monday. A U.S. official at least calls the talks positive and says President Donald Trump is willing to give Iran sanctions
relief and release frozen funds as part of a final deal if Tehran offers concrete progress on nuclear issues.
Well, Paula Hancocks here with me. And there was some sort of back and forth as to just how enthusiastic Donald Trump was about any deal at this
point. Certainly, we've heard talk of positive discussions from one U.S. official. What's Iran saying at this point?
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So certainly, what we're hearing from the U.S. side is this optimism. We're not necessarily hearing such optimism
from the Iranian side, at least when it came to one U.S. official telling CNN that the U.S. side was willing to be that the Iranians were willing to
be flexible when it came to the nuclear issue.
Just a few hours later, we did hear from the Iranian Foreign Minister saying that's not true and that the Iranian conditions are set. They
haven't changed what their conditions are. But we did hear from Abbas Araghchi saying that he had been talking in New York to the Qatari
mediators and he had been discussing the proposal that they had put forward.
A proposal Donald Trump said was unacceptable, but hasn't been officially rejected through mediators. So, let's listen to what the foreign minister
said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Today, one of the Qatari mediators held another meeting with us. We discussed ideas on how to find a
way to fulfil Iran's conditions and how these conditions could be met. They had some ideas, and we agreed that they would raise the matter again with
the American side after which the U.S. side's final response would be conveyed to us. I hope this process will be completed by tomorrow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANCOCKS: Now he says tomorrow. That's actually today. Now he was saying that on Monday, so potentially Tehran is looking to have some kind of
response from the Qatari mediators as early as today. Now we also have heard from the spokesperson for the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard in
Tehran, which of course is more hardline than the Foreign Ministry.
And he read a letter to the American people, which was it was an interesting letter. It was criticizing U.S. militarism. It was not talking
to the leadership at all. It was trying to talk directly to the American people, and of course, at a critical time when the midterms are coming up.
So, let's listen to part of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOSSEIN MOHEBBI, IRGC SPOKESPERSON: I feel that the American people are unaware of this reality. If they were aware of these realities, they would
definitely think differently, and they would definitely put pressure on their administration. This lying administration must be changed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANCOCKS: So, he's talking about effectively regime change in the United States. After we've heard President Trump as well saying he wants regime
change in Iran, which is one of the things that he said at the beginning, back in February when he started this war with Israel.
[09:25:00]
And it's something that analysts and experts have been speculating on, is Iran going to try and interfere in some way with the midterm elections, or
is it going to try and influence what is happening in some way? We've seen it in the past, back in 1979, with the late President Carter, we saw with
that hostage crisis they refused to deal with President Carter.
Then President Reagan was voted in, and literally minutes after Reagan's inauguration, Iran released all the hostages. So, they have used these
elections in the U.S. politically in the past, so the speculation as to whether or not they'll put more pressure on now.
ANDERSON: As we understand it, the Iranian delegation foreign minister now leaving New York. He stayed on, of course, suddenly after the UNGA, which
was an interesting decision, but now leaving and says he'll go back to Tehran with any sort of counter offer, or any anything the Qataries can
give him, and have discussions there.
I mean, you've got to underscore just how much patience these mediators need. I mean, this is weeks and weeks and weeks of getting to the point
they got to in New York next week, and then of course it sort of feels like we're kind of back to square one. But we'll see how things go. Good, thank
you very much indeed.
All right, up next on world on "Connect the World", the start of trading and the business news headlines for you, including OpenAI scrapping the
rollout of a new model over safety concerns. Just hours before top AI leaders are set to meet with President Trump. That after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: Welcome back. I'm Becky Anderson in Abu Dhabi for you. You are watching "Connect the World" from our Middle East Programming Headquarters.
The headlines for you, Lindsay Clancy back in court this hour, with prosecutors expected to signal their next move in the case. Clancy's first
murder trial ended in a mistrial earlier this month after jurors deadlocked 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal.
Now prosecutors must decide whether to retry her or drop the case. I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the president
or others. We are expecting those defiant words in an opening statement from ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith, as he faces a Senate Committee on
Capitol Hill this hour. Republicans see eager to grill Smith, who is testifying about the criminal cases he brought against President Trump.
[09:30:00]
We're about to hear the opening bell on Wall Street and futures indicating a flat open, despite the fact that bond yields are still high, prices low,
investors pretty much waiting on the back end of the week for more U.S. data, but that is the bell rung today by Bloom Energy, and we will get you
the DOW Industrial Average as it starts the trading day in just a little bit lower.
We had seen the NASDAQ and the S&P trading just slightly higher on the Futures markets, but yeah, a pretty flat day today, on the open, U.S.
President Donald Trump unveiling the new America.gov website next hour, powered by AI. The president is all systems go on the advanced tech as he
gears up to host the leaders of top AI companies at the White House in a few hours from now.
Now the heads of some of the biggest names in artificial intelligence, Anthropic, Nvidia, OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta, among those expected to join
the president and House Speaker Mike Johnson, following incidents of AI agents going rogue, it is important to note OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT,
of course, says it is scrapping its latest model because it didn't meet the company's safety standards.
Well, CNN's Alayna Treene standing by at the White House for us. Some sources familiar with the meeting describe this, Alayna, as an effort to
get the government and top industry officials sort of on the same page about AI. I mean, what might we expect from today's meeting, if anything?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The way it's been described to me, Becky, is that it's not likely that this is going to yield any you
know substantial result. That they're going to solve all of the problems that both the White House and the AI industry believe that they have to
bridge.
But it will serve as a key starting point, and I think that's an important note. Especially, you have, you know, on one side, President Trump, who has
been very clear that he believes the priority should be to allow U.S. AI companies to continue outpacing China in this race of, you know, who's
really going to set the rules and who's going to come out on top with their different AI models?
Versus what we've been hearing from some leaders in the AI industry, which is that they are very concerned about how advanced these models are
becoming, that they need to slow down progress to ensure that the risks and dangers of AI, particularly as we're starting to see some of these rogue
models, kind of go beyond human control.
You know, this idea that they need regulations to ensure that it will be safe moving forward. I should note that among the executives who are
meeting with the president at this luncheon here at the White House today, they don't all agree either. And I want to walk you through the list of
just who's expected to attend this meeting.
One of them is going to be Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. He actually had a dinner with the president on Sunday privately here at the White House. They
have not always seen eye to eye on what AI should look like, particularly in what the government's role should be in it. But it does seem like
they've been thawing relations there.
There's also going to be Meta's, Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia's Jensen Huang. He is someone who is very close to the president. I should note Huang actually
believes that you know AI companies should regulate themselves in many ways. Then you have Palantir's Alex Karp and OpenAI's Greg Brockman.
And I do want to bring up Becky something you mentioned about the timing of this meeting, because just days before this, we know that OpenAI announced
that for the second time in just three months, it was pausing all training and testing on its most advanced models because one of them had once again
found a way out of its testing environment and gained access to the open environment, so the open internet, I should say.
So that's just one example of people arguing, particularly these leaders in the industry, that hey, there are some dangers that come with this, and we
need to ensure that there are regulations, and perhaps not only regulations in the U.S. but also globally.
ANDERSON: So, it is absolutely clear that debate around AI is deeply polarizing in the United States. I note that the Republican control of the
House, of course, is in serious threat, according to most, if not every, poll. And I'm interested to see the Speaker of the House expected to be at
this meeting today. Do you believe, or how significant will AI be in these upcoming U.S. midterms, just weeks from now?
TREENE: I actually think they'll be very significant, and it's not only because of the large number of Americans and voters who are concerned about
what the future of AI looks like and how it could impact their lives? You've been hearing a lot of these doomsday predictions. That's one part of
it.
But I think perhaps an even more immediate concern and why I will argue it will be a big issue in the midterm elections is because of the data
centers. That's obviously tied into this AI data centers that have been built across the country.
ANDERSON: Yeah.
[09:35:00]
TREENE: A lot of people concerned about what it means for you know resources in their communities, electricity in their communities, and also
the concern that AI could take over their jobs. And so, I think part of what we've heard from Republicans, I know people in that building behind
me, Becky, would argue that they feel like people just don't understand what data centers are?
What they're doing, and how they're going to work? They haven't been messaged properly. But there's a lot of lawmakers, including many
Republican lawmakers on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who are on Capitol Hill, who think that data centers and moving too quickly with AI is
actually something that is going to hurt them in the elections.
That many voters are just not quite ready to take on as much as this administration is pushing when it comes to that. So, I definitely think
it'll be a big issue in the elections in a couple weeks.
ANDERSON: Yeah, good to have you, Alayna. Thank you very much indeed. Alayna is there outside the White House in Washington, where the time is
just after half past nine in the morning. Meanwhile, chip maker Nvidia has released new software to help stop AI agents from going rogue. It's called
the Open Agent Safety Platform.
And the CEO Jensen Huang says the company worked with more than 100 industry partners on that project. In a statement, he said, in part, trust
and innovation are not in conflict. Safety is how trust is earned. We must build not only the most capable AI, but the most trusted AI, so this
extraordinary technology can realize its enormous promise for the world.
Well, Open AI is also taking steps to ensure its technology is secure. The company announced it will not release its latest model because it doesn't
meet the bar for safety. Company executives say the model, called ChatGPT 6.1 Astra, wasn't doing enough to stay within its scope and authorization.
OpenAI, as well as other major competitors like Anthropic, Google and Meta, have all reported models that have either breached their testing
environments or tried to do so. All right, I want to get you up to speed on some of the other stories that are on our radar right now.
And the Federal Bureau of Investigation says its teams are working around the clock to mitigate the effects of a massive data breach. Last week,
hackers said they stole the information of thousands of current and former FBI employees. It was one of the agency's most serious breaches in years.
Pope Leo is warning against dismissing the risks of AI. Speaking to reporters on his flight back to the Vatican from France, the Pope said the
Vatican had created an AI commission to study its risks and benefits, and urged political and technology leaders to prepare for what may lie ahead.
A Russian drone strike hit the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine at the heart of Central Kyiv. The attack killed one woman and injured three
others. Videos from the scene like this show the building engulfed in smoke as people tried to escape. A barrage of strikes hit across the country,
killing nine and injuring 80 others Ukraine's President said on Monday.
Right, I want to get you some sports news up after this break. It's hard to let go of your playing days. Just on France's boss, Zinedine Zidane. More
on that and in celebration.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:40:00]
ANDERSON: Well, a political showdown unfolding on Capitol Hill this hour. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who indicted President Trump twice,
testifying today before a Senate Committee. Let's get to Capitol Hill and listen in where Jack Smith is giving his opening remarks.
JACK SMITH, FORMER U.S. SEPCIAL COUNSEL: To investigate, prosecute, or decline to prosecute. I approached my role as special counsel following
these principles. The special counsel's office followed Justice Department policy, observed legal requirements, and took actions based on the facts
and the law.
I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump. I made those decisions without regard to
President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election. Our investigation developed proof beyond
a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation.
If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican
or a Democrat. The charges against President Trump were the result of the evidence. Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion
based on his actions, as alleged in the indictments they returned.
Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the
lawful transfer of power. After leaving office in January of 2021, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago
social club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
Highly sensitive national security information was held in a bathroom and a ball room, where events and gatherings took place. As with my appearance
before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, I am prepared to answer your questions truthfully. I stand by my testimony
before the House of Representatives, and I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from the president or others.
As I appear before you today, it is my belief that the rule of law faces challenges unlike any we have experienced in our lifetime. Individuals are
threatened with criminal prosecution because they are perceived to have opposed the president. Predetermined outcomes increasingly seem to take
precedence over the Justice Department's long-standing core values and traditions; history teaches that the rule of law is rarely destroyed all at
once.
It's often weakened by attacks on the institutions and the public servants sworn to uphold it. Since January of 2025, we have witnessed precisely such
an effort, including the vilification of the agents, prosecutors, and staff who worked on my team, simply because of their unwavering dedication to the
rule of law.
I myself have been threatened with jail by the President of the United States. However, I remain confident that the rule of law will endure
because so many continue to uphold it faithfully each day throughout our legal system. Public servants have remained faithful to their oaths despite
extraordinary pressure to do otherwise. Their example demonstrates that while fear may be contagious, courage is as well. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.
REP. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Thank you, Mr. Smith. We'll have 10-minute opportunities to ask questions, and we'll only have one round for each
member.
[09:45:00]
In your public statements and testimony here today, you've given glowing assessment of your staff, saying that they had an unwavering commitment to
justice, regardless of personal costs. That is blatantly untrue. Your apparent in denial based on the litany of wrongdoing and political bias,
supported by reams of evidence that I've referenced in my opening statements, and I've either released documents or will today that prove
this.
Moreover, in your public report, you said in part, those materials comprised a small part of the office's investigative record. You're
referring to the J6 Committee materials. Records show that in your briefing memorandum for a meeting with Garland. You said your team fully read and
reviewed the J6 Committee report.
That memo also said your staff went over it page by page and incorporated it into investigative plan. The memo also said you will leverage the report
to avoid certain interviews. Your report provided false information to the public. Your staff also obtained subpoena returns that included the content
of messages of 44 members of Congress, not just toll records, as you testified previously.
Based on information provided to the committee that content was shared with case agents and prosecutors before it went through any filter review for
privileged information, which should have been done like it's been in other cases. Those are clear violations by your staff. In addition, your Deputy
J.P. Cooney said he'd prosecute any nun who still wears a head habit.
Then Cooney also said regarding the speech and debate clause I'm an advocate for repealing the clause. Lastly, Cooney and Molly Gaston filed a
complaint with the Justice Department Inspector General. Your staff asked for the Inspector General to investigate whistleblowers who bravely exposed
abuses of authority to Congress by you and your staff.
These are just some of the violations of law or policy that your staff and office committed, and that doesn't include all the violations of disgraced
former FBI agents like Tebow and Jardina committed while creating false predicate for your cases and others. So, question number one out of six I
have, should whistle blowers who made lawful disclosures to Congress about your taxpayer-funded work be investigated?
SMITH: I'm not aware of any whistleblowers being investigated. I believe public servants should be protected. The members of my team that you just
mentioned, I'm extremely proud to have worked with them, and the fact that they have been targeted illegally, lost their jobs illegally, and had their
lives turned upside down by this Department of Justice is an outrage.
GRASSLEY: You said you didn't know about it, and I gave you evidence that they asked for investigation by the inspector general. Question number two,
did your special counsel obtain special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data, including financial information? Yes or no?
SMITH: Our investigation was focused on investigating matters under my mandate, including whether any person or entity violated the law with
attempts to block the peaceful transfer of power.
GRASSLEY: Let me -- let me ask the question again. Did your special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data to include financial information?
Yes or no?
SMITH: Yes, we acquired financial information. As I sit here right now, I cannot recite to you every subpoena we issued. I can tell you why we issued
subpoenas, and it was to conduct a criminal investigation of one of the most serious crimes that's ever happened in our nation's history. I had a
duty to collect facts.
[09:50:00]
GRASSLEY: Let me say, indeed, you did, and you answered yes accordingly to protect disclosures to my office, you obtained at least 4782 donor checks.
Many of those checks were 5 to $10. The list includes checks from constituents in every state of every single member of this committee, both
Republicans and Democrats.
It included 42 checks from Iowans who dared to donate money to Republicans, no matter what you say, there is no legitimate basis for what you did.
Especially since your staff killed an investigation into the Clinton campaign, donations to Republican groups wasn't necessary for your
investigation, which is proved out by the fact that it was not mentioned in your public report.
Now, the Justice Department, the FBI, will forever possess thousands of people's address, phone number, bank and bank account number, bank routing
number, and a copy of their true signature. Every member of this committee ought to be outraged for what happened to their constituents. I hope my
Democratic colleagues will join me in this outrage.
Question number three, in October last year, I asked you this question, but you never responded. Did you ever use a personal device for work purposes
to include communications such as email, text, or creation or editing of work product. If so, do you commit to providing that material to the
committee? If not, are you testifying that you've complied with all federal record requirements?
SMITH: Yes. When I first became special counsel, I did not have a government phone or government computer, and so in the initial days when I
was appointed and I was still living in the Netherlands, I did use a personal device and email to communicate with folks in the Justice
Department.
What I did when I got government accounts is made sure, to the best of my ability, that those that information was forwarded to government accounts,
so it would be within the Federal Records Act. I sought at all times to comply with the Federal Records Act, as I expected my attorneys to do as
well.
GRASSLEY: Following up on my opening statement for the classified document case, where did you store the classified material? Describe the skiff
arrangements for both DOJ and FBI personnel during and after the court stations.
SMITH: I can't speak to FBI facilities. I can explain. Our office had a skiff, a place to store classified information, and my recollection is that
there was at least in Florida an ability to store it there? I can't recall if it was at the FBI field office or at the courthouse, but we had a skiff
at our office as part of our investigation, knowing that classified information would be involved in the investigation.
GRASSLEY: Yeah, I said in my opening statement that one of your staff members suggested leaving the door open, which is obviously be a violation
of law. Question number five, have you ever received any consultation or counsel by John Brennan, Former CIA Director, whether during your time as
special counsel or otherwise, if so, when and for what purpose?
SMITH: I've never met John Brennan.
GRASSLEY: OK. Have you ever? Well, I guess you've answered my follow-up question. Question number six and the last question. When you became
special counsel, what direction did you give your staff to handle speech or debate and attorney general attorney-client material? Did you issue any
directories? If so, to whom? And please explain.
SMITH: So, with respect to the speech or debate clause, first, we took our obligations seriously under the speech or debate clause. It's, in my view,
an important part of the separation of powers. I had members of my staff who were very familiar with the clause having worked in the public
integrity section for years. We also, when it was appropriate or required, consulted with the public integrity section regarding application of that
clause.
[09:55:00]
GRASSLEY: Let me follow up with this, Mr. Smith. No amount of explanation can take away from documentary record my opening remarks and the statements
I made about your staff's clear failure show unequivocally how you breached constitutional parameters and failed to require your staff to comply with
relevant rules.
Using the terrible acts on January 6 as a predicate for your misguided investigation is irresponsible. To that end, either you are the world's
worst manager, or you shared your staff's political animus to fuel your partisan investigation, an investigation that ruined the lives of many
innocent people. Senator Durbin.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Mr. Smith, thank you for being here. There is, I think, appropriate concern by members --
ANDERSON: And Jack Smith being cross-examined there, and that is a Senate Committee meeting. Well, he said our investigation developed proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the president engaged in serious crimes against our nation. President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme, Jack Smith said, to
overturn the results and prevent the lawful power of the lawful transfer of power.
And he said, I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from the president or others. Well, you have been watching Former Special
Counsel Jack Smith testifying before the Senate. You will keep following this news. That is it for this hour. But I'm back in a couple of minutes
with more "Connect the World" after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
