Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

White House Won't Say When Trump Will Sign Epstein Bill; DOJ's Case Against Comey In Major Jeopardy As Blunders Multiply; American Held In Saudi Arabia For Years Freed, On Way Back To U.S. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired November 19, 2025 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:28]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:

The breaking news Epstein delay. The White House refusing to say when President Trump will sign the bill to release the Epstein files, as Trump's attorney general breaks her silence on releasing the information.

Also breaking, the case against James Comey at this hour hanging by a thread. Trump's handpicked prosecutor today making a stunning admission to a judge. Ty Cobb tonight says it's game over, he'll tell us why.

And heading home. Tonight, an American citizen who was sentenced to 16 years in a Saudi prison for tweets critical of the government, is on his way back home to the United States of America right now. His son is our guest. Let's go OUTFRONT.

(MUSIC)

BURNETT: And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news, is Trump stalling on Epstein? The president at this hour -- well, we don't know if he signed the bill to release the Epstein files. Certainly no cameras invited in any pomp and circumstance for this. No announcement that it's done. White House officials tonight are refusing to say when Trump will sign the bill, even though, of course, after fighting it for months tooth and nail, Trump had to cave and say that he would sign it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, I'm for any -- I know -- they can do whatever they want.

REPORTER: You'd sign --

TRUMP: I would give them everything. Sure, I would.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BURNETT: So then, what is the holdup? And when Trump signs the bill, because of course, he has said he will sign it, will we ever see the documents?

Here's how it will go once Trump signs that bill into law. Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, will then have 30 days to release the more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence that it has on the convicted sex offender. But when asked if she'll actually release the files to the American public, Bondi refused again and again and again to answer the question directly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We'll continue to follow the law. And to have maximum transparency.

REPORTER: What are you doing here over the next 30 days, as we understand it?

BONDI: We will continue to follow the law with maximum transparency while protecting victims.

REPORTER: Do you mean that you will provide all the files by 30 days?

BONDI: We will follow the law. And again, we will continue to follow the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Okay. I mean, when you play that response, "follow the law" again and again and again, it sort of speaks for itself. It leaves open the window for every possible loophole, including withholding the files because of ongoing investigations, which is key because Bondi is at this moment investigating Epstein's ties to Democrats, an investigation that flies in the face, of course, of what her Justice Department declared a little over four months ago.

In a two-page memo, the DOJ wrote about its investigation into Epstein and his clients, quote, "This systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties."

They said no client list, no evidence for an investigation into anyone. Well, so in that case, might as well put all the files out there. But obviously, they didn't want to do that.

And why launch an investigation only now against their own stated conclusions after months of fighting against the files release?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What changed since then that you launched this investigation.

BONDI: Information that has come for - information -- there's information that new information, additional information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Okay. Obviously there, twisting herself to try to explain this complete about-face by the administration. And now, I want to play a bit more of what Bondi said right after that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BONDI: If there are any victims, we encourage all victims to come forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: That is exactly what they have been doing for months and months and months. They've been on the Capitol telling their stories. They have been on this show. They have been on so many other programs telling their stories.

Here on the screen, you see just a few of the survivors who have put their faces out there, their voices to tell the world what happened. Every single one of them, calling for the release of the documents for months, for years. We've spoken to many of them on this program.

And today, Joe Rogan, who helped propel Trump to the White House, called Trump and the administration out over this whole debacle.

[19:05:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE ROGAN, PODCASTER: I heard there's no files. I heard it's a hoax. And then all of a sudden, he's going to release the files. Well, I thought there was no files. He wants an investigation now. Like what is going on?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: I mean, that is the question. He's right. Even Republicans who voted for the bill to release the files are growing tired of the dragging of the feet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Just release the damn files, period. I don't care about how the sausage is made. I just want it out in the open for everybody to consume.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Which, again, is something the people in Trump's administration should want, right? All this maximum transparency business when they've been doing the opposite.

Plus, think about it. Think about the history here. The same people who fought against releasing the files for months and who are now dragging their feet, were the loudest voices out there, calling for the files to be released. Up until the day Trump was back in the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That is an important thing.

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are. We have an election coming up, and we need to adjudicate this matter at the polls.

BONDI: Jeffrey Epstein is dead, and Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison for 20 years where she belongs. And if people in that report are still fighting to keep their names private, Sean, they have no legal basis to do so unless they're a child, a victim, or a cooperating defendant by some chance against some potential case against Ghislaine Maxwell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: It's incredible.

In a moment, we're going to be speaking to Jeffrey Epstein's brother, mark.

But first, Kristen Holmes, OUTFRONT at the White House tonight.

And, Kristen, pretty incredible with the whole speed with which this went through the House and then this unprecedented or almost unprecedented automatic passing of the senate goes to the White House desk to Trump. He could sign it, could have been and still nothing. We don't know whether he signed it. We don't know what's happening, what's going on?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We don't even know if it's at the White House. Now, we do assume that it has gotten here by now. We are told the transmission from the Senate to the White House would take a little bit of time, could take up to a couple of hours. But we are long past that couple of hours.

And now at this point, the White House has called a lid, which means were not going to see President Trump at any other point tonight without answering any questions as to whether or not the bill has arrived on his desk and whether or not President Trump has signed it. Now, as you noted, it didn't seem likely that he was going to treat this bill signing the way he has so many in the past with the pomp and circumstance, bringing in the journalists, bringing in the cameras for questions.

Instead, it did seem as though this was likely to fly under the radar, but as of now, we still don't know if this has actually been signed, if it's going to be signed tonight.

Now, I will tell you that I have been assured by White House officials for the last several days, and today is included, that there are no changes in the plans that President Trump still plans on signing this bill. But we were also told he was going to sign it as soon as it hit his desk. And right now, we don't know if that's happened.

So, lots of questions still. Of course, the next step is what gets released and when. But right now, we're just waiting on that signing.

BURNETT: Yeah. And just as you point out, a pretty incredible thing to moment to be in, right? Easy thing to do and easy thing to confirm. And even at this final moment, nothing about this has been easy.

Kristen, thank you.

And my panel is here.

Ryan, nothing about this has been easy. Nothing at all. In terms of these files coming out. Pam Bondi, when you heard her today, refer again and again to the exact same words "we'll continue to follow the law". And then when asked about the new investigation that Trump had ordered into Democrats and the Epstein files, she said, we're not going to say anything else on that because now it is a pending investigation.

What does all that add up to?

RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: So, it seems like it's a ploy, but it's a very obvious one. When she says follow the law. I assume what she's including in that is that the legislation itself has long said that they do not need to release parts of the files that relate to active investigations, and then suddenly, in the last half a week, there's now active investigations. And I think that's what she's going to try to claim as one of the reasons to restrict the information that gets out to the public.

BURNETT: I mean, it is pretty stunning, I mean, Dasha, as you have been covering this so closely for "Politico". Josh Hawley, the Republican senator, today dismissed the possibility that the DOJ would refuse to release all the information, tried to say that that couldn't really be the outcome here.

Here's how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I'd be really surprised if they tried that, given the huge bipartisan support for this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: What are you learning, Dasha?

DASHA BURNS, POLITICO WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF & HOST OF THE CONVERSATION: I mean, look, this passed almost completely unanimously. Every Republican on the hill that I have talked to has said what you've played on the show, release the files.

[19:10:03]

And every person close to Trump that I have talked to has put their head in their hands as they've been talking about Epstein. They feel that this White House has misplayed this from the beginning and continues to misplay it at every step in the road here.

And I'm hearing this from some of the most loyal people around, the president, who are in full support of him but can't understand why this has been handled so poorly by this White House. And tonight, they're feeling the same way about this delay. They understand that strategically, this is not what voters want to see. Whether they're Democrats that, you know, believe that the president is guilty of something, which, of course, there's no evidence of or whether they're Republicans and people in the MAGA base that have been pounding the pavement here trying to get these files released.

BURNETT: Yeah. I mean, it is incredible, as you point out no one has ever said that the files implicate Trump. He hasn't been charged, right? So which would make it, Ryan theoretically really easy to put it all out there if you're not implicated. I mean, that's just a logical conclusion that people would come to. And yet here we are.

I want to play what Bondi -- she was asked, you know, why the DOJ that this incredible conflict, why is the DOJ doing an investigation now, when she put that memo out that I just read from that said, the investigation is closed because there's absolutely nothing to investigate. There's no client list, there's no one implicated.

Let me play a bit more of what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BONDI: There's information that -- new information, additional information. And again, we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads. If there are any victims, we encourage all victims to come forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Obviously, many, many victims have come forward. And we know from Tara Palmieri and other reporting that that over 1,000 women are mentioned in these files. So what is she talking about, do you think when she talks about new information?

GOODMAN: Difficult to know, especially because Representative Raskin, who's the ranking member of the house judiciary committee just earlier this month, sent a letter over to the administration saying, we know that you shut down the investigation that was active in the Southern District of New York and that the victims had come forward and had named at least 20 men as coconspirators of Mr. Epstein.

So, they shut it down. Then they came out in July under Ms. Bondi and said, there's nothing here at all, nothing even to investigate. And now, she says new information.

So, the only thing that I can imagine is the new information are the new emails that were released by the Epstein estate to Congress and then released to the public. But even in there, the people that Mr. Trump, the president has named, there's not incriminating evidence of them.

If anything, there's exculpatory, like President Clinton had actually has an email from Epstein saying he never, ever visited the island. And that would be the new information to open up an investigation. It just --

BURNETT: Into Clinton but not others, right.

GOODMAN: It doesn't make sense.

BURNETT: So, Dasha, a White House official I know told you that, quote, the Democrats are going to come to regret this. What do you understand what they are referring to or implying when they say that to you?

BURNS: They are implying that any mention of a Democrat in any files related to Jeffrey Epstein is going to be fodder for ads, for tweets, for endless surrogates on cable news shows across the country, pointing the finger at the other party and saying that it is on them. They are going in full defense mode.

I mean, look, part of the strategy from the president has been to be on offense here, to attack, to try to get this whole thing shut down. Some people, of course, look at that and say, why does that mean that there's something to hide? But for the people that are closest to the president, they tell me that this is just his posture always, when there's a story that he doesn't like, he is going to do what he always does, which is be defiant, which is try to shut it down.

And that's a double-edged sword of the Trump sort of fighter persona, right? It's sometimes it wins him cases, and sometimes it means he can rise like a phoenix from the ashes, and at other times it's the double edged sword that causes him more harm than good.

BURNETT: All right. Dasha, Ryan, thanks so much to both of you.

OUTFRONT now, Jeffrey Epstein's brother Mark.

Now, Mark, why do you think that Trump has refused to release the files for so long?

MARK EPSTEIN, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BROTHER (via telephone): Well, I think it's an obvious question, not just for me. It's just there's things in there he doesn't want people to see. I mean, that's pretty -- seems to be obvious.

BURNETT: So, in the emails that we got last week from the House oversight committee, which obviously I'll point out came from your brother's estate, right? They are separate from the Epstein files at the DOJ. Those emails from your brother's estate showed your brother talking about Donald Trump a lot when Trump was president.

[19:15:02]

I mean, we saw it again and again. All sorts of conversations.

Were you surprised by that at all, to see how much conversation there was about Trump?

EPSTEIN: No, not whatsoever. Jeff and Donald were very good friends through the '90s, and I don't know exactly when it ended. Maybe 2004 or something, but they were really good friends. You know, they used to fly in each other's planes.

Like I've said, they say Donald was on Jeff's plane like seven times. But I questioned, have they checked Donald's flight logs from those days to see how many times Jeffrey was on his plane? Because I know Jeffrey told me on a number of occasions that he flew up or flew down with Donald on his plane.

So they were, you know, Donald was in Jeffrey's office quite a bit back in the '90s. They were good friends. Everybody around knew that.

BURNETT: And, you know, you've said that and so have many others who knew both of them very well in that long period where it seems that they were very close friends.

Mark, here's some of what Trump actually said just yesterday about why that ended, why he had a falling out with your brother. Here's what Trump said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: As far as the Epstein files is, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert, but I guess I turned out to be right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: All right. I have a couple questions for you about this, Mark, but first, this. You say that your brother told you something very different about their falling out than what Trump says?

EPSTEIN: Not that he told me. Steve Bannon was doing interviews with Jeffrey and taping them, and Jeffrey had sent me a Dropbox link to one of those interview sessions.

And on that tape, Jeffrey clearly stated that he stopped hanging out with Trump when he realized Trump was a crook. That's a direct quote from Jeffrey. He stopped hanging out with Trump when he realized Trump was a crook.

BURNETT: So that leads me then to the second question, which is that I know you've said your brother told you that he and Trump spoke in 2016 when Trump won the presidency, even though just three years later, Trump said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I haven't spoken to him in probably 15 years or more. I wasn't a big fan of Jeffrey Epstein, that I can tell you.

REPORTER: With regard to Jeffrey Epstein, did you have any suspicions that he was molesting young women? TRUMP: No, I have no idea. I had no idea. I haven't spoken to him in

many, many years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: So, he said, I haven't spoken to him in many, many years, Mark. And then he said in the same year, I haven't spoken to him in probably 15 years or more. That was in 2019.

But you say your brother talked to you about a conversation he had very close to this time in 2016 with Trump.

EPSTEIN: Yeah. After the election, I used to speak to Jeffrey regularly, and one of the calls he spoke, Jeffrey told me that Trump was -- after the election, that Trump called him. And it was sort of like, can you believe this? Because nobody believed Trump was going to win. Trump was sort of surprised himself that he won.

So, Jeffrey said he called him like, you know, did you believe this type of a phone call? You know?

BURNETT: So, Trump called -- Trump called your brother.

EPSTEIN: Yes. That's what -- that's what Jeffrey told me. Yes.

BURNETT: You and I have spoken before. And at the time you were telling me why you don't accept the DOJ memo that came out earlier this year that said, and I quote, there, conclusion -- after a thorough investigation, FBI investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell. And you have made it very clear in detail that you do not accept that finding.

I want to know, Mark, is there anything that the DOJ can put out that this DOJ, the Trump DOJ, could do to convince you that suicide is indeed what happened?

EPSTEIN: Well, the thing is, they didn't do an investigation into the cause of death of Jeffrey. Bill Barr admitted that under in his congressional testimony, you know, what they investigated, the DOJ reporters about the screw ups in the prison, how the guards didn't do their jobs, how the cameras weren't working, and that kind of thing. They did not discuss the manner of death.

What actually happened was after Jeffrey died, we did an autopsy was done by the city pathologist and Dr. Michael Baden was there, and they came out of the autopsy saying that they couldn't call it a suicide because it looked too much like a homicide.

So, also, there was no reason Jeffrey would commit suicide then. You know, I wasn't following it on a day-to-day basis, you know, because when I first heard he was dead from an apparent suicide, I didn't doubt it. I just -- because he was in a jail cell, I figured, okay, he decided to take himself out, and I respected that decision. He didn't have any children. He didn't have a -- our parents were gone, you know, there was no reason in that respect to him, not to.

But then when they did the autopsy the next day and they said, it looks more like a homicide than suicide.

[19:20:04]

That's when, whoa, what's going on here? And then we start looking into it, and then we see all the anomalies in the prison. And also, Jeffrey had a hearing coming up to appeal his bail decision, and he was going to be putting up what would have been the highest bail in the United States history. If there's a chance he could have gotten bail, in which case he'd be living in his house with an ankle monitor on with armed guards and cameras to make sure he didn't go anywhere.

And, you know, so why would he kill himself? Or why would anybody kill himself before that hearing? I could see if they had the bail hearing and bail was denied again. And he didn't want to spend another year waiting trial. He would take himself out. That would be more understandable.

But knowing Jeffrey, he wouldn't kill himself before that hearing, especially since he was pretty much up what would have been the highest bail in U.S. history.

BURNETT: All right, Mark, thank you very much. I appreciate your time tonight.

EPSTEIN: Thank you. Erin.

BURNETT: And next, breaking news, the DOJ case against James Comey. Is it dead? Lindsey Halligan, Trump's handpicked prosecutor, tonight with a major admission. Ty Cobb has something to say about it. He's next.

Plus, a blowout. The world's biggest company announcing huge profits. Did Nvidia just end all talk of a bubble or inflate it?

And a rare and exclusive interview from inside Iran. Is Tehran worried now about a war with America?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:25:42]

BURNETT: Breaking news the case against James Comey in serious jeopardy tonight.

Lindsey Halligan, the U.S. attorney who Trump handpicked to bring the case, admitting that the full grand jury never saw the final indictment against the former FBI director.

Now, this is a stunning admission, and it came as a federal judge was peppering Halligan and other federal prosecutors about the case. Comey's lawyers arguing that the charges should be dismissed because Comey is only being prosecuted because Trump demanded it.

Ty Cobb is former Trump White House lawyer, and he's OUTFRONT.

So, Ty, you know, when we refer to this admission that the full grand jury didn't see the full indictment as a stunning one, the context here is only two grand jurors actually saw the final Comey indictment.

Why is that such a stunning thing? And what does it mean?

TY COBB, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: So, there is a case, Gaither versus the United States. It's a D.C. Circuit case from 1969, I believe that makes plain that precisely what happened here, which is, you know, an amended grand jury indictment, you know, cannot be sustained.

If it was not -- not showed to the -- shown to the entire grand jury. That's the way they teach it at the U.S. attorney's academy when they're taught about what grand jury practice is supposed to be. That's -- it's under that case the -- those -- it's a per se constitutional violation, and it is grounds to have the case immediately terminated.

That's what will happen here, I believe, and, only somebody, you know, wholly inexperienced and inept, would have taken that approach. And that's what happens, you know, in a vindictive prosecution where the president orders a revenge prosecution, the attorney general appoints -- the attorney general and the president appoint somebody who has no criminal experience. And, you know, she takes the case into the grand jury. And, you know, does a dumpster fire worth of constitutional violations.

This wasn't the only one. As we know, earlier in the week, we found out that she misled the grand jury with regard to James Comey's Fifth Amendment privilege and also urged them to go ahead and indict no matter what they thought of the record, because the government would have more and better evidence at trial.

This -- this is, yet another reason this case will be tossed along with the illegality of her appointment.

BURNETT: So, she has only been on the job about two months now. And as you point out prior to this, had not prosecuted a case in her career. But, Ty, you have gone further -- here, you're talking about why the case will be thrown out. You've actually, I believe that you believe that Halligan and Attorney General Pam Bondi should actually be disbarred. How come?

COBB: Well, what happened here? The totality of the misconduct, the misrepresentations that she made in the grand jury the multiple constitutional violations that have, you know, came up in the evidence today and in the decision by magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick earlier in the week are clearly intentional and clearly, require sanctions of the most severe order.

Bondi, of course, affirmed the alleged legitimacy of Halligan's grand jury presentation not once, but twice in these proceedings, and that again is -- could not have been done honestly. So, I do believe that each should be disbarred. Now, that's not the only reason that that Bondi should be disbarred.

I mean, for example, you know, the pretense today that, you know, she found new evidence. Well, when did she find that new evidence, Trump ordered her to prosecute Democrats, not Republicans. For the Epstein files. And she -- and she opened that case in 17 minutes. That's a lot of work in 17 minutes to find that new evidence.

BURNETT: So let me ask you about that. When it comes to Bondi, the handling of the Epstein files, you're referring to, you know, when she says she'll comply with the law or her words comply with the law? Not yes, we will release the files, but we will comply with the law. What is your take on how she's handling it?

COBB: Oh, this is all part of the scheme that was originated back when, you know, they decided to reopen the investigation, you know, the language pending in the legislation, you know, allows that the DOJ, you know, proceed in compliance with the law.

[19:30:14]

The law with regard to ongoing investigations will be argued that that prevents them from having to release anything. I think this has been a very transparent exercise. And plan from Trump and Bondi, from the time that they first took that route, and certainly, Trump's embrace of the legislation after, you know, trying to extort Lauren Boebert in the Situation Room and shutting down congress for two months. You know, it's laughable that he wants the files released. He could have always released him on his own. He could release him tonight on his own.

BURNETT: Its all pretty incredible to watch.

Ty, thank you very much.

And we have breaking news next. The world's most valuable company posting massive profits. It's not just a company. I mean, it's essentially a country. It's bigger than a country.

Did Nvidia just prove that there isn't a bubble? That it's all real?

Plus, an incredible update to a story we've been following. An American citizen sentenced to 16 years in a Saudi prison because of tweets that he posted in America, is tonight, finally, on his way home and his son is back with us tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:35:39]

BURNETT: Breaking news, blowout. The world's biggest company crushing expectations on earnings tonight after the close of trade. Its CEO, now a household name around the world. Jensen Huang, moments ago dismissing concerns of an A.I. bubble on the investor call.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENSEN HUANG, NVIDIA CEO: There's been a lot of talk about an A.I. bubble. From our vantage point, we see something very different.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BURNETT: Every investor on earth, every president, every CEO listening and watching Nvidia's release with bated breath because Nvidia literally is the entire world economy right now, from A.I. to data centers to construction, you name it. It's not just one company. It's kind of the bet for everybody right now,

OUTFRONT now, Jim Bianco, economic analyst, president of Bianco Research.

So, Jim, do the details that that are in this and what you heard from Jensen Huang on that investor call that everybody was listening to, do those details match the headlines of Nvidia crushes it?

JIM BIANCO, ECONOMIC ANALYST, PRESIDENT OF BIANCO RESEARCH: Yes, it does. Nvidia's numbers were fantastic right now. The number of sales that they had, the earnings that they had were way above Wall Street's expectations. You could argue Wall Street kind of rigs the numbers so that they companies can beat and look good, but not with a high profile company like this.

They -- usually, they have to kind of make an honest guess. So from that point, what it tells us is the A.I. boom is going along full speed right now.

BURNETT: Going along full speed, and yet, this is -- this is a boom, or I won't even use the word bubble then. But what it is, is a lot bigger than the one that went bust at the turn of the century, the internet, right?

BIANCO: Yeah. That's correct. If you toad up all of the A.I. companies, the companies that are supply A.I. with power or with capital goods, they're half the U.S. stock market. They're half the S&P 500. During the Internet bubble, it maybe got to a quarter of about these -- the stock market.

So, the last time you've seen one theme like this be half the U.S. stock market might very well be the railroads in the late 19th century when they were actually about 75 percent of the stock market back then.

So, whether you are invested in it or not, invested in it or you're not invested in the stock market, we all have a stake in this A.I. boom. Whether or not it works or doesn't work.

BURNETT: I mean, it's incredible the amount of money. And as I know, as you pointed out, when you look at next year, I mean, there's more money being spent on building data centers to support A.I. than offices?

BIANCO: Yeah. I mean, the data center business is just going gangbusters. Of course, the office business is down because of work from home in the post-COVID era, but that's going to cross and that's going to be one of the largest commercial operations in the country, is going to be building data centers.

We already have about 4,000 of them, and they're just coming online more and more every day.

BURNETT: And so, I guess then the question is, oh, my gosh, what if all this is -- what if they're doing too much and everything is based on one thing? I mean, you know, you talk about the railroads, it goes away.

And yet then you think about this week, the song that topped the Billboard's country digital song last week -- I'm sorry, digital song sales. It was not by a human being. It was by an A.I. generated artist.

Take a listen, Jim.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

BURNETT: That's not a human. I mean, it's bizarre, Jim. What does this tell you?

BIANCO: Well, you know, in terms of A.I., in taking that song in particular, all A.I. is able to do is take everything that's been done in the past and maybe jumble it into something different. So, it took all the country music, interpreted what was done in the past, and created something like what we have in country music. Now, there's a question as to whether or not it's going to violate copyright laws, because it's probably taken something that somebody else did, a human being and incorporated it in that, but they're not getting royalties on it. They're not being able to enjoy the work.

And A.I. also can't create something new. So, to switch genres, if you're waiting for the next Beatles or the next kind of new thing that's fresh and different, it's not going to come from a computer.

[19:40:05]

It's going to have to come from a human being. Once that becomes established, then the computers can make copies or make versions of that. And that's where we are with A.I. there's always going to be a place for human beings. It's going to be in the creative process. It's not going to be maybe in the mechanical process of doing more of the same.

BURNETT: I wonder. And that's such an interesting take. I wonder if it will make people feel better when they -- when they hear a headline like that, that that song was number one on the charts.

Jim, thank you so much. Always appreciate seeing you.

BIANCO: Thank you.

BURNETT: And I want to bring in Dan Alexander, now senior editor at "Forbes".

So, Dan, I don't know if you're a country music fan here, but that A.I. song powered by Nvidia and that's just one reason why Nvidia is where it is. Jensen Huang, you know, the kind of pop culture icon now, usually wearing his black leather jacket. Last night, he was at the White House dinner in honor of the Saudi crown prince. And you can see him signing autographs as he left, right?

I mean, the CEO of a -- of a -- of a chip company, Nvidia, signing autographs. That's where we are right now.

You have looked at how much Trump himself has invested in Nvidia and how it compares to other investments, what have you found?

DAN ALEXANDER, SENIOR EDITOR, FORBES: Yeah, we look at Trump's whole liquid holdings at being about $1.1 billion. If you break that down, there's roughly about $50 million in the stock market. Unsurprisingly, Nvidia is one of his largest investments, along with other major players Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia is the biggest component of the S&P 500. That makes sense.

I view this more as sort of Trump, too, is exposed to the market. Instead of Trump's making a deliberate, concentrated bet on this one company.

BURNETT: Which is an important distinction, right? Because I know you've done so much reporting on other areas where it is a concentrated, specific crypto and others, but Nvidia is personal to Trump in a lot of ways, right? It's what -- Nvidia is one of the donors to Trump's ballroom project that is going to be built where the East Wing once stood, and Trump likes Jensen Huang.

He name-checked him six separate times during a speech today. Six. Here's some of it where are you?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Where are you, Jensen? Stand up. You have done such a good job. Are you happy with that, Jensen? If Jensen's happy, I'm happy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: What do you make of that, Dan?

ALEXANDER: Well, look, both of these guys have a lot of reason to have a close relationship. So Nvidia has enormous exposure to the U.S. government. You know, they are susceptible to semiconductor tariffs. They have export controls that are constantly determining which countries they can sell their chips to.

Donald Trump loves rich guys. He always has. Jensen Huang is extraordinarily rich.

All of a sudden, just a couple of years ago, he was worth like $20 billion. Now he's worth $160 billion. Trump respects that. He also knows that Nvidia is critical to the U.S. economy.

And so, it makes a lot of sense that these guys are buddy-buddy, all of a sudden.

BURNETT: You know, what I love is you didn't put the word only in there, but in the context of what you said is just a couple of years ago, it was only worth $20 billion. And in the context of what we're talking about with the A.I. situation, I won't put a B word on it. I'll just say the A.I. situation, it would be accurate to put it that way.

All right. Dan, thanks so much. Great to see you.

ALEXANDER: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next breaking news, a major update on a story that we've been following for years. An American citizen sentenced to 16 years in prison in Saudi Arabia. Right now heading home. And his son is back with us to tell us what's happened.

And a rare and exclusive interview inside Iran. CNN speaking tonight to one of the supreme leader's most trusted advisers. Wait until you hear what he says about war with America.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:48:01]

BURNETT: Breaking news in American held by Saudi Arabia for four years on his way home right now, as I speak. Seventy-five-year-old Saad Almadi, who is stuck in the country under a travel ban, over roughly a dozen tweets that he had posted online when he was in America. He was just suddenly and without explanation, allowed to leave Saudi Arabia.

We first spoke to his son, Ibrahim Almadi, three years ago, when his father was sentenced to 16 years behind bars in Saudi. The Saudis pointing to tweets criticizing the kingdom, one for its tax policies, another about journalist Jamal Khashoggi, whose brutal murder was likely approved by the crown prince, according to the CIA.

Now, Almadi was released from prison after spending a year behind bars but then not allowed to leave the country until now, suddenly, on the heels of Trump's lavish and friendly meetings with the Saudi crown prince in Washington.

Ibrahim Almadi is back with me now, Saad Almadi's son.

And, Ibrahim, I can't believe I'm seeing you in this context. You know, I know you, us, nobody would have thought that this would have happened so soon. In the context of what your father was dealing with.

Your father, you said, was living in complete fear that he could be arrested again or assassinated in Saudi Arabia. He had been in prison. He wasn't allowed home. You couldn't speak with him freely over the phone. He couldn't leave the country.

How do you feel now that he's actually on a plane on his way home?

IBRAHIM ALMADI, SON OF U.S. CITIZEN JUST RELEASED BY SAUDI ARABIA: I'm still trying to process it. I mean, I can't believe our nightmare coming to an end after four years and this wouldn't happen without great individuals like yourself, Erin, and like Josh Rogan and the individuals and the Department of State and national security and the White House.

BURNETT: I mean, it is -- it is -- it is a truly incredible moment.

I mean, how did you find out about Ibrahim that your dad was allowed to leave?

ALMADI: He just called me and said, son, I can come now. What state are you in? Said, I'm in D.C. and we couldn't find a flight to D.C.

[19:50:01]

So he's coming to Philadelphia tomorrow morning and I can't believe I'm going to see my father after all these years.

BURNETT: What are you going to do when you see him tomorrow morning?

ALMADI: Hug him. Definitely. It's been quite long years, and I'm just quite happy that that it's coming to an end.

BURNETT: I mean, you know, he obviously had spent time in prison and then wasn't able to move freely. You had thought he might never be coming home, of course, because he's older and even, you know, if his 16 years were done, what would happen? Your father's release now actually comes after Trump spent another day with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, obviously, it's been royal treatment. There's been a lot of praise. This is what we've seen in the past couple days.

ALMADI: I mean, Mr. President and his administration --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I can call him almost any time. I'm very proud of the job he's done. What he's done is incredible in terms of human rights and everything else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Go ahead, Ibrahim, when you were what you were saying, I mean, now that were seeing just how close the two are.

ALMADI: So, I mean, Mr. President and his administration, they were about making America first and bringing American home. And they really delivered when it comes to my father's situation, I understand Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our ally regime to us, but they've been mistreating us for a while now. And finally, they are correcting the course when it comes to my father's situation.

BURNETT: You said your father had been tortured in prison in his time there. What did the Saudis tell him? Or do you even know yet at this point, when they said, okay, after all of this, you can go home? What did they tell him was the reason?

ALMADI: They said it's a forgiveness from the king and crown prince. But I mean, if Mr. President was involved, I mean, there's no reason or there is no courage that they can say no. I mean, he's the strongest person in the world, and nobody should reject an order from him.

BURNETT: So, you think this was -- I mean, it seems pretty clear that it's because of the visit to the United States and to president Trump. But it seems clear to you as well.

ALMADI : Absolutely. It's crystal clear to me that, Mr. President, without him, my father wouldn't be released. I'm quite thankful for the Trump administration and the Department of State.

BURNETT: All right. Well, I know it is an incredible moment for you, and I can only imagine what tomorrow will be to be able to touch your father, hug your father when you thought that that might never happen again.

Ibrahim, thank you so much.

ALMADI: Thank you for having me.

BURNETT: All right. And next CNN is in Iran tonight for a rare and exclusive interview with one of the supreme leader's most trusted advisers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:57:31]

BURNETT: And now, a rare and exclusive interview from inside Iran. The supreme leader's foreign policy adviser speaking out, talking Trump, nukes and possible war with the U.S.

Fred Pleitgen is on the ground OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Five months after the 12-day Israel-Iran war and after the U.S. struck Iranian nuclear sites. Iran says it's willing to talk to the Trump administration, but only on Tehran's terms, a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader tells me in an exclusive interview.

PLEITGEN: Would you be willing to talk again if they made a move, or would you be willing to contact them again?

KAMAL KHARRAZI, ADVISER TO IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER: It all depends. If it would be based on mutual respect and equal footing.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): Meeting with Saudi Arabia's crown prince at the White House on Tuesday, President Trump says he thinks Iran wants an agreement with him.

TRUMP: They'd like very much to make a deal with us, and they call us and we'll end up probably doing that. That's Iran.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): Tehran believes their powerful ballistic missiles forced the U.S. and Israel into a ceasefire in June, and any talks with the U.S. would be limited to its nuclear program. The Iranians insisting they will continue uranium enrichment.

KHARRAZI: There are ways and means how to ensure that Iran can continue its enrichment, but at the same time assure the others that it's not going to look for nuclear weapons.

PLEITGEN: So Iran is going to continue to expand its ballistic missile program, because I know that some of the ballistic missiles are very sophisticated.

KHARRAZI: No question about that. And it is only nuclear issue that we are ready to engage with the United States and others. We are not going to speak to -- with others or negotiate with others on the other issues, including, missile activities.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): On Tehran's streets, anger towards the U.S., but also some hope that maybe diplomatic movement is possible.

"In the end, there has to be reconciliation," this man says. There is no way but friendship.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PLEITGEN (on camera): And, Erin, there is a good deal of concern here in the region that there could be another military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, or Israel and Iran. I put that question to the supreme leader's adviser as well. He says anything is possible. But as he put it, Iran is ready -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Fred, thank you very much. Obviously, a very rare interview. And Fred, being able to be on the ground in Tehran tonight. Thanks so much to Fred.

And thanks so much, of course, as always, to all of you for being with us. We'll be back here tomorrow night.

"AC360" starts now.