Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
NBC Anchor Savannah Guthrie Makes An Appeal To Help Find Missing Mother; Trump Calls On Republicans To Nationalize Future U.S. Elections; Colombia President Petro Visits White House After Feud With Trump; U.K.'s Peter Mandelson To Face Criminal Investigation; Peter Mandelson To Quit House Of Lords Over Epstein Scandal; Russia Launches Largest Attack Of The Year On Ukraine; NATO Chief: Russia Is Not Serious About Peace; Sudan's Humanitarian Crisis. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired February 03, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
ISA SOARES, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: Hello, and a very warm welcome, everyone, I'm Isa Soares, you have been listening there to authorities in
the U.S. in Tucson giving a news conference on Savannah Guthrie's missing mother, the 84-year-old mother has been missing of "Today" anchor Savannah
Guthrie.
You heard from some of the sheriff there really appealing for help, saying they've received lots of leads, but really scant information so far as to
the whereabouts, of course, of Nancy Guthrie. We know that she was taken from her home, we heard the sheriff say against her will.
But very little in terms of information, of course, for Nancy's safe return -- asking for the public, really for help to come in and appealing as much
as possible for the public to stay in touch and to reach out. We have heard from Savannah just today, in fact, who is traveling -- we know she traveled
to Tucson after, of course, finding out her mother was missing.
And we heard or saw on social media, really appealing for prayers. And of course, we'll stay on top of this breaking news story. Any further
information we get, of course, from the sheriff, we'll bring it to your attention. A story that we've been covering here right from day one.
Lots of concerns, of course, for the 84-year-old mother of Savannah Guthrie. We're all wishing her well, hope she is safe. But at the moment,
very little, very scant information from the sheriff as to her whereabouts. We'll stay across this story for you.
I want to turn our attention to what is happening. The fallout, of course, of the trove of Epstein files. But calls in the United States for new
investigations over the Jeffrey Epstein files are going anywhere -- going nowhere, really, at least, it seems for now.
But across the pond right here in the U.K., the scandal is rocking Britain from the palace to parliament. Just days after appearing in Friday's latest
release of files, former British ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson will now face a criminal investigation.
That is according to Britain's Met police. They're looking into whether he leaked market sensitive government information to Epstein. Mandelson
earlier announced he's retiring from the House of Lords. As for the royals, you may ask, well, it's not just former Prince Andrew facing increased
scrutiny over his Epstein ties, but also his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, her charitable foundation has announced it will close for the foreseeable
future.
Today, at a panel discussion in Dubai, CNN asked Prince Edward about the scandal hitting close to home. This was his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDWARD ANTONY RICHARD LOUIS, DUKE OF EDINBURGH, BRITAIN: I'm not sure this is the audience that is probably the least bit interested in that. So, they
all came here to listen to my education solving the future. And -- but no, I think it's all really important always to remember the victims, and who
are the victims in all this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well, let's get more on all of this. Norway's royal family is also facing scrutiny over the files. The files show Crown Princess Mette-Marit
had a friendly relationship with Epstein years after he was convicted of soliciting sex with a minor.
This happening as her son goes on trial on rape charges. A lot for us to talk about. Let me bring in my colleague, Max Foster with more. Max, let's
start with this breaking news that we're just reporting here. And this is moving at incredible speed for Mandelson, who is now, of course, being
investigated, criminal investigation by the Met police.
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, very quickly. So, there were correspondence between Epstein and Mandelson whilst he was business
secretary in Gordon Brown's government, apparently sharing market sensitive information, internal government information that could be used by Epstein,
potentially to make money.
That has just snowballed to the point where today we heard that the British government had done a very deep investigation, very quickly found relevant
material and sent them to the police.
[14:05:00]
Gordon Brown also sending correspondence to the police --
SOARES: He's fuming, right? He's fuming --
FOSTER: Pretty angry because that happened under his premiership --
SOARES: Yes --
FOSTER: And we've just heard from the Metropolitan police, saying, "following the release of millions of court documents" -- I can confirm
this is a Metropolitan police commander, the Met police has now launched an investigation into a 72-year-old man, a former government minister, for
misconduct in public office."
Complete uproar in parliament today because, it breaks, if indeed true, every sort of moral principle of being a government minister that you are
sharing internal, potentially state secrets with a --
SOARES: Yes --
FOSTER: Someone that's known to have shady connections and obviously, ultimately ended up in prison.
SOARES: Yes, especially, I mean, this will be confidential information that to a financier --
FOSTER: Yes, well, it could have made the bet --
SOARES: Is incredibly beneficial, right?
FOSTER: And it could have --
SOARES: Yes --
FOSTER: Been very beneficial. Separately, he said he's not going to take up his House of Lords seat and, his title of lord, Keir Starmer is also
introducing legislation, which is no small thing --
SOARES: Yes, to actually change that --
FOSTER: To get rid of that title -- So we'd expect, you know, lord Mandelson to give up his title if he's going to do the right thing.
SOARES: This, I mean, this is moving incredibly quickly. There's still huge questions here in the U.K., and I was listening to some members of
parliament today, raising questions over what this does to the Prime Minister --
FOSTER: Yes --
SOARES: And what this means going forward, because it just erodes some of the trust in politicians, does it not?
FOSTER: He should have acted sooner. A lot of them --
SOARES: Yes --
FOSTER: Are saying, and he is acting very strongly now, which might --
SOARES: Yes --
FOSTER: Be a case of him protecting his position as well, but clearly doing the right thing by most parliamentarians as well. What we should point out
is, this is the first criminal investigation into anyone relating to the Epstein file. So, you could argue that the U.K. is well ahead of this,
because we're nowhere near this in the United States. Also on the Crown Princess of Norway --
SOARES: Yes --
FOSTER: I think that's a very difficult situation for the Norwegians because, you know, obviously, Prince Andrew mentioned in these Epstein
files, very easy to sideline and stick on a farm in the middle of Norfolk. You can't do that with the Crown Princess. She is due to be queen next.
So, for them to try to deal with this, and to sort of punish her in some way, I don't know what they're thinking about the government, but that's a
huge constitutional issue bubbling up in Norway.
SOARES: Interesting that I heard a reporter here in the U.K. saying the American media going pretty easy on this story on the Epstein files.
Incredible to see how things are moving much quicker, and the focus has been in this country on the Epstein files compared to the United States.
FOSTER: Well, it's interesting that we've had many of these, sadly, middle- aged men pedophile stories here in the U.K., as has happened --
SOARES: Yes --
FOSTER: In other parts of the world. But what tends to happen is the courts will look at the testimony from the survivors, and that becomes part of the
case. You don't necessarily have to have the precise evidence, but perhaps, that is the case in America.
SOARES: Max, I know you'll stay across this breaking news story, thank you very much. Max will be back in about 50 minutes or so with this show. I'm
going to leave the U.K. and take you over to Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump has not been summoned to testify before Congress about his
Epstein ties, despite, of course, numerous references to him in the files.
But a House committee will soon hear from the Clintons. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now scheduled
for depositions later this month. They were accused of defying a subpoena and face threats of criminal charges. Today, we learned the Clintons are
asking for public hearings instead of testimony behind closed doors.
The files show Bill Clinton had ties with Epstein for years and flew on his private plane at least 16 times. He has denied any wrongdoing. Our Annie
Grayer joins us now from Capitol Hill. Annie, you and I have discussed this because they have been pushing against it for some time. So, why the U-
turn?
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, the House was getting ready to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress, which would have set up a very
intense legal battle because that would have been sent to the Department of Justice, who would have to explore whether the Clintons, you know, legally
defied their subpoenas.
And the Clintons in the last couple of weeks have been trying to create an off-ramp to prevent this final vote from happening. And there was a lot of
back-and-forth in the last 24 hours. But House Oversight Chair James Comer gave the Clintons a deadline of noon today to agree to his terms for a
deposition, which means it would be in person in February.
It would be transcribed, and there would be a video -- it would be video- recorded. And right before that noon deadline, the Clintons attorneys responded, saying that they have agreed to those terms, and that they would
appear for depositions at the end of February, February 26th and 27th, respectively.
And this is, as you mentioned, a major U-turn for the Clintons and a huge win for House Oversight Chair James Comer, who had been pushing for these
depositions for months. But it has been a long back-and-forth here.
[14:10:00]
First, the Clintons argued they shouldn't have to testify, and that they argued they were being unfairly singled out because there were other
individuals who were subpoenaed as part of this investigation who didn't have to come testify. They were allowed to provide written testimony.
And then, when that didn't work, the Clintons were trying to create terms for a voluntary interview. They wanted to control who would be appearing to
interview them, how long the interview would be, if there would be people to transcribe the interview or not.
And Comer rejected all of it. The thing that was really interesting, it wasn't just Comer who was willing to hold the Clintons in contempt of
Congress. There were Democrats who also felt like they wanted to support this effort. So, this issue not only raised serious legal concerns, but put
a huge political divide in the Democratic Party.
But all that is going to be avoided. And now the committee is gearing up for a major interview, and it's Jeffrey Epstein investigation at the end of
this month.
SOARES: Annie, thanks for laying it all out for us, appreciate it. We're going to stay in Washington because it's a meeting that until recently
seemed unimaginable. Quite frankly, U.S. President Donald Trump hosting his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro at the White House today.
The smiles are a stark contrast to the bitter feud the two leaders have been locked in for the past year. It reached a boiling point following the
U.S. arrest of former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, if you remember last month. At one point, President Petro described Mr. Trump as an
accomplice to genocide in Gaza during a speech he gave at the U.N. last year.
President Trump later called Colombia's leader a thug. But those chilly relations began to thaw after Mr. Trump invited President Petro to the
White House. Let's get more on all of this, Stefano Pozzebon is in Colombia's capital for us in Bogota. Kristen Holmes is at the White House.
Kristen, let me start with you then. Any sense of how this meeting went? Because as we clearly just laid out, there was a lot of friction between
both of these men.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, yes, that was just kind of the CliffsNotes version of the amount of friction. I mean, we did even get to
the point where Petro's visa was taken away, and there were sanctions put on his financials.
This had been escalating for quite some time. Now, we talked to Karoline Leavitt; the press secretary, who said that she hadn't talked to President
Trump yet when we got to her just after the meeting, it was a roughly two- hour meeting. But she said that his headspace was really positive going into this meeting, that she wanted to -- that he wanted to find a path
forward.
And we've seen now some of these photos you're showing some of them right now of them in the colonnade there, looking at President Trump's, you know,
wall of presidents with his own summary of what he believes the president is about. But there were also some pictures of that Oval Office meeting of
the two of them facing each other.
They look to be in conversation. Petro looks to be smiling or at least half smiling. So, reading the tea leaves here, the fact that it was almost two
hours, it doesn't seem as though it was an acrimonious meeting between the two leaders.
There had been some speculation that this could turn into a situation like we saw with that original meeting between President Trump and the Ukrainian
President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office that completely devolved with the vice president.
Just given the fact that both of these men are known to be completely unpredictable, that, of course, it didn't happen. And one thing to note
here, and this is very important when it comes to this White House, President Trump did not open this meeting to the press.
Now, we had been told that the Colombian government did not want him to open that meeting. But we know President Trump will do generally whatever
it is that he wants to do in that moment. So, there were no cameras in there. They didn't take questions. They didn't engage.
President Trump didn't kind of give his riff and monologue on Petro while the cameras were rolling. And so, it is notable that if it is true that the
White House didn't bring in those cameras because Petro didn't want them in there, something that President Trump did for Petro to make this meeting
happen at least, somewhat of a good sign of faith.
We, of course, believe that they talked about oil, drug trafficking, President Trump has said that Colombia needs to do more when it comes to
stopping drugs from coming into the United States. I will tell you that Petro has reminded the United States government that Colombia does do quite
a bit to work with America, to try and stop drugs from coming in.
That was part of that conversation that really kind of started to thaw the relationship between the two. But of course, President Trump has said it's
still not enough.
SOARES: Stay with us, Kristen, let me get to Stefano. Stefano, just give us a sense of what Petro is looking to get out of this. Because I remember
when I spoke to him at the end of the -- at the end of last year, you know, you know, it was clear that he was out of office in August, I think it's
August 7th. So, what is he looking to get out of this relationship?
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think there are two main goals from President Petro here. The number one is, just like you said, defending his
legacy. Petro sees himself as a historic president for Colombia, being the first left-wing president in this country's history.
And so, we know that there will be an election between May and June. Colombia celebrates elections with two rounds, of course, there is a
candidate that is strongly supported by the current government. The left- wing candidate, Ivan Cepeda, we are still far from understanding who the frontrunner for that -- for that election will be.
[14:15:00]
But Petro will try and knows that in order to preserve his legacy when it comes to the war on drugs, to the establishment of security here in
Colombia, he needs to have at least some form of support or at least an intent, an understanding with Washington.
Which is by far the largest provider of both funds and actual physical armaments for Colombia to combat drug traffickers and guerrillas alike. So,
the first topic that -- and the first goal for Petro would be to know that their relationship is stable -- it's stable and strong despite the
differences between himself and President Trump.
The other one is much more personal. Gustavo Petro is on the OFAC list, which is a list of international leaders who don't do enough in order to
combat the flows of drug trafficking the Trump administration placed in there, back in October last year after a fiery speech in the streets of New
York during the UNGA the previous month.
He was accused of being colluding with narco traffickers. Together with him are his ex-wife -- estranged wife Veronica Alcocer and his own son, Nicolas
Petro. That means, for example, that the current President of Colombia does not have a visa in order to travel to the United States.
He was allowed to go to meet President Trump on a temporary permit, not with a stable visa. And also that, for example, his -- for his estranged
wife was not able to travel to Colombia a few months ago on a -- on a personal travel because no airline would sell her a ticket.
And no U.S. bank or international credit card holders would allow her to conduct economic transactions because her name is on that list. So, there
is both a geopolitics at plays. Colombia does want to have a stable relationship with the United States, and Gustavo Petro personally wants to
get out, get his name out of the Clinton list before he gives up power on August 7th.
Let me join you. In the long tradition of Latin American politics, we call it kara metro(ph), which means reading the faces by the smiles and by what
is filtering out of the teams, especially the teams I'm speaking with, which is the Colombian President's team. There is a feeling of optimism,
and that this meeting was somehow successful. Isa.
SOARES: That optimism can be seen. If I ask Anna(ph), my producer, to bring up the tweet from Gustavo Petro. This is what he's tweeted, it's a photo of
both Presidents, and it says Gustavo, a great honor. I love Colombia, worth pointing out to our viewers that not very long ago, President Trump called
Petro an illegal drug lord.
But it seems they have bonded, and we'll stay across, see what this means for indeed for Petro and indeed for relations between Colombia and the U.S.
Thank you very much, Kristen as well as Stefano there in Bogota. Well, this is coming in just to us right now.
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a funding package that will end the partial government shutdown. The bill will also temporarily fund
ICE and heads to President Trump's desk for his signature. Earlier, speaker Mike Johnson successfully stopped a rebellion in his Republican Party that
would have blocked the spending bill.
Johnson was able to convince all Republicans except Kentucky representative Thomas Massie, to back a procedural vote on the floor. We'll stay across
this story for you. I do want to turn back now to comments from President Donald Trump that some are calling an attack on American democracy.
The President said that he thinks the time has come, and he used the word nationalize, to nationalize voting in the U.S., and even called on the
Republican Party to take over -- his words, voting in some states. The White House says the comment was a push for a voter ID law, not a call to
actually take control of the election.
Still, it is worth noting that the U.S. constitution specifically says that conducting elections is left to the states, not the federal government, and
certainly not the President. The top Democrat in the Senate says Mr. Trump needs to be reminded of that. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Does Donald Trump need a copy of the constitution? What he's saying is outlandishly illegal. Once again, the
President is talking no differently than a dictator wants elections in America to be as legitimate as elections in countries like Venezuela.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Chuck Schumer though, when CNN asked a Republican Speaker of the House about the President's comments, he danced around the topic, but said
Republicans are not going to take over elections.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The President had called yesterday for a takeover of federal elections and to nationalize in some
states. Is that something that you think you should do, that Republicans should do, take over elections?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The President is expressing his frustration about the problems we have in some of these blue states, where election integrity
is not always guaranteed. So, we have to -- we have to figure out solutions to that problem. And that's what I think the save America had to do --
RAJU: Take over!
JOHNSON: So, we're working on it --
RAJU: To take --
[14:20:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, guys --
JOHNSON: No --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well, Mr. Trump's comments are just his latest move to exert more control over elections and to boost his unproven claim that the 2020
election was stolen from him. He has already signed an executive order requiring proof of citizenship to vote and mandating that mail-in ballots
be received by election day.
The courts have stepped in to block those moves. His Department of Justice has demanded some states turn over voter rolls, likely in an effort to
boost Mr. Trump's claim that illegal immigrants are voting. And just last week, if you remember, we brought you this story.
FBI agents raided the Fulton County election offices in Georgia, taking boxes of ballots from the 2020 election and seizing voter rolls. And the
President has repeatedly, I should say, posted on social media about wanting to end mail-in voting and even questioning if machine voting should
be allowed.
Let's get more perspective on all of this. I want to bring in our CNN Politics senior reporter Stephen Collinson. And Stephen, you have written
at great length about this, if any of our viewers want to see it, go to cnn.com for Stephen's in-depth take on this.
But you write, I'm just going to read part of what you've written. When President Donald Trump looks like he's gearing -- he's gearing up medal in
an election, still roll, history suggests he should be believed. Given what you've written and what we've just outlined just now, what are --
conversations are you hearing? Are Americans suspicious at all when we look to the Midterms, because this is deeply ominous?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, and I think everything that is being done by the President now, you have to view
through the refraction of the prism of 2020. About this time six years ago, the President started to raise concerns about the electoral system,
suggesting it was prone to fraud.
He used to rage against mail-in voting at the time, which was expanded so people could vote during the pandemic. So -- and what that led to was what
we saw on January the 6th, 2021, crowds of Trump supporters storming the Capitol because they believed Trump's false claims that the election was
rigged.
So, the Republicans are looking at a very tough election in November in the Midterms if history and current polling is any guide. So, it looks like not
only is the President trying to create an infrastructure that would allow him to meddle in elections in a way that's not constitutionally permitted,
he's also creating, almost softening up public opinion to create the impression once again that this election, if it goes against him, has not
been fairly administered.
SOARES: Yes, and Chuck Schumer was talking about, you know, having the President reading the constitution. And you have in your reporting, you
know, the clear article one, section four, of the constitution, you say, could hardly be more plain. So, just outline really what's in the
constitution.
Really, this not only would then be interpreted as an assault on the constitution, Stephen, but also illegal. So, where would something like
this land with U.S. voters?
COLLINSON: Right, so the constitution basically says that it's up to states to administer their elections. What you have in the United States is not
really one election. You have 50 separate elections in the states, and even in some counties and jurisdictions, they run their elections differently.
The idea of that was to make sure that an unscrupulous head of state could not meddle in elections and add to his own power and rule in a tyrannical
manner. That was exactly what the founders were trying to do when they wrote the constitution and put these safeguards into the election.
So, it's quite ironic that exactly what they feared seems to be coming true in the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence, in the person
of the current President Donald Trump. Now, what Trump wants to do by nationalizing the elections, it's hard to see how that could get through
Congress.
Even the Save Act, which you mentioned there, a voter registration act that, first of all, looks very unlikely to make it through the Congress,
given the tiny majorities, for example, in the House you were just talking about, in relation to another story, and then in the courts. So, that kind
of thing, and what the Save Act would do, they say it's a voter registration.
What it actually does is make it a lot harder for a lot of people to produce the documentation they would need to vote. This could hit
particularly Democratic constituencies like minorities, older people, et cetera. So, that's a way of narrowing the franchise. A lot of what the
Trump administration is doing is trying to create this impression. And I think you saw it with Mike Johnson; the Speaker there in that quote you
played where he said --
SOARES: Yes --
COLLINSON: Elections in blue states can't be trusted. It's this --
SOARES: Yes --
COLLINSON: Idea that if Republicans lose an election, it's not actually a fair election.
SOARES: Yes, saying there's frustration over blue states over voting in election integrity is what he said. That raises huge questions.
[14:25:00]
Stephen, we will have -- unfortunately, we run out of time, but it's a fantastic and fascinating conversation. Thank you very much.
COLLINSON: Thanks --
SOARES: Stephen Collinson there. And still to come tonight, an American military strike on an Iranian drone could shatter hopes for upcoming
nuclear talks between the two countries. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Well, breaking. Developments are threatening to derail scheduled nuclear talks this week between Iran and the U.S. before they even begin.
An American military spokesman tells CNN, a U.S. aircraft carrier shot down an Iranian drone today after the drone aggressively approached the ship in
the Arabian sea.
Separately, two gunboats operated by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatened a U.S. flagship flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's Foreign Minister was expected to meet Friday with U.S. special envoy Witkoff in Turkey. But according to three sources, Tehran wants the talks
to be relocated and focused solely on Iran's nuclear program.
A short time ago, the White House said that as of now, negotiations will move forward as planned. Well, the bloody crackdown on protesters in Iran
goes on without an end in sight. Badly injured survivors are still fighting the relentless pursuit of the Iranian government as they scramble to find
care.
Our Jomana Karadsheh spoke to a doctor inside Iran who is part of an underground network of medics working to treat protesters, while also
trying to avoid being arrested themselves. And we do want to warn you, many may find these images disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(GUNFIRE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a night of horror, but gunfire, chaos and fear captured in this video, a
scene that was replicated across Iran. Many of those who barely escaped the regime's onslaught are still on the run, with security forces hunting down
the injured and those who aid them.
(GUNFIRE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What happened on January the 8th and 9th, the scenes at the hospitals were like those end of the world
Hollywood movies.
KARADSHEH: This doctor, we're not identifying for his safety, is part of an underground network of medics treating injured protestors inside Iran.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Government hospitals were controlled by security forces and monitored by cameras. If injured people
went there and were identified as protesters, staff on duty had to report them and they would be arrested.
KARADSHEH: Never have the wounded needed their doctors more than they do right now. With activists reporting more than 11,000 injured in the most
violent regime crackdown in the history of the Islamic Republic with the widespread use of live ammunition and military-grade weapons. It's also
extremely dangerous being a doctor in Iran right now.
[14:30:23]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The doctors who didn't cooperate were detained, or the next day security officers would summon them, or they
were thrown out.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Images like this have emerged showing injured protesters too scared to go to hospitals, being treated in secret. Some so
desperate have also been reaching out to Iranian doctors abroad for help. Hospitals are no sanctuary in the Islamic Republic.
Security forces have raided facilities like this one in the city of Elam, and that was even before the most vicious and bloody clampdown on the
protests began on January the 8th. Since then, the doctor and others say it was the field Revolutionary Guards who took control of hospitals searching
for injured protesters. Reports of security forces detaining protesters from hospitals are widespread. The U.N. and rights groups have also raised
concerns about the arrest of doctors.
KARADSHEH: Speaking with us could mean prison for you or even worse. Why did you agree to speak with us?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I've locked the door with five different locks. I expect that at any moment as I give this interview, they
could break in and arrest me. I've chosen to put my own safety second and make sharing information about the injured and the war crimes that have
occurred my first priority.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): The risks he's taking, he says, fighting back tears are nothing compared to the young protesters who paid the ultimate price.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I promised myself to be a voice for the injured and for those who have been killed. I promised myself to make
sure the voices are heard by the world.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Voices like that of 16-year-old Arvin's (ph) family. He was shot in the head. They killed him, this relative cries, as
they try to speak out at the hospital. They are silenced. These are the voices the regime doesn't want the world to hear.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:35:00]
SOARES: Returning to one of our top stories this hour, the former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson will face a criminal investigation
into allegations he leaked market sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein.
The scandal unleashed by the latest tranche of Epstein files has pushed Mandelson to resign from both the Labour Party and the House of Lords.
According to the files, Mandelson appears to have passed on sensitive information to Epstein during his time as business secretary and they
include the Labour Party's tax policy plans under then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Mandelson and his now husband also allegedly received tens of thousands of dollars' worth of payments from Epstein. Mandelson says they don't remember
taking that money.
Let's go more on all this scandal, how it's rattling, really rattling U.K. policy. I'm joined now by Quentin Peel, former foreign editor of the
Financial Times. Quentin, it's been a while since you and I spoke which says they haven't, really tells us there haven't been that many scandals
for some time. But here you have it, just your reaction first and foremost to the fact that Peter Mandelson will now face a criminal investigation.
QUENTIN PEEL, FORMER FOREIGN EDITOR, THE FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, it really is the ultimate humiliation for a man who's been a very powerful figure in
British politics from the 1990s. And it really is an extraordinary scandal for British figures to be fully -- really being humiliated and falling flat
on their faces in what is originally, after all, a quintessentially American scandal. But somehow the Brits have got caught.
SOARES: Yes, the Brits got caught. We could talk about the U.S. in just a moment. But, you know, for our viewers around the world, Mandelson, I
understand, served under every Labour leader for the past 40 years, right? And what I've been hearing from many MPs today is just utter anger and
disgust, really, as some of the conversations that he was exchanging, allegedly exchanging with Epstein regarding the financial aspects of this,
right? Assets, talking about also Eurozone.
For a financier, this is -- this could be incredibly a huge moneymaker, really. Just give me first your take on what this would mean, you think,
longer term for him.
PEEL: Well, the real anger, I think, and fury is within the Labour Party. There's a feeling of real betrayal from somebody who wasn't particularly
liked, I think, but was respected in the Labour Party. He was really the man who got Tony Blair into the prime minister's office instead of Gordon
Brown. Then he got involved in scandals and was sent off to be a commissioner in Brussels. Then he came back into the government under
Gordon Brown.
And this is -- really, he seemed to be always untouchable. But now to be involved in a scandal which effectively would appear to involve giving away
inner government secrets at the time of that enormous financial scandal or financial crisis in 2008 to 2010. So, there was the British government of
which he was a very senior member, struggling to come to terms with this. And all the time it would appear that Peter Mandelson was actually giving
away their inner decisions to his great friend Jeffrey Epstein.
SOARES: Yes. And this was a bailout, I believe, in the Eurozone. I wonder what you think it says, Quentin, about the judgment of the prime minister,
because the discussions over his appointment, I remember the time, were discussed openly before he was actually appointed. So, where does this
leave the prime minister?
PEEL: Yes, absolutely.
SOARES: Because it does beg the question of who was whispering, who tried to influence this appointment?
PEEL: Yes, absolutely, it does. And I think it's yet another bad blow for Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, in that he is being exposed again of
having had poor judgment. The truth is that everybody believes that Peter Mandelson was recommended for the, after all, very high-profile and senior
job of ambassador to the United States by the chief of staff in Sir Keir Starmer's office, Morgan McSweeney, who was rather -- was very close to
Peter Mandelson and, like Peter Mandelson, was seen as a sort of almost a Machiavellian figure.
[14:40:00]
Brilliant as a political spin doctor and absolutely critical in bringing Keir Starmer to power, just as Mandelson had done with Tony Blair.
So, if Morgan McSweeney is shown to be the man who really pushed him into that job of ambassador. I think it's going to damage him as well as
damaging Keir Starmer. This Labour government, in spite of having a very large majority in the British Parliament, is actually in an awful mess.
SOARES: Yes. It begs the question whether this chief of staff will actually be the sacrificial lamb and all this, especially when we're looking about
by-elections later on. Let me get -- you told the team, the prince of darkness finally gets caught in his web of deceit, fatal attraction to
wealth and power, and yet a brilliant political operator. Another bad blow to Keir Starmer. But this is all -- but is all the fallout distracting
attention from Trump? Just explain your last question -- the question you raised there.
PEEL: Well, it is extraordinary that the people who seem to be really getting the highest profile attention, clearly, certainly in Britain, are
people like Peter Mandelson and, indeed, the former Prince Andrew, but others, all the people who are sort of peripheral, if you like, to the
absolutely central story one would imagine in the U.S., which is the involvement of President Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein, who was a very
close friend of his.
And so, little seems really to be coming out about President Trump, where it is coming out about everybody else.
SOARES: He was named over a thousand times but denies any wrongdoing. Quentin, great to see you as always. Quentin Peel there. Thank you,
Quentin.
PEEL: Thank you.
SOARES: Now, Russia has launched its largest missile and drone attack of the year so far on Ukraine, with overnight strikes on major cities and
energy facilities, leaving thousands to face dangerously cold weather without heat or, indeed, power. And this ends the brief reprieve by Moscow,
which was agreed with U.S. President Donald Trump, and comes just ahead of further trilateral talks between the U.S., Russia and Ukraine on Wednesday
and Thursday.
NATO chief Mark Rutte says he is optimistic about the talks but has doubts about Kremlin's true intentions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: President Trump and his team are determined to stop the bloodshed with the support of America's allies. And
it is clear that Ukraine is committed. Direct talks are now underway, and this is an important progress. But Russia attacks, like those last night,
do not signal seriousness about peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: And still to come tonight, children without food, homes torched by drones in a deepening humanitarian crisis. The Norwegian Refugee Council's
Secretary General describes what he's witnessing on the ground in Sudan, just ahead. My interview with Jan Egeland.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:00]
SOARES: Children live on the brink of survival. That's how UNICEF describes the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Sudan. Reaching a single child
in Sudan's Darfur region can take days of negotiations, security clearances, and travel across sandy roads that cut through shifting front
lines, as you can see there.
The conflict between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese army broke out in April of 2023, when the former allies clashed over plans
to integrate their troops. Since then, nearly 13 million people have been forced to flee their homes, and that includes at least 7 million people who
are internally displaced, as well as others who have sought refuge in neighboring countries.
Famine has already been confirmed in parts of the country, putting millions of lives immediately at risk. While the Norwegian Refugee Council warns the
world is yet again failing civilians in Sudan. Secretary General Jan Egeland joined me and described what he's been witnessing on the ground.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAN EGELAND, SECRETARY GENERAL, NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL: I'm just back from South Kordofan in Sudan, and what I could see and hear is really
confirming that this is the worst war, this is the worst famine situation in Sudan, which is the largest humanitarian crisis on earth today.
The people I met were mainly women and children, mothers who had fled from the besieged city of Kadugli and another besieged town called Dilling, and
the recurring message was, we fled because our home was torched by drones. We had been starving for months, and I, the mother, had to grab my toddler
and run with my children, and now we're here. Please help us.
SOARES: You mentioned drone a couple of times, drones a couple of times. Is this a new thing you're seeing in the way -- I know there's been a
militarization of society. Is this something that you've noticed in terms of change, the way this is being used against civilians?
EGELAND: Absolutely. And it's one conflict after the other, from Ukraine to Gaza to Sudan to Myanmar. It's drones now, and there are more and more of
them, and they are hitting anywhere at any moment, and it's terrorizing for the population, of course.
SOARES: The way you paint this, and it's just worth reminding viewers that this is a man-made disaster, Jan, and yet, you know, the world looks away.
I wonder why you feel the world is looking away. Is this also a crisis of apathy, Jan?
EGELAND: I think this time is not a good time for international compassion and international solidarity. 24 years ago -- 23 years ago, I was the
under-secretary-general of the United Nations, and I brought the full crisis of the time to the Security Council. I was invited there every three
weeks. President Bush of the United States, Prime Minister Blair of the United Kingdom, the German Chancellor, the E.U. Commission was seized with
Darfur, where villages were torched, and where we had too little access for humanitarian relief. Things improved. We got all the aid that we needed.
George Clooney brought the international media to Darfur.
Now, the crisis is much bigger, both in Darfur and in South Kordofan, where I just came back from, and there is this apathy, as you just said. We
cannot turn our back to a population that consists mostly of women and children. The men are either dead or missing or fighting or detained. We
need to help these mothers with their children.
[14:50:00]
SOARES: And I'm glad you brought the conversation back to the women and the children, this is crucial, because whether I speak to you about what we saw
in Gaza, whether we talk about Sudan, it's always the women, Jan, it's always the children that are at the heart of all these wars and all these
crises.
Can you tell us some of the stories that you are hearing from mothers? Because I can't even imagine, Jan, the trauma that some of these children
are going through.
EGELAND: There were -- I met courageous women and mothers, but they were traumatized. One lady, her first name was Asiya (ph), she said, my husband
left in the morning to search for food because we had been starving for very many weeks. But before he could come back, a house was hit by a drone
with explosives and the house torched. So, I fled with my baby that I was nursing and three other children. We walked for three days to the camp
where the Norwegian Refugee Council is giving relief together with local Sudanese partners.
And she said, I have built now a hut from straw and branches. I know you have a school here. I will sacrifice myself for my children so that they
can get education and they can get a future.
SOARES: Goodness me, it is absolutely chilling. The storytellers, there are so many I have been reading throughout the day. I really appreciate, Jan,
coming on the show and, you know, shaking the world, I hope, into realizing what exactly is happening on the ground. Thanks very much, Jan.
EGELAND: Thank you. Thank you. And today, I met with the donor countries and said we have three months to avert an epic biblical famine. Help us,
help the people of Sudan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: And that was Jan Egeland speaking to me earlier. We're going to take a break. We'll see you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: While protecting teens from the digital wild west, that's the of Spain's new social media ban on those aged under 16 that was announced
earlier today. Speaking at the World Government Summit in Dubai, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said Spain will require all platforms to employ
strict age verification tools and would hold social media executives criminally liable for failing to remove illegal or hateful content.
[14:55:00]
Well, Spain is the latest to join a growing list of countries implementing similar bans that includes Australia, France and Denmark.
Well, instead of spending time on social media, teens may want to take the lead of this extraordinary 13-year-old boy from Australia. This is Austin
Applebee who was swept out to sea with his mother and two siblings while they were kayaking and paddle boarding off Western Australia. As light
started to fade, Austin swam back to shore to get help. He swam, get this, for two hours across four kilometers or 2.5 miles. Police then sent out a
rescue team and were all returned to shore. Austin says he stayed motivated through the rough conditions. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AUSTIN APPLEBEE, SAVED FAMILY: I was fighting rough seas. I thought I saw something in the water and I was really scared. I was just thinking in my
head, thinking I was going to make it through. But I was also thinking about all my friends at school and friends of my Christian youth. And yes,
I just said, all right, not today, not today, not today. I have to keep on going.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well done, Austin. That does it for us tonight. Do stay right here, "What We Know" with Max Foster is up next. Have a wonderful day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
