Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
NASDAQ Falls Sharply for Third Straight Day; British P.M. Starmer Under Fire Over Mandelson Scandal; Galloway Calls for Big Tech Boycott to Protest ICE; FBI Announced $50,000 Reward in Nancy Guthrie Case; Brad Karp Resigns as Chair of Law Firm Paul Weiss; Amazon Stock Drops After Hours on Earnings; Interview with SAS CEO Anko van der Werff. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired February 05, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:14]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell ringing on Wall Street. The misery continues with the markets being lower.
The Dow is down. All the major indices are lower and have been throughout the course of the session. It will be much of the things we are talking
about in tonight's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, as we understand what is going on, what you see, 1.5 percent on the NASDAQ, which is bearing the brunt of the
third, fourth or fifth day. Oh madam! There we go. Thank you very much. Bringing trading to a close.
Those are the markets and these are the events were talking about: It is the tech rout extending into its third day.
A.I. stocks are under pressure. Amazons earnings, we will get that in just a moment or two.
Sir Keir Starmer is apologizing to Jeffrey Epstein's victims for choosing Peter Mandelson as the U.K.'s Ambassador to the United States.
And the CEOs of Airbus and SAS discuss the supply chain problems that plagued the airline industry. It is the -- I was going to say, not so
hidden secret that is causing such a misery.
For many, or most arguably, it is Thursday, February the 5th as the world turns here in Dubai, we have slipped grande elegante into the end of the
week. It is Friday, wherever you are, whatever you're up to, I am Richard Quest and I mean business.
Good evening again from Dubai.
Once again, tech stocks under severe pressure as more investors are questioning the sky high valuations and the return on A.I. Losses today
were the sharpest on the NASDAQ, which was off by 1.5 percent. Its third straight session of falls.
Alphabet, Google clawed back some steep losses. In the end, when all was said and done, it was just off half a percent. It told investors on
Wednesday that Capital spending might double this year to nearly $200 billion.
Good grief! $200 billion. Think about that extrapolated across everybody else. Also, spending large sums of money.
Amazon will release its quarterly results in just a moment. It is off 4.5 percent so far. With Bitcoin, that selloff is even more pronounced. It is
off 14 percent below $70,000.00 for the first time since November of 2024. It has now lost all the gains that Bitcoin has made since Donald Trump's
election. Those gains have now been wiped out.
Clare Duffy is with me.
We know because we've talked about it. The Anthropic announcement on A.I. called into question. I mean, that is a plus and a minus, depending on who
you are. But why now? Why are -- why is the market doubting more than usual the ability of A.I. to provide its benefits?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yes, Richard, I mean, there is so much going on here between Bitcoin and A.I., but I think the recurring theme
here is that the market is really being driven by fear right now.
There are big concerns about how much these major tech companies are spending on their A.I. infrastructure investments. I mean, these numbers
that Google talked about yesterday are massive, between $175 billion and $185 billion on CapEx this year. That's about double what it spent last
year.
And this is similar to what we've heard from meta last week as well. Those are huge numbers. Investors want to know when they are going to see a
greater return on that investment.
But at the same time, you also have investors who are freaked out by what A.I. can do at this point. Anthropic just released an update to the model
that backs that Claude Cowork tool that everybody was so worried about. OpenAI also announced a new A.I. agent tool for companies today. So, people
are at the same time also worried that A.I. is going to be taking away jobs from humans and undermining existing software as a service, businesses that
have been sort of the core of the tech story over the last few years.
And so you've got these really competing narratives right now that's really interesting.
QUEST: Right. But I noticed gold also down just a tad today, two percent or so, which is I mean -- again, you're so right when you say it is also
interesting because gold would normally be a beneficiary of this speculative worry on A.I. But of course, gold has been the speculation
itself, therefore has been at frothy levels.
In this environment, is any investment safe?
DUFFY: I think a lot of investors are talking about this sell America story looking to international markets. I think that's been a big topic of
conversation. But I also think it is interesting to compare gold and Bitcoin right now because we've heard over the last few years, Bitcoin
bulls talking about Bitcoin as a safe haven asset.
[16:05:12]
And yet, that is not bearing out in terms of how investors are thinking about that asset right now. We've seen Bitcoin has lost 27 percent this
year. By comparison, gold is up about 12 percent this year. So, I do think that gold is still looking at least safer than riskier assets like Bitcoin
at this point.
QUEST: Right. But one quick one point before we let you go. You know, we had a wobble a few months ago when the Chinese A.I., whose name immediately
of course forgotten, announced that it was, you know, it had done what OpenAI had done and had done it at a fraction of the price, and it was
modest, that sent the market tumbling, but it recovered fairly sharply because there was an impetus to grow.
That's what people are saying here. Is this a wobble or is it a crack?
DUFFY: I think it is most likely a wobble like we saw with DeepSeek as you're talking about there last year.
QUEST: Thank you.
DUFFY: I think that the as soon as the OpenAI or another one of these companies, Google, announces a big shiny update that investors can get
excited about again, I think that we will start to see things trending upwards.
QUEST: Right. I knew it was deep something, deep water, deep thoughts, deep minds, deep -- but you're right. Thank you very much for putting me right.
I am grateful. Thank you, Clare Duffy.
The British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, his political future appears to be on the line as the fallout increases over the Epstein files. Sir Keir
has now apologized to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing Peter Mandelson as the U.K.'s U.S. Ambassador.
E-mails released by the Justice Department in America show the full extent of Mandelson's relationship with the late convicted sex offender, and now
Sir Keir is facing growing anger within his own Labour Party, with MPs questioning his ability to survive this crisis.
CNN's Melissa Bell reporting on the fallout from the newly released files in Britain and across Europe.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It was a conspiracy against me, literally, by Epstein and other people, but I think
it is time now for the country to maybe get on to something else.
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): But the rest of the world is not moving on with the British leader now fighting for
his political survival. Prime Minister Keir Starmer apologizing on Thursday to Jeffrey Epstein's victims.
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry, sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you.
TRUMP: What a beautiful statement, and what a beautiful accent, too. I'd like to have that accent. Thank you very much.
PETER MANDELSON, FORMER U.K. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: My mother would be proud!
BELL (voice over) Keir Starmer's former ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, at the center of the political firestorm.
STARMER: It had been publicly known for some time that Mandelson knew Epstein, but none of us knew the depth and the darkness of that
relationship.
BELL (voice over): London's Metropolitan Police launching a criminal probe into allegations of misconduct when Peter Mandelson was Business Secretary
back in the late 2000. But the Prime Minister's judgment is also now under scrutiny.
STARMER: I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.
BELL (voice over): Given the fallout, there is also the question of what Epstein was doing and why. The polish government is now investigating
whether Russian Intelligence Services may have been involved.
DONALD TUSK, POLISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): It is highly probable that this was a premeditated operation by the Russian KGB. This
so-called honeytrap, a sweet bait, a trap set for the elites of the western world, primarily the United States.
BELL (voice over): Allegations the Kremlin has dismissed as a waste of time, even as the fallout continues, consuming also the reputations of
European Royalty. Norway's Crown Princess Mette-Marit, expressing embarrassment for her close friendship with Epstein and the former Prince
Andrew, further disgraced by the latest revelations and now evicted by his brother, King Charles from Windsor, revelations that may cost Mandelson his
title, too.
Starmer has called for legislation that would strip the man once known as Labour's Prince of Darkness, of his peerage, making Lord Mandelson plain
old Peter.
Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: Sascha O'Sullivan is with me, the host of POLITICO's podcast "Westminster Insider."
How good of you to join us tonight. I am grateful.
I mean, Sir Keir is not on very thick ice to start with. In fact, positively thin ICE. Does he fall through, do you think? Can he survive
this?
SASCHA O'SULLIVAN, HOST, POLITICO'S PODCAST, "WESTMINSTER INSIDER": I think you're going right to the heart of the problem, which is that everyone
tonight and indeed yesterday was talking about whether or not Keir Starmer can survive this and how his response has perhaps made it worse for him.
[16:10:10]
But it really has been pushing on an open door, especially with Labour MPs. You've had almost half a dozen U-Turns over the course of the last few
years, where MPs and those very close to him have been questioning the judgment of him and the people right at the top of the operation.
QUEST: You see, the problem is Sir Keir is a former chief prosecutor in Britain. You know, he should have been far more aware of the allegations
and even the tinge and perception of scandal concerning. And yet, he -- I guess he was blinded by his wish so much to put somebody into Washington
that would find favor with the administration. But does it hold water to say I was lied to by Epstein in such a -- sorry, by Mandelson in such a
way?
O'SULLIVAN: He is hoping it holds water and the gamble that he is making is that the anger that people have -- the anger that people have is towards
him. But it is mainly towards Peter Mandelson as well, and the line that he has of he lied to me, he lied to my advisers and he lied to the country
really. He is hoping that that will bail him out enough and direct the anger towards Peter Mandelson rather than himself.
QUEST: A lot of people are saying in the U.S. and elsewhere that it is the U.K. that seems to be taking it not so much more seriously, but having more
repercussions because the U.K. has got these two very high profile cases of Mandelson and the former Prince Andrew who now we now know is living at
Marsh Farm or will be very soon as he has been finally turfed out of Royal Lodge.
O'SULLIVAN: I mean, I can't speak for other countries, but I definitely think that the fact that the Epstein shadow has been hanging over British
politics and the Royal Family as you correctly say, for such a long time, means that there has been this real boiling anger towards it. And I think
the real question for Keir Starmer here is that there was knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with Peter Mandelson before he was appointed
as U.S. Ambassador.
And yes, he has said that I was lied to and that this -- that these -- the questions were asked of Peter Mandelson during the vetting process when he
was made Ambassador. But I do think it is a very interesting point, which perhaps is interesting to some of the American viewers, which is how keen
Keir Starmer was to make sure that that relationship with Donald Trump was on as good a ground as possible.
We don't normally put political appointees as U.S. Ambassador. It was quite a rare move, and it was a gamble and clearly one that hasn't paid off.
QUEST: I think there are only a few of us who will remember the last time, which I believe was, was Peter Jay, somebody will write in and say, no,
you're wrong -- back in the 1980s, James Callaghan's administration.
I am grateful, Sascha. Thank you. And hopefully you will come back again on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS and talk us through all of this. I am so grateful.
Thank you.
Now, Jeffrey Epstein was in touch with people from every corner of the world, it is becoming clear. From Sydney, New York, London, Washington,
even here in the Gulf, as we've been discovering.
Some relationships appear to have been superficial, just a fundraising or an accommodation of whatever. There is a lot more personal, and the trove
of documents offers a glimpse into a world we don't often get to see between some of the world's most powerful people, one in which favors and
information were exchanged in ways that you and I might find remarkable.
I suspect Professor Scott Galloway, a professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business does not find it quite so remarkable that all of these
elites were still cozying up to somebody who was convicted.
But that, Scott, is what this is really all about. Even today, with Brad Karp, the Chairman of Paul Weiss, the law firm, it does a deal. This guy
does a deal with Donald Trump's administration to get off the hook, but manages to also get ensnared to the point where he has to resign as
chairman with Jeffrey Epstein.
So, it is extraordinary, isn't it?
SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND COHOST OF "THE PIVOT PODCAST": First off, good to be with you, Richard. I
haven't seen you in a while.
Yes, I think this also speaks to the lack of trust and credibility of our institutions that we used to rely on, or the erosion in trust or
credibility, because when you release millions of pages, you'd like to think that there is a credible institution, whether it is the DOJ or the
FBI, that could parse criminal activity from, quite frankly, anodic involvement.
[16:15:10]
And my understanding of the Epstein files is there is an individual, there is a credible claim that this person impregnated an 11-year-old. The
President has mentioned 5,700 times, including what I think is an accusation or an allusion to child rape, and then there are people in the
Epstein files who are on an invite list for a party that he was also attending.
So, I just think it is a shame we don't have an institution that we trust to parse through these millions of pages and decide what deserves criminal
indictments from a grand jury, what deserves public disclosure, and quite frankly, what does nothing but dilute the real criminal activity here.
So, this is another example of how our society really pays the price for a lack of credible institutions.
QUEST: You see, that is a very valid point, because what you were just talking about concerning Donald Trump, uncorroborated allegations, which
the President firmly denies, and indeed many of the people in those -- in these documents basically saying, look, I sent him an e-mail to raise some
money or I sent an e-mail because I was trying to get my daughter into X, Y, Z.
You know, it may be a little bit distasteful, but it is not criminal. And as you say, what is clear is how they all -- they all knew him in a sense
and were all happy to continue to be dealing with him, even knowing the background. Does that surprise you?
GALLOWAY: In an era of extraordinary income inequality, it feels like a punch in the gut, I think to most Americans that, you know, it is just sort
of this level of entitlement and the sense that the top one percent are protected by the law, but not bound by it, whereas the bottom 99 are bound
by the law, but not protected by it.
And just the general stridence in arrogance that they could continue to engage in a relationship or worse, and felt like they were absolutely
exonerated from any level of scrutiny, or that they would never, ever pay any sort of penalty, it is just a level of entitlement and arrogance that
gives you a sense for what can happen to you if you run, you're in your own bubble and people tell you long enough that you're amazing. It just -- it
is this uncomfortable feeling that validates some people's worst fears about our most powerful, about how they don't feel they are subject to the
same standards of conduct that the rest of us would like to see from our leaders, and especially from those of us who are the most fortunate.
QUEST: And I take your point perfectly and I will extrapolate it out, if I may, Scott, unless there are real consequences, nothing really changes. All
of that happens is those same people say to each other in those same salons and Davos and various events where everybody meets up and they just say,
you know, let's be a bit more careful of what we write to each other in the future. Let's make sure, you know, let's use WhatsApp that's encrypted or
we will set that timer on that machine so it goes -- it deletes after 30 odd seconds or two minutes or whatever.
GALLOWAY: Yes, it feels as if there are concentric circles, and that is the core is people that District Attorney or a DOJ that we trusted would take
to a grand jury and get an indictment for what feels like really ugly criminal behavior, specifically child rape or trafficking or providing
infrastructure for the abuse of children.
There is another circle out, and that is people who maintained a very strong relationship with a convicted pedophile, and whether or not their
colleagues, the media, their businesses, their elected body wants to maintain their association with them is up to them, and then probably the
bigger circle, quite frankly, is an outer ring of people who were maybe invited to the same party who are also being shamed.
I think what we need here is dramatically more criminal indictments and dramatically less judgment of people who, quite frankly, their involvement
was somewhat superfluous or just trivial.
QUEST: Scott, you'll stay with me, and we are going to talk about your idea, about the idea that we should unsubscribe as a form of protest. We
will talk about that in just a second.
I do need to point out, of course, that in the Epstein files, although President Trump may be mentioned, there is no suggestion of any
inappropriate activity. There are no accusations. There are no allegations. It is very much what Scott has been just talking about there, by
association, by mention.
We will be back, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:26]
QUEST: Finding ways to change the U.S. administration's policies on controversial issues like immigration has been a key part of protest at the
moment.
Scott Galloway says the best way in many ways to protest against things like immigration policies is through an economic boycott. Resist and
unsubscribe is this campaign, to people just drop services from companies like Amazon, Apple and Google.
Apparently, these companies are driving U.S. markets. Donald Trump follows the markets and if you put pressure on them and they put pressure on him,
so you have a -- if you will, a virtuous circle.
Scott Galloway is back with me.
Do you think people would have the stomach for that? It is one thing not to go to a supermarket to not to buy something, to unsubscribe with something
that is now integrated into your daily life is quite tricky.
GALLOWAY: Yes, well, I am seeing hundreds or thousands of people each day posting their receipts for how they are unsubscribing and what you
referenced before is the key point, and that is the President reacts to markets, not to protest, not to co-equal branches of government, not to
citizenry outrage, but where he has walked back plans to annex Greenland or from tariffs is when the S&P or the bond goes down or the bond market
crashes.
And so I think we've discovered a weapon, or we have a weapon that has been hiding in plain sight and that is the U.S. economy is 70 percent consumer
driven and 40 percent of the S&P is driven by ten firms, all of which have subscription services.
And what I am arguing is that if you go to the site, Resist and Unsubscribe, I've posted a bunch of links to make it pretty easy to find
out if you have multiple subscriptions, how easy it is to unsubscribe from everything from Apple T.V.+ to Paramount T.V.+ to canceling your Uber
account or Amazon Music or Apple T.V.+, and that this will register a disproportionate impact.
As an example, just to do some math here, Richard. OpenAI is raising money at 40 times revenues. So, if you cancel your ChatGPT membership, you're
hitting them with a $10,000.00 decrease in market cap with just one subscription cancellation.
So, this is a chance to go after the soft tissue of Big Tech, whose leaders, the President appears to be listening to.
QUEST: How much -- how many do you think have to do this before the market -- because the market is vast and it would take some time before you reach
critical mass of numbers that would be noticeable, you know, outside of say, results time?
[16:25:10]
GALLOWAY: There have to be a lot, Richard, and I come into this with humility doing this personally because I think action absorbs anxiety and I
wanted to do something.
There is a study that was done at Kellogg on what actually moves the needle in terms of economic protests and it is generally not the economic harm. It
is media's coverage of it or put another way, Richard Quest is more important than Scott Galloway, because if you look at what happened with
Disney+, they checked back in reverse their decision around Jimmy Kimmel when the media started covering it, and it was the threat of economic
impact, not the actual unsubscribes and morale and basically a damage to the brand.
So, what has been very -- I don't know, very exciting is the amount of media pickup this movement has received, but I am quite sanguine, this
would take tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of unsubscribes. But the very vulnerable, Microsoft announced a slight miss in its Cloud
revenues, and its stock dropped 10 percent, which took the NASDAQ 100 down 1.5 percent.
So, I am trying to figure out what is the maximum impact for the least disruption to a consumer's behavior and the free gift with purchase here,
Richard, is if you go to the site, Resist and Unsubscribe, you're going to find probably several automatically renewing subscriptions you didn't even
know you had.
So, it is an easy way to save some money while having an outsized impact and sending a message to the markets and to the administration.
QUEST: Yes, that's a very valid point and today is a good example to be talking about because we had, oh, this week we had AMD results which
weren't bad and the market tanked. You've got this announcement from Anthropic, which could or could not be a game changer. You've got this
fragility of the market at the moment. Whether it bounces back, you know, that's only something we will know after the event.
But the market is -- the tech market is fragile at the moment to this sort of thing. And that's -- as you put it, that's the soft belly you're hoping
to go for.
GALLOWAY: Yes, it is -- to ask someone to protest, to take their Saturday in protest is a real ask, to ask somebody not to show up for work is
absolutely a real ask. What I am suggesting is, in terms of maximum impact to minimal consumer disruption, if I found out I had three Apple T.V.+
accounts, I have three different accounts for different A.I. LLMs, just as dry January gives you a chance to register or calibrate your alcohol intake
and decide, maybe I need to tone it down a little bit, this is an opportunity to find places where you're saving a lot of money.
And tech platforms, there are millions of people with billions of dollars and trillions of data points trying to figure out a way to get you to spend
more every month. And what you're going to find is that Uber you're taking that slowly but surely, Uber has consolidated the market and increased
their prices an average of seven to 10 percent a year, and you're probably spending a lot more on Uber than you think.
And you have streaming subscription platforms and LLMs and all types of big tech expenses that you didn't know were renewing and getting more expensive
every month.
So, this is an easy -- this is the easiest means I could think of to really maximize the punch, if you will, to go after the soft tissue of the economy
or specifically Big Tech and the administration.
QUEST: I've got a dirty little secret to tell you, Scott, I am too frightened to do it because I know it is going to prove exactly what you
said. There will be way to -- it will show my negligence and sloth in keeping track of my subscriptions.
I am grateful to you, sir. Thank you for joining us from London. Thank you.
Now, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight, police are describing disturbing new details in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of the T.V.
anchor, Savannah Guthrie.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:03]
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. Together we'll have a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
Amazon's earnings are out. I'll give you the numbers and we'll take a look. And the chief executives of Airbus and ASA, the airline, discuss the supply
chain problems that are plaguing the airline industry.
We will get to these stories only after the news because this is CNN and on this network, the news always comes first.
The British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is apologizing to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. In his words, vowing, we will not look away. Sir Keir
is fighting for his political life over his decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, Peter Mandelson, as ambassador to the U.S. The prime minister
says Mandelson lied about the full extent of his relationship with Epstein.
Negotiators from Russia, Ukraine and the U.S. say they will meet again soon after they wrapped up two days of talks in Abu Dhabi that took place on
Thursday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the next meeting will be held, in his words, in the near future. His chief of staff called
the week's negotiations truly constructive.
Cuba says it will roll out an energy rationing plan beginning next week. It follows Cuba's shrinking energy supply and the Trump administration's
pressure campaign to block the export of oil to the island. Cuba's president says his country is willing to have a dialogue with the United
States.
Police in the United States, state of Arizona are offering more details into the search for Nancy Guthrie, the mother of the American news anchor
Savannah Guthrie. The county sheriff says investigators found blood belonging to Guthrie on the front porch of her home. They believe that the
84-year-old woman was abducted on Sunday.
The FBI says a ransom note sent to media outlets gave two deadlines, including one today. It has announced a $50,000 reward for information
leading to Guthrie's recovery.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF CHRIS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: We believe Nancy is still out there. We want her home. Our department, the sheriff's
department, along with all of our partners at the FBI, have been working around the clock, and we just want her home and get and find a way to get
to the bottom of all of this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: John Miller is with me.
John, this is sad in so many levels. It is also extraordinary because we don't normally, I mean, I know kidnappings happen and corporate kidnappings
and it's all kept very quiet and shush and ransoms are paid. Well, we all know this happens, but not like this, not so public and with famous
peoples' relatives in that way.
[16:35:03]
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: No, it's - - it has been a vanishing business, Richard. Mostly because it's hard to get away with. And why? Because now there are cameras everywhere. There are
sensors everywhere. There are sophisticated law enforcement techniques. And the whole idea about, leave me $50,000 on a bag, you know, on a street
corner or at a bus stop. And I'll turn the victim loose is an outmoded model.
What this incident shows us is that not only has technology and resources increased on the law enforcement side, but, Richard, it has on the bad
guy's side, too. So, you know, if you send a ransom note from an encrypted e-mail service that can't be traced back and you demand cryptocurrency as
the ransom, where there is no ransom drop, where somebody has to pick it up, or it might be followed, you know, you're really challenging the
system.
And that's what this family is facing now in these desperate hours trying to figure out, OK, we got the demand, but are these the real kidnapers? Do
they actually have her?
QUEST: And also, of course, the authorities, the police, the FBI are in, you know, the general rule is don't pay the ransom because it will just
encourage more people to do it even more in a very public case. But of course it's not our mother that's been taken, and it's not them that's been
taken, and so this is a really obviously difficult area to know what to do. What is the best to do?
MILLER: Well, the FBI was clear today in the press conference that they don't weigh in on that decision, that the family's decision is whether to
pay the ransom, how to negotiate, and so on, and that they're there for any advice. And, of course, to continue the investigation. But that that's up
to the family.
QUEST: Right. John, I'm grateful. Thank you. John Miller with that aspect. And we all continue to follow closely. Thank you.
Now, returning to the Epstein files and e-mails released by the U.S. Justice Department, of course, the chairman of a prominent U.S. law firm,
Paul Weiss, to resign his post. As we were talking earlier, Brad Karp had contact with Epstein until 2019, the year that the convicted sex offender
took his own life. In one e-mail, he thanked him for hosting an evening that he called once in a lifetime.
Now, Karp says, "Recent reporting has created a distraction and has placed a focus on me that is not in the best interests of the firm." A spokesman
previously told "The Journal," "The Wall Street Journal," Mr. Karp never witnessed or participated in any misconduct. He will remain to serve as
lawyer at the firm.
With me now is the attorney and legal affairs commentator Areva Martin.
You know, I'm sorry, this one, this is a difficult one because Paul Weiss had -- this job, had no problem doing a deal with the Trump administration
for Paul Weiss. One of the first to do that deal and refused to make any statements about it other than just doing the deal, putting it -- to
basically get the Trump administration off their back. And now this other shoe falls, and now he's got to go. It's sort of -- it's what Melinda Gates
called an enormous amount of muck.
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, let's be clear, Richard. He's not going anywhere. He stepped down from the very powerful
position as chairperson of this firm. And as the firm said, he will remain as a lawyer representing clients in that firm. And we know that credibility
is the currency of a law firm, and partial accountability is not accountability. And that's what we're getting here, partial accountability.
And the most troubling aspect, Richard, is that this came to light because the Epstein files were forced out into the open, not because Brad Karp came
forth and gave a statement, apologized and acknowledged that he was in those files.
QUEST: Right. All right, let's come into the -- I hear what you say and I'm grateful. But let me put it to you bluntly. Let's say Karp is a world class
lawyer. His clients value him hugely. The firm, he's a major fee earner for the company, but the more importantly, he's a world class lawyer. Should he
have -- should he leave the firm? Is that the sort of thing that happens? Is that throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
MARTIN: Well, you're talking about financial matters and the fact that he's a big earner for the law firm or potentially a big earner for his clients.
But what about the victims? Where do they factor into this? And can a law firm credibly represent clients when you have someone like Karp who's not
completely honest about his ties to someone as notorious as Jeffrey Epstein?
I think that's for the clients to decide. And we saw major departures from that law firm after Brad Karp entered into that deal, that basically
extortion deal with Donald Trump.
[16:40:02]
So I think clients have already started to speak. Lawyers left that law firm after he did that. And I think a lot of lawyers are going to respond
in the same way with this information that's come out and this failure to take full responsibility.
QUEST: Areva, can we -- earlier on this program, Professor Scott Galloway, who you'll be familiar with, he says, look, we must now, with three million
documents, we must distinguish between those who are tangential, those who just had a, you know, a couple of e-mails, can you raise money from him, et
cetera, et cetera, versus those who had a long ongoing relationship, maybe arguably like Brad Karp, which was a lot closer.
Now, let's not worry about Karp, per se. Do you think we do need to be a little bit more discriminating between those who might have just had an e-
mail exchange or two, versus those like Bill Gates, arguably, who denies it all, but clearly had a much longer relationship with over the e-mails with
him?
MARTIN: I think we have to look at the position that these individuals play. We're not talking about everyday people. We're not talking about the
plumber that works on your plumbing in your house or the bus driver that drives your local bus. We're talking about people that hold some of the
highest positions in government, in business and in the legal profession. Folks who are held to a higher standard because, as you just stated, they
make the big bucks.
So I don't think it's wrong at all to hold those individuals to a much higher standard, and at the very least, expect them to be honest and
transparent about their relationships with the man who we know was a known sexual predator, whose victims have been clamoring, who've been begging,
have been pleading for some form of justice. So do I think there's a distinction? Of course. If you engaged in heinous conduct on one of
Epstein's trips or at his island, you should be held criminally accountable.
QUEST: Right.
MARTIN: But if you were involved with him sending him favorable e-mails, praising him, then come forward and be honest about it and acknowledge your
relationship with him.
QUEST: I wonder the sheer number of people, what I fear will happen, I'd like your thoughts, is that a formula will be -- will transpire that if you
had a sort of a tangential or you had a relationship with Epstein where you were friends or you'd been to parties or fundraising events, there will be
a form of wording in a statement that you regret, and you should never met him and blah, blah, blah, and that will be the magic formula that allows
you to basically move on.
MARTIN: I don't know if that's true or not. I think some of these people who were involved with Jeffrey Epstein, who knew the conduct that he was
engaged in, who continued to be involved with him even after, he was indicted in Florida deserve to be scrutinized. And so much of what we're
dealing with, Richard, is not the act itself of being a friend or being an associate of his, but the lying about it, the covering up about it.
That's what we're seeing. So the question is credibility. And that's why when we go back to Brad Karp, the question is accountability, is
transparency. It's your credibility. And if you are representing clients, if you're supposed to be held to the highest ethics, you're selling
yourself as someone that governs yourself in that way, I think the public, I think your clients, I think the lawyers that work with you have every
right to demand that you are transparent about that relationship and that you express some remorse if you knew he was involved in this conduct.
It is not OK to be affiliated with a known sexual predator that was having sex with children, with young girls. That's not OK. It wasn't OK 10 years
ago, 15 years ago, and it's not OK today.
QUEST: I'm grateful that you came on tonight to put it in forthright terms, as always, and I'm grateful that we'll have you in the future. I hope
you'll come back more as we need to discuss this difficult issue.
Thank you so much. I'm grateful.
Now, in the last 40 odd minutes, Amazon reported earnings as the tech sector faces pressure. Oh, dear. Now, bearing in mind when you and I spoke
a moment or five ago, we were down about 4 percent. So what's going on with Amazon? I promise you, you'll find out after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:02]
QUEST: So as I showed you just before the break, Amazon's stocks down sharply. And the reason is Amazon slightly missed earnings expectations and
announced it, expects to spend, hey, $200 billion. Shares are down now 8 percent.
Lisa Eadicicco is with me.
Now we saw earlier Alphabet saying spending $200 billion. Now $200 billion from Amazon. What's that phrase, a billion here, a billion there? And
pretty soon you're talking real money. They are promising to do exactly what the market is now terrified that they're going to do, which is spend
willy nilly whilst profits still might be some way off.
LISA EADICICCO, CNN BUSINESS TECH EDITOR: Yes. Richard, I think you hit the nail on the head. That's what we're seeing here is, you know, Amazon said
it expects to spend $200 billion in capital expenditures for the full year 2026. That is way higher than the roughly $125 billion it spent in 2025,
and the $146 billion that analysts were expecting. And I think this kind of speaks to this broader worry that you touched on, that tech giants are
pouring hundreds of billions into infrastructure for A.I., and it's unclear, I think investors are really wanting more answers about how that's
going to translate into revenue and new areas of growth and new product areas.
Now, otherwise, Amazon's earnings report looked pretty good. It saw a lot of Cloud growth. AWS grew 24 percent. And that's a key number to look at as
well because that kind of is an indicator of Amazon's role in this A.I. boom. How is its Cloud unit, the computing unit that a lot of its customers
are relying on to power their A.I. services? It speaks to Amazon's role as a hyperscaler in this. But again, I think that $200 billion is really the
big number that everyone is probably reacting to here.
QUEST: Thank you. I'm grateful. We will talk more about this later in the week or next week, because I've got a couple of other points we need to
move on, but thank you for that. Amazon now down 8 percent and I'm guessing it'll go further down in the next hour or two. Thank you very much.
Supply chain delays are still a major point for most of the world's airlines. In a moment, the chief executive of SAS, Scandinavian, told me
how he's been managing all the problems.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:51:52]
QUEST: There are lots of aviation executives at the World Government Summit this week, and a common challenge that they're facing, the same one has
been there since pandemic, supply chain delays. The Airbus chief executive, Guillaume Faury, explained the difficulty.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GUILLAUME FAURY, CEO, AIRBUS: The need for new aircraft, more fuel efficient, more competitive is very strong. So we have a record backlog of
aircraft to deliver, but it's a very difficult times when it comes to supply chain. We have three million parts on our planes and you have to
make sure that each and every of these three million parts arrives on quality on time. If not, you can't build a plane. And that's what we've
been suffering from in the last five to six years, trying to recover from the challenges of the pandemic in a world that has become much more complex
for global business.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Now the issue is impacting all airline groups in some shape or form. I asked the chief executive of SAS, Scandinavian Airlines how he's faring.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANKO VAN DER WERFF, CEO, SAS: We're doing well, but it is a constant challenge. Let's be honest. I mean, of course, with OEMs, every single OEM
that you can think of, it is a challenge. But our operational team is truly excellent. We've managed throughout all of 25 with leap engine issues, made
sure that we had some backup engines, et cetera. With Airbus, of course, trying to make sure that we really get those summer deliveries, we get two
A350s this year, a number of A320neos again, and I think so far we're holding up well.
QUEST: Where exactly are you now in your delivery of reform, restructure and eventually to Air France-KLM?
VAN DER WERFF: Yes, I would say we're probably about 80 percent in or something? We've done the financial legal piece of restructuring years ago.
I would say we're well on our way with the transformation of the company. We're in a growth phase again. We're also announced last week, we've
announced flights to Dubai, for instance. Right? One of the reasons that I'm here. We're doing well operationally, really sound one of the top three
airlines in the world in the year 2025.
The only piece that's missing, and of course we're very focused on is that Air France-KLM regulatory approval piece. Right? So Air France-KLM has
taken over buying SAS, wants to be the controlling shareholder. And that is now with the European Commission. And we expect the approval by the end of
this year.
QUEST: So what will the role of SAS be within the larger group as you can see it? Because you can continue being but once you become part of a bigger
whole and Copenhagen becomes the global hub for SAS, but it has to also play its role for Air France-KLM. So what do you see that role?
VAN DER WERFF: Yes, so it's a couple of things. Seriously good question because finally it allows me also to really be clearer I think there. One,
you touched upon it. Copenhagen will be the center of course for Scandinavia in that sense, right? It's a global hub of Scandinavia, based
in Copenhagen. Look at what Paris and Schiphol are, and especially Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport is completely full to capacity.
[16:55:01]
So when you look at growth for the Air France-KLM Group, we actually believe that SAS and Copenhagen, but also Norway and Sweden will play an
absolute pivotal part of allowing Air France-KLM group with SAS then to grow. And secondly, we will bring 25 million well-traveled and call it,
hey, higher than averagely wealthy citizen of the world to the Air France- KLM Group, including 8.5 million euro bonus members.
QUEST: You're also the chair, the chairman of Flightradar24, which is fascinating, I mean, those of us who are --
VAN DER WERFF: Fascinating.
QUEST: Love it.
VAN DER WERFF: Yes. Yes.
QUEST: I'm not -- it's brilliant for when something happens and we can get a map of it or we can get a graph or we can get a chart of what happened.
But what purpose does it really serve?
VAN DER WERFF: Oh, it's so much more than that, really. So there's of course there is the B2C angle. Right? You and I love it because OK, is our
flight going to be on time? Is our aircraft, where is our aircraft currently, right?
QUEST: That big chart.
VAN DER WERFF: Right.
QUEST: Shows where all your planes are.
VAN DER WERFF: All your planes are, beautiful, right?
QUEST: Yes.
VAN DER WERFF: And then of course when a loved one, right, my family, when they travel that you get to track where they are, right? Beautiful. But
imagine the data, so the B2B solutions that we are building, that we have and that we are building, that the company is building that is
unparalleled. Yes. Because of course, I mean, just think about what we can offer and what already we're offering, by the way, to a number of airlines
in the world and B2B solutions. But again, it's that data, right? And it's just incredible, Richard.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
QUEST: That is a fascinating point that Anko was making, which I simply had not thought about. And indeed, my producer -- I'll tell you about it after
the break. We have a "Profitable Moment after the break. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Good evening.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment." We are all fascinated by the information that Flightradar24 tells us, where flights, Flighty, the app
like that gives us. I know I'm fascinated. My producer says he doesn't know how they make money, as you can see, it's all about data. So take for
example today. Today I was in Doha over in Qatar.
Now, I don't know why I care about this, but Flighty told me that my flight, my plane was three years old. It first flew in 2022. It was a 737
MAX. It was flydubai. The flight normally is on time 30 percent of the time, and it's 45 minutes later only 15 percent.
Tomorrow I'm flying to London. They haven't -- Emirates attributed or attached to a flight yet to it, but I know that the flight is -- you get
the idea. We are fascinated by this whole range of information that we can now use, which frankly, is useful. Is it vital? I don't know, but it makes
travel a great deal more fun.
And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for this Thursday. I'm Richard Quest in Dubai. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it is profitable.
As I said, I will be in London tomorrow. Please join me then.
END
