Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

26-Year-Old Iran Protester Could Be Executed Today; Today, Hearing in Minnesota Immigration Enforcement Lawsuit; Clintons Refuse to Testify in Congressional Epstein Probe Despite Subpoena and Contempt Threat. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired January 14, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, protests erupt, clashes escalating. Minneapolis this morning seeing a surge of ICE agents using aggressive tactics. Social media videos, capturing it all on camera, and we are live right there on the ground.

Death sentence, a 26-year-old protester in Iran may be executed today. His trial rushed and his family virtually shut out. His cousin this morning speaking only to CNN as she anxiously awaits what happens next.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Also, Greenland threat. President Trump now saying anything less than getting Greenland would be unacceptable, as officials from Greenland and Denmark arrive at the White House this hour.

And price hike, aisle after aisle, grocery prices are way up. New reporting this morning on the biggest spike we've seen in some three years.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in The Situation Room.

And we begin this hour with the breaking news, the State Department now says, at any time, Iran could execute a protester. He is 26-year- old Erfan Soltani. Keep in mind, President Trump has warned of striking Iran if the regime begins to hang protesters. According to the European human rights organization, Hengaw, he was arrested at home on Thursday in connection to the protest. And just four days later, his family was notified that he had been scheduled to hang. And they say he has been denied access to any legal defense or other elements of so-called due process in Iran.

BROWN: So here's what we know. The family also says that Soltani's sister, who's a licensed lawyer, has been blocked from accessing his case files. Soltani's family says that they've been denied information on the charges and the proceedings and reportedly have been granted only a brief final visit before his execution.

Meanwhile, the overall death toll in Iran keeps rising as the regime cracks down on a third week of anti-government protests. A U.S.-based human rights group says more than 2,400 protesters have been killed in at least 18,000 people have been arrested.

Now, CNN is unable to independently verify those numbers, but given the government's ongoing internet blackout in Iran, it is possible the true death toll is much higher.

And we begin our coverage this morning with CNN Correspondent Isobel Yeung, who spoke to the cousin of the condemned man.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It must be incredibly raw for you. You've only just received this message. Your cousin is due to be executed extremely soon. How are you feeling?

SOMAYEH, COUSIN OF ERFAN SOLTANI: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

YEUNG: Somayeh says that she's living in fear that her family member is about to be executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Erfan Soltani is 26 years old, and he's believed to be the first anti- regime protester in this latest uprising to be given the death sentence, according to human rights organizations.

What is it that he's been protesting for? What does he want to see happen in Iran?

SOMAYEH: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

YEUNG (voice over): The protests that Erfan took part in were huge, and they turned violent. To-date, about 2,000 protesters have been killed, according to a U.S.-based rights group, but that figure could be much higher.

The Iranian state media has said that these protesters are rioters. Was Erfan using violence?

[10:05:00]

SOMAYEH: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

YEUNG: Human rights organizations say that he was arrested on Thursday and that he was given the death sentence just two days later. They said that he wasn't allowed access to a lawyer and that his execution has been expedited without trial.

Tehran's prosecutor on Friday said that some protesters could be given the death penalty. Iranian state media says that rioters have killed dozens of members of the security forces, but we've not been able to contact the Iranian government for comment.

Somayeh says that there's just one person who could save Erfan from being killed, and that's President Donald Trump, who's threatened military action if protesters continue to be harmed.

SOMAYEH: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And our special thanks to our Isobel Yeung for that report.

BROWN: And President Trump, Wolf, repeated his warning that there will be strong action if Iran begins executing protesters. Here's some of his blunt talk without specifics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We will take very strong action if they do such a thing.

And when they start killing thousands of people, and now you're telling me about hanging, we'll see how that works out for them. It's not going to work out good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The president has urged Iranians to keep protesting and promised to help them. He says, help is on the way, without saying what that help would be.

With us now, CNN Senior Military Analyst and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, retired U.S. Admiral James Stavridis. He's also the author of the very important book entitled, The Admiral's Bookshelf. Admiral, thanks so much for joining us.

As you heard, and as you know, Erfan Soltani, the 26-year-old Iranian protester detained less than a week ago may be executed, may be hanged as early as today. President Trump warned yesterday that if Iran executed protesters, he would take, quote, strong action, his words, strong action. What do you believe that strong action will look like?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: I'll give you three things. Number one, he could up the economic pressure on Iran. This really is the Achilles heel. This is why these protests are rising. Yes, they want freedom, yes, they want to live their lives, but the economy is collapsing. We could put a lot more pressure on them by using, Wolf and Pamela, secondary sanctions, meaning if you do business with Iran, we will sanction you or put new tariffs on, particularly China, for example, so, economic.

Number two, informational, figure out how to get the voices of the protesters out into the world. This is happening very imperfectly. But using Starlink, using airdropped means that allowed direct communication, get into the information war with the idea of getting the protesters' stories. And I think it is not 1,000 or 2,000, I would guess somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 have been killed already. Get that story out there. That's important.

And then number three, and most directly, military strikes. And here, you don't have to carpet bomb the entire country. You could conduct very precise strikes going after leadership targets, I would say, up to and including the ayatollah, but also leading members of the Revolutionary Guards, and take it even down to the street level. Go after the police stations, go after the individuals who are conducting these crackdowns, all of that. Those are three key things.

And final thought, cyber. You can use cyber to go in and really put additional economic pressure. Dismantle the ability of the regime to go after these protesters using cyber. So, the president has plenty of tools.

BROWN: And he has repeatedly threatened to take action against Iran if it kills protesters. And now you have this impending execution. As of this morning, more than 2,400 protesters have been killed, per the numbers that we haven't been independently been able to verify them because of that blackout, it could be much higher. At what point does the president's words lose meaning by not taking action as protesters continue to be killed?

STAVRIDIS: I think almost immediately, and this is why the president evidently in the last day or so has received a briefing on all the options available to him. His decision space is closing.

[10:10:00]

And, frankly, as we all know, the Iranians have a habit of very publicly hanging these protesters literally by the neck from gurneys in town squares. If they were to move to that, I think the president would have to respond immediately in order to maintain credibility. My guess is we are going to do so in some way, probably in the next two to three days, unless Iranian behavior suddenly changes, which seems unlikely.

BLITZER: We shall see what happens.

A U.S. official is now telling CNN, Admiral, that some U.S. personnel at the largest U.S. military base in the region, in the Middle East, not far from Iran, have been urged right now to leave as a precaution, citing current tensions in the region with Iran. The U.S. Navy, as you well know, and I'm sure you've been there, has a very significant base in Bahrain, home of the Navy's fifth fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Should the U.S. Navy start taking steps right now to evacuate troops from there? How worried should the troops be and their military families back home, how worried should they be right now that Iran might use their missiles to attack those bases?

STAVRIDIS: They should be very worried. And I would counsel any American citizen who's thinking about a trip anywhere in the Middle East right now. It's a good time to hit pause and really track what's happening. And here, I include Israel, the Gulf States. All of them potentially are targets of Iranian long-range missiles. I think the situation is extremely volatile.

And unlike Venezuela, where the remnants of the regime, once we took Maduro out, appear at least thus far to be roughly cooperating with the United States. I wouldn't look for that in Iran. If we strike Iran, they will strike back. And the base you mentioned, Al Udeid in Doha, Qatar, I think, would be the most obvious target, Bahrain, a second obvious target. This is force protection 101, move people out of the way, non-essential personnel, until the situation stabilizes.

BLITZER: And the Camp As Sayliyah, the regional headquarters of the U.S. military's central command, also potentially a target for Iran as well.

Admiral James Stavridis, thanks so much for joining us.

BROWN: Thank you so much.

And still ahead here in The Situation Room, we are live in Minneapolis after another night of clashes between federal agents and protesters as the fight to kick agents out of the Twin Cities heads to court.

BLITZER: And Hillary Clinton could soon join her husband, Bill Clinton, as contempt proceedings move forward for refusing to testify before Congress in the Epstein investigation, what that might look like.

Stay with us. We're getting new information right here in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

BROWN: We are following the breaking news out of Minneapolis where tensions are flaring a week after the deadly shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent. The State of Minnesota and the Twin Cities have filed a legal challenge to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement operation there, calling it a, quote, federal invasion. A hearing for that lawsuit is expected today.

Meanwhile, clashes continue between federal agents and protesters. Here in this video, you can see this dramatic scene unfolding just blocks away from where Good was shot and killed.

Agents surrounded a car yesterday and smashed the passenger side window, you see it, before dragging the driver out of the vehicle and cutting the seatbelt off of her. CNN has asked for more details about the woman seen in the video and the tactics used, as we see here.

BLITZER: The events of Minneapolis have even captured the attention of Joe Rogan, who has since criticized some of ICE's tactics on his show. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE ROGAN, HOST, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE: I'm not that guy. I don't know what he thought. And, again, this is a guy who had almost been run over, but it just looked horrific to me. Are we really going to be the Gestapo, where's your papers? Is that what we've come to?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The widespread pushback isn't stopping the Trump administration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY BOVINO, COMMANDER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION: Despite rioters, agitators, and vast amounts of violence against federal officers, we're not going to stop.

And we're doing this for Ma and Pa America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. So, here to further discuss the lawsuit against the Trump administration's immigration tactics is CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. He is also a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the author of When You Come for the King. Hi, Elie, great to see you, so much to discuss.

So, as I mentioned earlier, we're expecting this hearing on this today. What will you be watching for it and how likely is it that the states will succeed here?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Pam, there's two main things that Minnesota is asking this federal court judge to do. First of all, Minnesota asked the judge to expel essentially ICE agents who are part of this surge, to kick them out of Minneapolis and Minnesota. And then, secondly, the state is asking the federal judge to basically make some proclamations about what the ICE agents can and cannot do.

Now, the first part of that, the effort to kick these ICE agents out and to bar them from coming in, I think that is a legal loser. There is zero precedent for that. Federal judges simply do not have the power to tell a federal law enforcement agency, you are not allowed to enforce the law in a certain state or city. Even if we're talking about some sort of surge, that's still a deployment of federal officials.

So, we'll see pretty quickly whether the judge agrees with that or disagrees with that. I think where there will be some play is will this judge want to have some kind of fact-finding? Will this judge want to bring in officials from ICE and ask them questions and have them deliver documents about their training and their tactics? And, secondarily, will this judge be open to some sort of really more formalistic decision, saying, well, ICE, you are to comply with the law, you are not to act unconstitutionally, which is the status quo anyway.

So, I want to see, first of all, is the judge open to the idea of throwing ICE out. I don't think that she will be. Second of all, is the judge willing to engage in some sort of fact-finding here?

BROWN: And it's interesting, you point out ICE, you know, is supposed to follow the Constitution and the law and you have Todd Blanche, who is the deputy attorney general, saying there is, quote, no basis for a criminal rights investigation into the officer who shot and killed Renee Good. How can he come out with such certainty so early on and say that? HONIG: I echo your question exactly, how can he come out with such certainty so early on? I think it makes clear, a couple things, there's never been any real intent by DOJ and by the FBI to investigate this ICE officer's actions in a methodical and thorough and independent way. When you have the deputy attorney general, the number two person at the Justice Department, coming out six days after the shooting and saying there's not even a basis to investigate, that's indefensible, in my view. The way you're supposed to do this is you run your investigation, you see what the facts are, and then you draw your conclusions.

But here, Pam, it's quite clear that the conclusion has been pre- ordained not only by Todd Blanche, but the president, the vice president, and Kristi Noem. So, I think it really undercuts our faith in the public that there will be a full and independent investigation when they've already announced the result, essentially.

[10:20:03]

BROWN: So, what's the point of the FBI investigation going on right now?

HONIG: Also a very good question. I -- if they've already -- let's put it this way. If they've already taken the possibility of a civil rights charge, a criminal charge, off the table, then all that's left is pen and paper. All that's left is for them to put together some kind of report and put it out there and give a version of events.

I mean, typically, when you see these kind of investigations, you do get a report, but you also get then a conclusion based on that report on should there be criminal charges or not. And if the answer is yes, then you will see criminal charges as well. But here, it seems like they've already given us the conclusion. Now, they're just going to backfill in the analysis.

BROWN: Right. And there's also this new reporting about prosecutors resigning in protest over pressure to zero in on the actions of Good and her wife. In your view, is there any validity to that investigation?

HONIG: Well, so six prosecutors in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office, which is a very large percentage of that office as a whole, have resigned. I'm going to take notice and pay attention anytime you get a mass resignation of non-political career prosecutors. These are experienced people who've been working in that office in some cases for decades. One of the six who resigned was the number two person in that office. He served through administrations of both parties.

If the focus of this investigation that's going on is, well, let's look at what Renee Good and what her spouse were doing, forget about the day of the shooting, let's look at their associations, their political beliefs, what groups or individuals they may have been communicating with, that is completely irrelevant to figuring out the details of that video that we're looking at right now.

What matters, the key question with respect to whether this ICE agent's actions were justified or not justified, is going to be the minute details of what happened on that street that day, of the way Renee Goode moved her car, of the way the ice agents moved, of what instructions were given. That's where the investigation needs to focus, a second by second breakdown of what happens at this incident.

But if DOJ'S mandate is, well, no, we're not concerned with that, we're not going to look too closely at that, instead we're going to look at the associations of Renee Good and her widow, that's outrageous. And I think that could give some context as to why these six prosecutors have quit.

BROWN: But like -- and is it being part of activist groups protected by the First Amendment?

HONIG: Right, it absolutely is. I mean, look, you will hear the administration throw around this term, domestic terrorism, and it sounds like a big term, and it can be. But there is no federal crime of domestic terrorism. There is a definition given of domestic terrorism, and I don't think I've seen no evidence that anything Renee Good has done meets that definition. But there's no crime of domestic terrorism precisely because of First Amendment concerns.

There have been bills proposed in Congress, but they have been rejected by Republicans and Democrats alike because of the concern of you cannot criminalize associations, you cannot make it a crime to associate with an activist group or even an extremist group. Criminality is based on conduct. If an extremist group commits an extremist criminal act, fine, you can prosecute that. But mere associations with groups and political beliefs and individuals has simply always been seen to violate the First Amendment, and that's why we don't have a domestic terrorism crime.

So, yes, you're right, Pam, merely being an activist or even an extremist without conduct, that's not a crime and that's not worth investigating.

BROWN: I'm so glad we have you on to put this all in perspective, Elie Honig. I have one more question for you on another story. The Clintons are facing threats of contempt for refusing to testify in the House Oversight Committee's Jeffrey Epstein probe. We're getting in this new sound from the House Oversight chairman, Republican James Comer, speaking to reporters just a moment ago. Let's listen.

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined her husband in defying a bipartisan, lawful Congressional subpoena to show up today. I think what's most disappointing to the Oversight Committee is the fact that we have, in good faith, negotiated with the Clinton's attorneys for five months. Throughout the past five months, they've implied to us they were trying to make a date work. In fact, the last date we had, they notified us three days beforehand, said that they would love to come but they have a funeral to attend. And we have been over backwards to try to schedule --

REPORTER: Congressman, did you answer their --

COMER: No, I'm still talking. I'm still talking. I'm still talking. REPORTER: -- they offered towards you --

COMER: Hey, get them out of here. You're not even a reporter. Get out of here.

So, here's the situation. We're going to hold both Clinton in criminal contempt of Congress. We believe that because this subpoena was issued in a bipartisan fashion, the Democrats acted the day that the subpoenas were voted on in the subcommittee like they wanted the Clintons to come because they -- at that time, if you go back, they were wanting me to subpoena the estate, which I did.

[10:25:05]

We subpoenaed the estate and got all the documents, everything. That was what the victims asked. That's what the Democrats asked. I think that's what the American people wanted. We subpoenaed the estate, got 100 percent of the documents.

I have subpoenaed the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi for the documents, which they are producing. Now, we don't like the speed. We all wish the documents would come in quicker, but we've gotten tens of thousands of pages of documents from the Department of Justice. And remember, they made a big document drop and the Democrats cried foul all because they said they didn't --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Made the redactions.

COMER: Right, they wanted more redactions. So, they're double and triple checking this. And the Department of Justice is complying with our lawful subpoena. The estate complied with our lawful subpoena. Bill Barr, Alex Acosta came in and were deposed because of our lawful subpoenas, the same lawful subpoena that was issued to the Clintons, and they defied it.

And, you know, Bill Clinton is trying to play -- Bill Clinton's trying to play the victim card here. Only Bill Clinton could try to triangulate something that's happened, a terrible atrocity to these survivors that have had to endure who knows what from Epstein and Maxwell.

So --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And their associates.

COMER: And their associates. So, we're trying to get answers with American people. We're serious about it.

Once again, not a single Democrat showed up. You know how many depositions we've done? There's always a Democrat here, former president of the United States, former secretary of state, neither one of them, not a single Democrat here.

So, I think the questions that should be asked to the Democrats on the committee are, do you still support hearing from the Clintons? Because, you know -- BROWN: All right, we've been listening to the House Oversight chair, James Comer, saying that he plans to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress.

Just, how serious is this, Elie?

HONIG: Well, it's potentially quite serious, Pam. The Clintons have really walked themselves into a perilous situation.

So, a little background here. That House Committee unanimously issued subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton five months ago in August of 2025. In the five months since then, there's been this back and forth exchange between the Clintons' lawyers and the lawyers for the House Committee. The Clintons' belief is that the subpoena is illegal, improper and should be limited or eliminated. The House disagrees. The House says it's our subpoena and you need to come in and testify.

What the Clintons have not done in that five months, though, is go to court to challenge the subpoena. They absolutely could have done that, but they've chosen instead to engage in this back and forth negotiation, this back and forth exchange of lawyer letters arguing over whether the subpoena is valid or not.

And so as we sit here today, we have a situation where the subpoena dates have come and gone yesterday for President Bill Clinton, today for Hillary Clinton. We have both of them no showing. And the subpoena, as we sit here right now, is valid. There's no court order saying those subpoenas are invalid. And that is all that Congress needs to hold them in contempt.

Now, to be clear, what happens? The committee first has to vote on whether there will be contempt. If that gets through, then it goes to the full House of Representatives. If they vote for contempt, that doesn't mean there's been a criminal charge yet, then it goes over to the Justice Department. And then DOJ and the attorney general will have to decide, do we now bring criminal contempt charges?

And if you want a recent example, Pam, it's not exactly the same facts, but Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro just a few years ago were -- went through the same process, defied a subpoena, were found in contempt by the House. It went over to DOJ. DOJ chose to prosecute them. They were prosecuted, tried convicted, and went to prison.

Now, I'm not saying Bill and Hillary Clinton are going to go to prison. There's a lot of things that have to happen before there's even a criminal charge. But, yes, this is very serious and the Clintons have walked themselves right into this scenario.

BROWN: Elie Honig, thank you so much.

HONIG: Thanks, Pam.

BLITZER: And coming up, pushing for Greenland to become property of the United States. President Trump once again making his intentions very clear this morning, as Vice President Vance gets ready to meet with high ranking officials from Greenland and Denmark. We'll have much more on that. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]