Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Bill Clinton Testifies In House Epstein Investigation; U.S. Envoy Tells Embassy Staff Who Want To Leave Israel To Do So Today; U.S. Vice President, Omani Foreign Minister Discuss Efforts To Reach Agreement On Iranian Nuclear Issue; U.S. Military Used A Laser To Shoot Down A Border Protection Drone. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired February 27, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: -- of the former president. Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Hillary Clinton was questioned for more than six hours. I suspect Bill Clinton today is going to be questioned for a lot longer than that. Annie Grayer, thank you very, very much.

I want to continue our analysis and I want to get some Republican reaction. Republican Congresswoman Laurel Lee of Florida is joining us. She serves on the House Judiciary Committee. Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us.

I know you won't be in the deposition today, but what is it you'd like to learn from Bill Clinton?

REP. LAUREL LEE (R-FL): Well, I think that the members of the committee are very interested in learning what he saw and what he experienced during his time with Jeffrey Epstein. The overall goal of the committee is to provide that transparency and that factual background that the American people are really interested in.

And one thing you just touched on that's very important is to remember that what we are doing today, these depositions were actually brought by a bipartisan coalition of the members of that committee that as much as I believe Secretary Clinton cast this in a bit partisan tone after her deposition yesterday, it was actually a group of Republicans and Democrats that decided this was relevant, and it was an important part of their fact finding to go ahead and proceed with these depositions. So this is just the next investigative step.

I would anticipate that there will be many others to follow after these depositions are complete.

BLITZER: The top Democrat of the Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia, says Bill Clinton's deposition today actually sets a precedent for his panel to speak eventually with President Trump, whose name is mentioned many, many times in the Epstein files. Do you think there's validity to that argument? If the Democrats, for example, become the majority after the midterm elections in the House and maybe even the Senate, will they have the possibility of forcing Donald Trump, even as a sitting president, let alone someday as a former president, to testify?

LEE: Well, one thing that's important to remember is that there's a big distinction between the kinds of facts and evidence that have been developed so far relative to President Clinton as compared to those related to President Trump. A name mentioned is one thing and potentially not significant at all.

On the other hand, if you have somebody who is known to be socializing, flying, spending extensive time with Jeffrey Epstein like President Clinton, that's a different factual predicate when it comes to thinking about whose deposition, who should we take that extra investigative step with?

So I know there's an effort to change the subject and make this about President Trump, but it was actually President Trump's White House that released these millions of pages of documents. And, you know, we know from the prior administrations. This, unfortunately, this abuse, this scheme has been going on for years. And it's only in recent months that there has been such a concerted effort by the Department of Justice to share this level of information with the public.

So I believe that Republicans and Democrats on the committee are all now committed to pursuing transparency and trying to get those answers.

BLITZER: Congress nearly unanimously passed the legislation requiring the Trump administration, the Justice Department, to release these Epstein filed documents to the public. And President Trump did, in fact, eventually sign that into law. Even though he was reluctant to do so, he signed it into law.

And the Justice Department now says this, Congresswoman, it says it's reviewing whether Epstein related files mentioning President Trump were improperly withheld from public releases. Among the missing records were three interviews by FBI agents related to a woman who accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her some decades ago, something President Trump clearly denies.

How concerning, though, is that situation to you?

LEE: Well, certainly what the Department of Justice will do is take a look and see are there additional documents that need to be disclosed? Is there additional information that needs to be shared with the public? And I'm confident that is what they will do if they do find that there was any part of the files that should have been disclosed that hasn't been already.

As with anything, as we saw with Secretary Clinton yesterday, this is a fact finding mission. So what's most important is not to try to reach conclusion, not to try to jump to the end the type of investigation that they're doing right now. It's not an allegation that anything has been done wrong. It's not an allegation of criminal conduct. It's just developing that factual background about what happened in this case.

So, you know, that's something that I'm sure we'll learn more about in the weeks to come. What exists? Was it disclosed? Was it not? And that we'll have that information out in the public here very soon.

BLITZER: Would you like to see President Trump testify before this oversight Committee?

LEE: Well, right now there's simply -- we haven't seen a factual basis that would make that at all appropriate. So, you know, as we've seen throughout the Epstein files, there are a number of people who may have been involved in financial transactions or business relationships or other things that didn't have anything to do with the private planes, with the island, with the trafficking of girls.

[11:05:06]

So certainly we need this investigation to be focused on the people where there's some indication that maybe they had that inside knowledge, maybe they were part of the actual criminal conduct, or maybe they saw something that was part of that criminal conduct.

And, you know, what we have developed so far really indicates that President Trump's contact with Jeffrey Epstein ended long before his original criminal conviction. So that's what we really need to focus on, is ensuring that this committee and its resources are bringing in the people who had some connection or were likely to have had some exposure or knowledge about the criminal conduct.

That's how you can really build an effective case and make sure that the resources of the committee and their time is being devoted to the people who are likely to have that fruitful information.

BLITZER: But are you at all concerned, Congresswoman, that the Justice Department apparently, and this is under investigation right now, removed specific documents from public release that seem to indicate that President Trump had some sort of improper relationship with Epstein's related women?

LEE: Well, that's not something that I think is that we want to speculate about. This is something that just came up in recent. It's something that is a serious situation that the department is going to investigate. We'll let the facts come out and show where they are.

I mean, President Trump is about the most investigated man anywhere in America. But certainly that's something that we'll what develops here. But it would be inappropriate to speculate about what might have happened there, what these allegations might be, whether there's factual background to them. You know, that's something that we'll just have to wait and see what develops out of the Department of Justice.

I do know that they have made an incredible commitment and a strong effort this administration to provide information to the American public that was never previously released in multiple prior administrations. They're working very hard to comply with the mandate that was given to them by Congress to ensure that the American people get transparency.

BLITZER: I just want to make it clear that President Trump has consistently denied any possible wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. And the White House has called the allegations, these latest allegations against him, false and sensationalist. Those are the words of the White House. Congresswoman Laurel Lee, thank you so much for joining us. We hope you'll be back.

LEE: Thank you.

BLITZER: I want to go right back to see that senior legal analyst, Elie Honig right now. What's your assessment of all of these developments, all of what we just heard over the past many minutes?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Democrats just made clear that they are not there to protect Bill Clinton. And let's remember the subpoena that was sent to Bill Clinton was sent unanimously. Every Democrat and every Republican on the committee voted for it. And then when Bill Clinton no showed for his testimony date, nine of the 19 Democrats on the committee voted to hold him in contempt, which is a big part of the reason why he's here today.

Now, with respect to this notion that this sets a precedent to call Donald Trump, we've heard a couple responses from the Republican side. You just heard Representative Laurel Lee, who you just interviewed, said, well, there's not enough of a factual predicate. That's her quote just now to call Donald Trump.

The records are quite clear that Donald Trump did have a substantial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, primarily in the 1990s. Representative Lee said, well, Bill Clinton had more of a relationship. I'm not sure. That's perhaps debatable. But it's also clear that Donald Trump certainly had more of a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than Hillary Clinton did. And they certainly did subpoena Hillary Clinton.

The other answer, though, that we've heard from Republican members of the committee is more legalistic, where they've said, well, Bill Clinton is a former president, Donald Trump is the sitting president. There's a legal difference between the two. And that is true. There are certain privileges and immunities and exceptions that are given to a sitting president, not to a former president.

So if the House flips, if the Democrats someday get subpoena power, if they choose to subpoena Donald Trump, I promise you that issue will be fought out in the courts. But the calling of Bill Clinton certainly does create a political precedent to try to subpoena a president in a case like this.

BLITZER: Elie Honig reporting for us. Elie, thank you very much. Excellent analysis as usual. And there's other very important news happening right now that I want to follow up on. A source telling CNN that the United States ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, is now telling U.S. embassy staff that if they want to leave Israel, leave the country amid the possibility of a war involving Iran, they should do so today. His words.

Today here in Washington, two sources are telling CNN Vice President J.D. Vance is expected to meet with the Omani foreign minister today to discuss ongoing efforts to try to reach some sort of nuclear deal with Iran. Oman has been mediating the discussions between the U.S. and Iran.

And today's meeting comes after the third round of talks between the U.S. and Iran, but those talks failed to produce any major breakthrough.

[11:10:00]

Joining us now, CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger and CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk. David, let me start with you. What's the significance of this meeting today considering the continued military -- U.S. military buildup and it's dramatic in the region with aircraft carrier battle groups and a lot of destroyers and fighter aircraft and missiles already deployed.

What's your reaction to the fact that they are still trying to produce some sort of nuclear related deal?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Wolf, I think the question is how sincere at this point is this effort. The announcement from the U.S. embassy in Israel and from Ambassador Huckabee, similar announcements we're seeing elsewhere in the region, the British have told their employees in the Iran embassy to evacuate. All suggests that military action seems to be in the offing. We don't know how quickly. We don't know how big.

I do think it was interesting that Vice President Vance yesterday told the Washington Post that he didn't believe that you necessarily had to get into a prolonged conflict, that this is something that if they needed to do they could do more surgically.

But let's remember this is not like removing President Maduro from Venezuela. This is not like striking the sites that were taken out in Iran in June. If the administration decides to go do this, presumably it is not only to set back the military -- the nuclear program, but to do broader strikes. And we don't know how that would turn out or how the Iranians might retaliate.

BLITZER: Yes, this is a really, really delicate moment right now. There could potentially be an all-out war developed between the United States and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other. Brett McGurk, the fact that the United States government, now the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem is now telling U.S. citizens this is not a good time to come to Israel. If you're here, maybe it's a good time to get on a plane, get out of Israel, fly out of Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv before Israel closes airspace, shuts down the airport if there are incoming rockets and missiles coming from Iran.

How worried are you that this could escalate dramatically in the coming days?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, those are prudent measures that I think embassies take. There's a process for this that if you're seeing signs of potential conflict, you take those steps. So look, were at this table yesterday predicting how these talks in Geneva would go, Wolf, and I think they played out exactly as we predicted. There are two maxims in diplomacy. One is if you hear a diplomat say

we agreed on something in principle, it actually means nothing was agreed in practice. All the statements that came out yesterday from the Iranians and the Omanis were that we agreed on building blocks and I would put that in that category. That means really nothing was agreed. And well, if we have heard nothing from the American envoys since yesterday, I think that is also very telling.

Also in diplomats you have to see is there a zone of any possible agreement of ZOPA. And again here the two sides are very far apart on the critical issues of nuclear enrichment and sanctions. So, this diplomacy seems to be heading for a deadlock. And that opens the window for President Trump's decision on military strikes.

Ultimately, it's his decision. He will retain that decision space until the last moment. But I think, as David said, this seems to be heading towards that direction.

Now, it's easy to start military confrontation or strikes. It's harder, particularly in this case because as David said, it's not a confined mission such as the strikes against the nuclear facilities in June or the Maduro operation. This is potentially much more open-ended and much more dynamic. How does Iran respond and how do we respond to that? Does Israel get into the conflict?

So a lot of big questions here, Wolf, that I think are going to unfold here quite rapidly.

BLITZER: We're hearing from my sources in Israel over the past 24 hours that they're getting very, very nervous. They're cleaning their bomb shelters. They're preparing for a worst case that the Iranians start launching pretty much sophisticated ballistic missiles into Israel that potentially could kill a lot of people.

MCGURK: I think it's quite likely, Wolf, that if the U.S. conducts strikes, I think Iran is very likely to respond against Israel. That brings Israel into the conflict or Israel might join the first wave of strikes with the US. We actually don't know.

I mean, one thing here the administration really has not laid out for the American people or Congress in a public way exactly what the objectives here. And when you go into a military campaign without clearly defined objectives, again, that's how events unfold and you can get into mission creep, as we've discussed before. So as David said, I think this will unfold here fairly rapidly --

BLITZER: And very quickly, David, before I let you go. We're now hearing what the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is planning on heading to Israel. Is that right?

SANGER: That's right. He -- the State Department has announced that he'll be there on March 2 and 3. That does raise the interesting question, would they start a conflict, you know, while the secretary is there? And so who knows? And his plans could change.

[11:15:02] But you know, I think Brett struck at just the right point here because even if they came to an agreement on the nuclear issue, the president raised in his State of the Union address, the missile program, which I think he made sound more like there was greater imminence of being able to strike the United States there, not for another decade or so.

And of course, the protesters, Iran's support of proxies, none of those were even taken up in Geneva yesterday. And if the administration thinks that's cause for conflict, then they may simply go ahead.

BLITZER: All right, David Sanger and Brett McGurk to both of you, thank you very, very much. The story is not going away. We'll stay on top of it every step of the way. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:27]

BLITZER: New this morning, an incident that some Democrats say is making their heads explode. Their words. Lawmakers say the U.S. military used anti-drone laser system to shoot down a drone in Texas that actually belonged to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. CNN aviation correspondent Pete Muntean is here in The Situation Room. What do we know about this, Pete?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, I just got a rare joint statement from the agencies involved here and it signals that the Trump administration's really playing cleanup that the sounds a lot like the El Paso incident of two weeks ago when sources tell me anti-drone laser was used without concern for commercial flights.

And that incident led the FAA to trigger an emergency airspace shutdown. Very chaotic and highlighted a lack of communication between the government agencies. This new case is described by three Democrats in Congress as essentially a friendly fire incident involving a government drone. A congressional aide tells me that these members, including top Democrats on the committees overseeing homeland security and transportation, were told about this incident through official channels.

In a statement, they say the military shot down a Customs and Border Protection drone using what House Democrats call a high risk counter unmanned aircraft system. What's interesting is that the FAA has now shut down the airspace over the border town of Fort Hancock, Texas. Unlike the El Paso restriction, this prohibits all aircraft, which is quite unusual.

But this is much smaller than the El Paso restriction that was a 20 mile ring in diameter. This one only about 9 miles wide. Right now still not clear when the incident occurred that these congressmen described. But here is the new statement from Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration in which they all together say this shoot down did not happen near people, did not happen near planes. The agency say, quote, this reported engagement occurred when the

Pentagon employed counter unmanned aircraft system authorities to mitigate a seemingly threatening unmanned aerial system operating within military airspace.

By the way, key members of Congress have still not been briefed on that El Paso incident, although they've been demanding that happens. Now a congressional aide tells me they'll have to brief them on this incident in addition to that previous incident. Wolf.

BLITZER: Pretty awkward indeed.

MUNTEAN: Yes.

BLITZER: Thanks very much. I want to ask you another quick question about a story we've been following. And it's very significant, potentially another story. A woman with a history of sneaking onto planes, sneaking onto please has been detained in Italy for allegedly stowing away. Once again, what do we know about this?

MUNTEAN: This woman's name Svetlana Dali. She snuck aboard a Delta flight back in December, JFK to Paris created a lot of chaos and ultimately she was sent back to the US. Seems that she's now done it again, sneaking on board a United Airlines flight between Newark and Milan on Wednesday.

This is just coming to light now. It's really quite interesting because she was discovered as a stowaway when the flight was already airborne. We know that she's detained now in Italy. United Airlines says it's investigating this case. Really underscores, though, a potential lapse in security, how she was able to get through TSA without a boarding pass and get onto a flight where they all also scan your boarding pass.

Some big, big questions here. Seems very similar to the previous incident, of course. United Airlines says it's now investigating this. We're waiting to hear back from the Transportation Security Administration.

BLITZER: Because I know when I fly, I have to show by boarding pass either downloaded on my phone or the actual piece of paper, not only to get to the TSA precheck, but also to get on that plane.

MUNTEAN: And stowaways are very, very rare. And that's why it becomes such a huge issue. We're talking 2 or 3 million people a day pass through security at America's airports. So for just one to happen and then for this to happen by the same person twice is quite significant.

BLITZER: Yes, very significant to learn what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. Thanks very much for that, Pete Muntean.

And there's more breaking news we're following just ahead. Legal and political firsts are happening now as former President Bill Clinton is deposed by U.S. lawmakers to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein. We're going to get reaction to that with CNN's Michael Smerconish. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:29:22]

BLITZER: Happening now, Bill Clinton is testifying under oath before the House Oversight Committee in its Jeffrey Epstein investigation. His appearance in Chappaqua, New York, where he and Hillary Clinton live marks the first time a former U.S. president has been formally compelled to testify in a congressional probe.

Joining us now, CNN political commentator Michael Smerconish. He hosts CNN's "Smerconish" and the Michael Smerconish program on SiriusXM. Michael, thanks for joining us.

First of all, what have you been hearing from your listeners, your viewers about all of the latest fallout from the Epstein investigation?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST, SMERCONISH: If you had told me a couple of months ago that as we enter March, this story would have the resonance that it does today, I wouldn't have believed it. But the documents kind of demand that every day a trickle of new information.