Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

5 Terror Suspects Arrested Near British Air Base U.S. Uses; Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ad Warns Of America's "Final Battle"; D.A. Reopens Investigation Of Alleged Gang Rape At Cornell. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired September 28, 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]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: The U.S. keeps its bombers used in the war with Iran. We are getting some new information from authorities.

And paid for by the U.S. government. Another political ad featuring President Trump interrupts football Sunday and you footed the bill.

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BROWN: And we begin this hour with breaking news in the investigation of an alleged terror plot in the U.K. Five men have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism after police say they found them with explosives right near Royal Air Base Fairford. They -- that's where long-range American B-1 bombers have been taking off for missions against Iran. Dozens of homes were evacuated in the area while bomb disposal units secured the scene. President Trump has praised the arrests and he said that the men were under investigation, "for a long time."

CNN international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson, is in Fairford, England. Nic, the head of the National Counterterrorism Policing in the U.K. just talked about the investigation. What did you learn?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, surprising developments. I think for a lot of people certainly around here, the head of the British Counterterrorism Policing said that these five men that were arrested here a little over 36 hours ago are now being released on bail. They remain under investigation. The four men have been identified in their -- five men rather have been identified in their 20s, all of them living in London, but they are now out on bail.

The investigation into them continues. The head of the Counterterrorism Policing spoke about the possibility and motivations that go behind incidents such as this. And this is a pretty rare and unusual incident. He said perhaps the focus was less on terrorism and more on financial gain, which sort of leads the thinking about what propagated this, what appeared to be a potential terror threat at this base over the weekend and the base going on to what appeared to be a sort of a high level of security. Following that, the evacuation of about a couple of hundred residents from a village not far from where we're standing. All of that seemed to indicate an imminent terror threat. But now the narrative seems to be perhaps that these were young men working for financial gain. And the head of counterterrorism spoke about not ruling out the idea that they were wittingly or unwittingly potentially involved or working for a foreign state.

It does seem that this investigation is still at its very early stages. But I think a lot of local residents around here, when the alarm was raised in the early hours of Sunday morning, helicopters came in, the area was sealed off, families evacuated, the bomb squad coming in, the sounds of controlled detonations late yesterday afternoon, five men arrested, suspicion of explosives and suspicion of being involved in the preparation of acts of terrorism.

The sense here was that these men who were spotted by a local resident, a farmer late at night, called in to the police, then picked up, that they were involved in something nefarious. Now this really sort of throws the question a little wider. If they were really involved in such serious offences, they're now out on bail but still under investigation. So there's far more, far more to know about this. And as you can see, the security cordon around the base here is still in place.

BROWN: So should they even be called terror suspects, given this development?

ROBERTSON: It's unclear. I think we still are awaiting a definition. I think, you know, when the head of counterterrorism suggests that perhaps people can be motivated for financial gain rather than acts of terrorism, he is perhaps alluding to several situations we've seen in the U.K. recently where states, and here we're talking about Russia has been accused of this, Iran has been accused of this, states being accused of hiring off the Internet for less than perhaps a couple of hundred dollars young teenagers, young men in their 20s to commit criminal acts that can amount to what in other circumstances, setting fire to warehouses, attacking people on the street, could look like acts of potential terrorism.

[11:04:54]

Again, we don't know if there were actual explosives found yet. We don't know what was inside those three vans. But it does raise the question of what motivated these men, what was the real intention. And as you mentioned before, this is a base that has been used, it was used in March this year for the B-1 Lancer bombers to take off on their long-range missions to bomb Iran.

Iran, the IRGC there has subsequently threatened this airbase. The British MOD had said they were ready to protect their bases from the possibility of threat. So you have all of that sort of swirling around, this emotion about bases in the U.K. being used to strike Iran. That was an emotive issue for some people here. You have Iran saying that they would attack. And then you have these five men detained in the middle of the night, arrested on suspicion of serious charges, and then released seemingly quickly on bail.

Remember, in the U.K., the police have up to two weeks to hold people on suspicion of terrorism before they need to charge them. So it is certainly in the legal scope of the police to have kept them much longer and drilled down thoroughly into their backgrounds.

BROWN: That's really important context, Nic. Thank you so much.

All right. Joining us now is Homeland Security Analyst Donell Harvin. Donell, what do you make of these developments, that these individuals are now out on bail and that the investigation, per the official there in the U.K., is more focused on financial-related issues rather than terrorism?

DONELL HARVIN, HOMELAND SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, and this is why we don't jump to conclusions when these type of things happen. You have to let the investigation play out. It would seem from our standpoint that they may not have enough evidence to charge these individuals, which means that they let them out on bail.

That doesn't mean that they're innocent, doesn't mean that they're exonerated, it just means that the investigation has to continue and they have to have some type of concrete evidence in order to hold these individuals. Keep in mind that the U.K. laws are different than the U.S. laws. And so while we may be stunned that people who, you know, just a few days ago were reported to have bombs and be, you know, traveling to an air base, potentially do an attack, they may see things differently.

BROWN: Yes. And the explosives part was never actually confirmed, but you heard Nic there say under the law, they could be held for a period of time under their terrorism laws to be investigated. And yet they were released. So it does raise the question of, you know, why didn't they hold them just to make sure? What do you think about that?

HARVIN: Yes, I can only tell you my professional and personal experience with the U.K. counterterrorism police and the individuals out there, they are top notch experts. I think that my personal opinion is that they had had something or some type of concern that these individuals were a threat to the community. They'd probably still be in custody. So we don't know. That's just me kind of, you know, reading the same tea leaves that everyone else has. I don't have any internal knowledge, but I think that they probably need to do more investigation.

And to the point that Nic made, these individuals may have been duped. We've seen this before with state actors who go out and try to radicalize or try to hire people to do acts of terrorism. They just may be paid to do something that they don't know. That doesn't take away their guilt, but it just may point towards the intent.

BROWN: And of course, everyone is on high alert because this is the exact base launching U.S. B-1 bombers into Iran. And then you also have Tehran explicitly warning London that any base helping the U.S. is a target. So it's not a surprise that there would be that heightened sense of alertness right now around the base. HARVIN: Yes, yes, you know, in my former intelligence life, we would actually be analyzing this to see if this was some type of probing incident where a state actor may have just hired some dupes, some individuals who didn't know, hey, drive these vans there and see what happens. And they're actually collecting intelligence off of this. So there's a counterintelligence piece here that needs to be analyzed. These individuals may be the primary or they may have been, you know, further down the food chain.

And, you know, malign actors do this often where they get people to do things just to see the response of officials. And so this is something that we have to be concerned about because there is a heightened state of alert because of activities that are going on in Iran and in the region.

BROWN: Important point. Donell Harvin, thank you so much for offering your perspective on this.

And happening now, people inside and outside of politics are responding to President Trump's controversial new ad. It came out over the weekend. You may have seen it. And it features him vowing to fight a final battle against communists and the deep state. Have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we will liberate America from these villains once and for all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So as you can clearly see in the ad, it said pay for by the U.S. government, taxpayer money. The White House is defending it as educational and insists this isn't a political ad. Let's go live now to CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes. Kristen, tell us more about the -- how the reaction has been so far.

[11:10:14]

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's certainly getting a lot of attention and it's raising a lot of eyebrows. This idea that it looks like a campaign ad, it sounds like a campaign ad and that it's paid for by taxpayer dollars. Now, according to a White House official, they say that these ads are very clearly not political. They say the President is not on the ballot. There's no call to action. It's just a public service announcement. And they are comparing it to previous administrations trying to get out information about Medicare or Obamacare or getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

But of course, there is no specific information, at least from what we can see here, that they're trying to get out other than, you know, President Trump is fighting communism, which they put out there. And in addition to that, you know, we're seeing a lot of ad spending. It's not as much as we would see in some of these other political ads, but he did or the government did place this ad during at least two NFL games yesterday. So they're clearly trying to amp this messaging up and get it out there. BROWN: Yes, that's a good point. And the ad also looks virtually identical to an ad Trump ran during his 2024 campaign, right? What do we know about that?

HOLMES: Yes, in January 2024, this is something he posted to Truth Social. And it's almost the entire video exactly the same. Now, one of the differences is that the Truth Social video that he posted again back in January of 2024 has this additional six seconds in it that includes Trump's campaign slogan, as well as a number to text, certainly giving the idea there that this is a political ad.

Now, one of the White House spokesperson did say very specifically, these public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending at home, at our borders and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. Again, even though they are pushing back on this political nature of this ad, we're a month from the midterm. And he actually used most of this video for a political ad back in January.

BROWN: Yes. All right, Kristen Holmes, thanks so much.

Well, still ahead, a disturbing college sexual assault case is getting a second look. Why prosecutors say key evidence may not have been considered the first time around.

And a woman spends nearly two weeks in jail after a flock camera linked her to a deadly crash she had nothing to do with. She'll tell us all about it in The Situation Room coming up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:17:24]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, a prosecutor in New York has reopened a criminal investigation into claims of a fraternity gang rape at Cornell University. A former student says she was drugged and sexually assaulted in 2024 and is suing the Ivy League school saying that it failed to protect her. CNN's Gloria Pazmino joins us. So Gloria, this civil lawsuit is getting a lot of attention despite this investigation two years ago. Tell us more.

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Not only is it getting a lot of attention, but it's once again, putting a spotlight on how universities and colleges address sexual assault allegations on their campuses. This case, Pamela is disturbing. The details are graphic. And honestly, it is a complicated case. And I want to start right at the beginning, right? The alleged assault took place in October of 2024.

According to the lawsuit, two of the seven members of Chi Phi fraternity were expelled and others received lesser punishment, including suspensions and written assignments after Cornell University conducted an investigation. The fraternity was also barred from campus. Now, the in the initial investigation back in 2024 resulted in no charges and no arrests. Jane Doe, the accuser in this case has since left the university. And now she has brought this civil lawsuit against a school, against the fraternity, her own sorority seeking damages. The Tompkins County district attorney is also saying that he is reopening the investigation.

He plans to present new evidence in the case. But this district attorney is now under a lot of pressure, facing calls to reopen the case, which he's doing now, but also criticism about how he initially handled the investigation back in '24. Now, we should mention that he has said that the reason for why there was no charges back in 2024 is because Jane Doe did not allege at the time that she had been drugged or sexually assaulted. That's a key part.

I want to read a statement from the district attorney, which says that Jane Doe's sworn statement in November, 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary conscious and consensual. My office obviously did not and could not have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later.

[11:20:03]

Now, Pamela, I want to get to the details of this lawsuit, because as I said, they are graphic and disturbing. Jane Doe who was 20 years old at the time of the incident alleges that she started out her night drinking at her sorority house. She then traveled to the Chi Phi fraternity house. And it was once inside that house that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by seven members of that fraternity.

There's also some new evidence in this lawsuit in the form of a group chat that was allegedly being shared by fraternity members in which they are discussing the sexual assault and appear to invite other members to participate. I want to hear -- I want you to hear from Jane Doe's attorney. He gave us a statement earlier this morning telling us that that piece of evidence was not provided to the initial investigation and that other than her initial contact with Cornell University Police, Jane Doe was not contacted by investigators from the Tompkins County District Attorney's Office or any investigators trained in interviewing rape survivors.

And my last point, Pamela, and I think very importantly in this is their response from Cornell University so far, because again, them along with this district attorney are in the spotlight now for their handling of the case. They have said any suggestion that the university did not impose consequential punishments for those involved is false. A continuation of the false narrative that there were minimal consequences in this case is irresponsible, will make survivors feel less safe and supported and will perpetuate the underreporting of sexual assault.

Pamela, we have reached out to all of the seven students that are accused in this civil lawsuit. We so far have heard from the attorney for one of them. They are denying any wrongdoing and we expect this to play out in court. But I think again, the focus on how this district attorney handled the investigation, the details of the investigation, what was said at the time of the alleged crime and what will happen now and again, how universities handle these cases of sexual assault. Pamela?

BROWN: A lot to lay out there, but really important to understand the context surrounding all of this and the facts. Gloria Pazmino, thank you so much.

So to get some more analysis and to better understand all of this, I want to bring in former federal prosecutor, Berit Berger. Berit, good to see you. Let's begin with the criminal investigation being reopened. What do you think about that? How unusual is that?

BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It is unusual. But in this case, it is absolutely appropriate. This is certainly something that I'm sure the district attorney is feeling a lot of pressure to do, but it also seems to be the right thing to do given these horrific allegations that have been made in the civil lawsuit. This is an investigation that would have been much easier to have been done closer in time to the actual events.

It's hard to bring an investigation two years later, witnesses graduate, their memories get less sharp, physical evidence gets destroyed, Snapchat messages disappear. So it's hard to reopen these things, but it's absolutely the right thing to do given the nature of the invest -- of the allegations and the complaint here.

BROWN: And in the -- there is a group chat that is included in this civil lawsuit. How persuasive do you think that evidence will be now?

BERGER: Yes. I mean, we need to learn more about this. It's surprising to me that this was something that at least it appears the district attorney's office didn't know about up until they learned about it through the civil lawsuit. Presumably if there's those messages, there's probably other type of forensic evidence out there. There might be other text messages, other group me.

This is something that the investigation will focus on. What else is out there that could corroborate what this survivor is saying in her civil lawsuit. I mean, in a case like this, it really comes down to credibility of the person making the complaint. So any type of corroboration for the things that she's saying, whether that's these text messages, whether it's other witnesses that can come forward with their own recollections, it's going to be really important for the D.A. to find those things.

BROWN: So let's drill into this a little bit more because the prosecutor says no criminal charges were filed in 2024 because the woman's statement did not claim she was drugged or that she didn't consent to sexual activities. But you have the attorney for the woman known as Jane Doe saying that she only had contact with Cornell Police -- Cornell University Police, not anyone from the prosecutor's office or anyone trained in interviewing rape survivors for that matter. The prosecutor told "ABC" it's standard practice. Practice is to take what the police told them and not do an independent investigation. What do you think about that?

[11:25:00]

BERGER: Yes, I think there's two important points that this raises. The first one is a university's Title IX investigation is not the same as a criminal investigation. It serves a different purpose. It has a different evidentiary focus and there's a different level of burden of proof. You don't have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in order for there to be Title IX sanctions involved here. So what Cornell was looking at when they were doing that is not the same thing that the police either would have been looking at back in 2024 or should be looking at now. So that's the first thing.

And it really exposes why it's so important for law enforcement to have the resources, to be able to do their own investigation and not to have to rely on things that a college is doing. The second thing that this really highlights is this real deficiency in New York law right now. So in order to prove that somebody was mentally incapacitated, which means that they didn't have the ability to consent to some sort of sexual activity, they have to be involuntarily incapacitated, meaning that they were drugged against their will, that they were given alcohol against their will.

There is this gap in New York law where if somebody voluntarily took drugs, drank alcohol to the point that they were incapacitated in many circumstances, that's not enough to prove that they didn't consent. This is something that legislators have been trying to work to fix that advocacy groups have pointed out as being a real deficiency in New York law. But this case really highlights why that particular deficiency could have been something that the D.A. was relying on and not moving forward with an investigation back in 2024.

BROWN: But what about quickly, if you're offered a drug, you take it, but it's not the drug that you were told it was in this case, I believe, according to the suit, she was told it was ketamine. What about that?

BERGER: Yes, I think that would probably fall. If you think you're taking one thing and it's in fact a much stronger drug that actually incapacitates you, I think that would present a pretty strong argument for saying that this was against her will that this was involuntary. Again, we don't exactly know all the information that the police and the district attorney's office had back when this happened. This is why this grand jury proceeding is going to be really important to uncover all of the evidence about this. But all we do know is that the allegations in the civil lawsuit are horrific. This deserves further investigation. And this victim really deserves some justice after everything she went through.

BROWN: Berit Berger, thank you so much.

BERGER: Thank you.

BROWN: And up next, controlling artificial intelligence, a giant in that industry has launched a new platform to stop it from going rogue. What this means as concerns grow about A.I.'s possible threat to humanity.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)