Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

WH To Host Top Tech Leaders to Discuss Ai Promise, Risks; Prosecutors Reopen Investigation of Alleged Cornell Gang Rape. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired September 29, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Talking about the farming of children's data. If this was such an issue, then it should have ended decades ago because data companies, software companies, technology companies had been farming data of American citizens, adults and children alike for decades. It's been a problem that no one has been willing to address.

And that's not a problem necessarily with A.I. That's a problem with technology and people's data. They don't know what they're signing up for half the time. And a lot of the apps that you have on your phone are collecting your data 24 seven.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Republican senators, including the majority leader, John Thune, John Kennedy, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, John Cornyn, they're all pushing back on the White House for airing what are called campaign style ads with taxpayer funds. Do your constituents think it's appropriate what the president is doing with these campaign style ads that taxpayers are paying for?

MACE: Well, no one should be using office money or tax money to pay for political campaign ads. In Congress though, some of those folks, both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike, they use office funds, federal taxpayer funds to advertise their services for their office. I haven't seen those ads. So, I don't know if they're political or if they're talking about services offered to people in the United States citizens.

But that is a clear red line that nobody should cross. That's not how taxpayer dollars are used for. And it shouldn't be. Those are the rules that Congress plays by and I would expect the administration to too.

BLITZER: While I have you Congresswoman, I want to quickly pivot to the reopening of an investigation into a gang rape case, allegedly involving former students at Cornell University. You've been a public advocate of sexual assault survivors, even at times sharing your own personal experience with abuse. What do you think needs to be done to keep systems from failing victims of sex abuse?

MACE: Well, certainly if you are a rapist and it's been proven, I don't think writing an essay is going to right the wrong. I had started to dive into that case. I haven't read all of it. I have questions about the statement initially provided to the police about the incident. I want to see all the evidence before I come down and judge what did or did not happen. There are false statements that have been made on previous cases on previous campuses.

And I want to be sure that the truth gets out there. And if this girl, this young woman deserves justice, she gets every ounce of it and every penny that she deserves because this kind of thing has been going on. And very often, most often, most victims, most women don't ever get justice. It's usually a he said, she said. And so, I've been fighting for these issues for a long time.

It's why I ended my political career, Wolf, because of the Epstein files. I believe in it that much that I want to see the Epstein victims get justice. I think if we can do that over time, then every other woman who's been harmed and put in harm's way will be able to get their fair share of justice too. It sets an example for the rest of us.

BLITZER: You've also, Congresswoman, been very outspoken when it comes to the Lindsay Clancy trial that was been underway. Listen to what her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington just said a few moments ago in court. Listen to this.

KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S ATTORNEY: Can I be heard?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure.

REDDINGTON: Thank you very much. I am so tired of hearing persecution, attacking. I am doing all these terrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to Cruz, not the DA, but the politician, calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments, including the guy from Houston.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, what's your reaction to that, Congresswoman?

MACE: I would never hire an attorney like Kevin Reddington with that kind of lapse in memory. He forgets that he targeted the lone juror in court in his comments, calling him that guy. We saw then his wife in multiple social media posts, even sharing the NBC News story outing the juror, talking about private facts and information about the lone juror. I believe the lone juror was targeted. I believe that Kevin Reddington played a part in that.

And I think it was a good idea for the prosecution in between now and the time to decide if there's going to be a second trial to put a gag order on this guy because he's putting someone in harm's way. And I think it sets a terrible precedent that a juror can be targeted, one lone juror, for a decision that an attorney or a court or attorney disagrees with. It's going to make every juror just vote in unison to avoid the harsh penalties.

This guy, this juror had to move out of his house. He's gone into hiding with his family. This kind of thing shouldn't happen to anyone because you disagree with them on a jury trial.

[11:35:00]

BLITZER: Important point, indeed. Congresswoman Nancy Bass, thanks as usual for joining us. We'll continue our special coverage. Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Wolf, you touched on the Cornell case, there are several new questions this morning after prosecutors in New York say they are reopening the investigation of an alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity house in 2024. A former student known as Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit earlier this month. And now, prosecutors say that the allegations in that civil complaint are significantly different from the woman's statement to police two years ago. Tompkins County, New York District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says a grand jury will now review the case to see if any criminal charges are warranted.

Joining us now is Jeremy Saland. He is an attorney representing one of the seven men accused in the civil suit. Thank you for being here with us, Jeremy. So, you have said very clearly that your client did not engage in sexual activity with Jane Doe nor commit any other crime he is accused of, including sorting ketamine off of her body. We're going to get to that accusation in a minute, but I want to give you the opportunity to explain what you've learned about that night in October in 2024, including parts that your client was and wasn't part of.

JEREMY SALAND, ATTORNEY FOR CORNELL LAWSULT DEFENDANT: Sure, certainly. And first of all, there's a lot of emotion involved here. A lot of anger and frustration and people jumping to sides and trying to say what happened and leading not with critical thinking and facts, but how they feel about something. And in fact, while I have led with facts, I've contributed to that sort of frustration myself in inflammatory language. So, I appreciate this opportunity to really get to the specifics.

My client is innocent. That's not to say that he can speak to or say what if anything happened when he was not present with this young woman when other people were there. I can't say what happened or didn't happen other than what I heard during certain testimony and previous occasion. What she has said, I obviously am aware of and what my client has told me.

But my client foolishly, ignorantly, ugly wise, responded to a snap that was sent out through his fraternity, went to see what was going on. And a friend of his who was with him previously had disappeared, wasn't with him anymore, thought he might be there. And when he entered that room, as he maintained then, he has maintained now and will maintain in the future, he saw the plaintiff. She was not naked. She was not under duress. She was not, she was coherent. She was not having any difficulty articulating what was going on in terms of a conversation. And in fact, my client introduced himself as Scott. So, you don't generally do that. You don't say who you are before committing as alleged these horrible acts.

And I want to say something that's very also incredibly important. If you read the complaint, just like when people see TikTok or Instagram, they get the first soundbite or 30 seconds. And my client is accused as a rapist, one of these seven guys. But if you actually read the substance of it pages and pages below, you'll see that my client is only accused of, and it's still serious, pouring ketamine on this girl and smoking, snorting, pardon me, off of her.

And I'll leave this one last point that it's important I want to get out. He did not, and we know he did not, because no one in that room will say he did it. And we had a hair follicle test done to confirm he had no ketamine in his system. He is innocent. Whatever terrible thing happened to her, if it did, that is horrific, but it has nothing to do with him.

BROWN: Let's just drill down on this a little bit. I just want to focus on the facts, all emotions aside. That's why I'm having you on. The hair follicle, when did he get that hair test? And are you willing to release the results of it?

SALAND: Well, we will certainly provide whatever is needed in a courtroom if it happens. I don't see any way that there's a case against him that ever gets indicted before a grand jury, because again, nobody will put him in any type of sexual touching or intercourse at all, period. A no credible person, no honest person, and based on the testimony that I already heard.

BROWN: Right. So --

SALAND: And so, at that time, if it's great, I'll give to the prosecutor a copy of that ketamine test to corroborate and confirm that it was valid and it confirms there was no drugs. When we learned of this incident and these allegations. So --

BROWN: So, what about to the public? Would you be willing to release that?

SALAND: Yes, I would. Again, I'm happy to release it to the district attorney's office if we believe it's necessary to present in a court of law. It's more important that it goes there than to you. You can take my representation or not, but we certainly can provide it to him as necessary before a grand jury. And we can potentially release it here, but let's let the court system do its work first.

BROWN: Sure. Let me just follow up on that. When was that ketamine test taken? Because it can take several days for it to reach the hair follicle. And if you only did it once, it may not show up in the testing.

SALAND: So, I don't mean to disrespect you. I appreciate you trying to figure that out and say what it can or can't show.

[11:40:00]

I'm not a medical scientific provider. I don't know if you are.

BROWN: I'm certainly not.

SALAND: But we did it within the timeframe -- yes, we did it within the timeframe. When we learned of this incident after that, we did it. And it would have been there if it existed and it didn't. And to my recollection, another student did the same who was accused of doing this, but that aside and science is critical. Science is critical, but we also have the, quote/unquote, "witnesses" and herself who can't say that he did it off of her or poured that ketamine.

So, I'm not concerned other than concerning situation, true or false, 80 percent one way or another. It's a very real horrible situation.

BROWN: So, let me just follow up because you mentioned the Snapchat that your client was a part of and the response to a really vulgar line about free P word. In this Snapchat, your client says in response, a couple down, Diego went seven minutes ago and is not AFK. So, what does that mean?

SALAND: He left -- I think my understanding was that he left his keyboard away from keyboard and left. And that's why my client was like, where is he? And went looking for him. So, you know, that's in substance as I recall. And that's what that means.

Now, you're going to ask the next question about point of view. There was people milling around to my recollection outside of the room, men and women, boys and girls, young men, young women. And when he approached that, he got confirmation as I recall and entered that room and saw this girl. And that's when he introduced himself right out of the gate of who he was.

And, you know, at some point, he confirms there's somebody there, not there's anyone engaged in sex, not engaged in free term that was used there or that there was an assault or that someone was incoherent or that there was drugs. Facts matter, critical thinking matters. And we have to not just jump from frat boys are bad and they are guilty of everything. Again, I can't speak to what else happened other than I'm talking about specifically my client.

BROWN: I understand. We're just focusing on the facts. That's why I'm drilling down on. Just to further try to get some clarity, the AFK part, what does that mean? Do you have any understanding within the context?

SALAND: Away from keyboard.

BROWN: Away from keyboard. But do you understand what it means in relation to what was happening at that moment?

SALAND: I think at that moment, my client was in his room or a room with someone else where he was with this other party to my recollection. And at that other party was no longer at the keyboard or at his computer and he had left, but nothing to do with anything.

BROWN: OK. Got you. So, and you talk about how your client introduced himself. Are you saying that because he was polite in introducing himself, that that is somehow evidence that he didn't do anything untoward or violate the law in any way?

SALAND: I'm saying that the fact is he did not do anything wrong with this woman. He is not complicit. He did not fail to report something. He did not see anything wrong. What I'm saying to you is there's a medical scientific material that says he had no ketamine. I'm saying to you that he did not observe anything.

I'm saying to you that he introduced himself. I'm saying to you, he didn't do the things and no one would say he did the things about storing the ketamine. I'm saying to you that when she reported in that complaint initially, which was in my opinion, somewhat bombastic against him, that he is one of the rapists when she's really not alleging, he's a rapist. That is not true. We've maintained this. He's not ever found responsible for that.

I am confident when the DA does his job again, will once again be exonerated. And you'll look at whatever inconsistencies she said in terms of consent or not consent. That's for the DA to decide.

BROWN: You say when the DA does its job, do you think the DA should have convened a grand jury then investigate it? Because you say you welcome this grand jury investigation. You think it will exonerate your client. Was it a mistake for the DA not to have done more at the time?

SALAND: Well, you know, listen, I'm not the DA. I understand he has public pressure now and he's looking like the bad guy right or wrong. We're going to have him on the show too. I'm giving him an opportunity to talk. I welcome the opportunity to sit across with him.

So, you know, if the information that he received was that there was consent as opposed to no consent, that it was voluntary consumption as opposed to involuntary consumption, you know, that's his determination to make at that point in time. The information he received, and I understand from another network that there may be some other things out there that people are reviewing in terms of consent or not.

So, you know, there's a lot of information that we don't have, meaning we're not law enforcement. I can speak to what I know, I can speak to my client, but his decision is his decision. But if he's going back to a grand jury, we welcome it because my client did nothing wrong. My client is innocent.

BROWN: I understand what you're saying there. You are very adamant your client is innocent. I'm just wondering when you go back to 2024, was he ever interviewed by the police?

[11:45:00]

We know that there was a Cornell Title IX investigation, but did the police ever interview him as part of this?

SALAND: I do not recall if the police interviewed him. Certainly not while I was his counsel. You know, whether it happened before, I do not know or recall. But, you know, that's, again, he was never accused of raping her. So, he would be --

BROWN: You don't know if he spoke to police? Surely, you've checked into whether he gave a statement to police. SALAND: So, as I just said, when I was his counsel, I did not. Whether he spoke to someone, I don't recall. And I have no recollection, so the answer would be likely no, because to your point, I would know. But that does not mean that law enforcement, did they subpoena and get the materials from the Title IX office of Cornell? I can't answer that question.

BROWN: Have you reviewed the Title IX investigation?

SALAND: I was involved in the Title IX investigation.

BROWN: OK. So, what can you tell us? So, what more can you tell us about what's in that?

SALAND: Well, there's certain restrictions on the Title IX investigation in terms of the privacy of it. And I'm not one to foul of that, other than to say, and when I say I wish I could, because it would benefit my client, because the allegations for which he was accused, he is not responsible for. My client was not suspended. My client was not expelled.

Again, if other people did bad acts, sure not on that lower standard, which is a very low standard of a preponderance of the evidence, then they accepted accountability from the school and the school did what it believed was important. But the evidence did not corroborate at all that my client committed these acts. And we'll go through that again. That doesn't mean he may not be a victim from someone else.

BROWN: Fair enough. Just really quickly, as we wrap up, the Title IX investigation by the university, as you well know, is different from a criminal investigation by the authorities. Do you think that the police, because it sounds like from what your understanding is and from what we know, they didn't interview the defendants in the civil suit, that they should have taken that extra step rather than just take the statement from the woman and actually interview, if your client is innocent, as you say, and the other defendants and find out what they say about this? Should they have done that at the time?

SALAND: You know, playing, you know, back seater after the fact, quarterback, backseat driver here.

BROWN: Well, it's all relevant now though, because there's real questions about what was done.

SALAND: So, I'm going to answer that. I couldn't find the right term, what I was looking for was Monday morning quarterback here. But yes, I mean, in retrospect, one could say you should have done your job more thoroughly. And that's a fair statement. And I know you just said he's going to be on the show. And he can answer that question.

At the same time, if you have statements from somebody saying, I was not, I did something consensually, the DA's office, in my experience, is not chasing down every matter when someone says I did something consensually. Whether he should or shouldn't, that's a very fair question. Whether the police at Cornell did their job adequately, that's a fair question. And I think you should answer those things. BROWN: And the aspect of consensual, we're going to ask about that, because it's not so simple.

SALAND: We welcome it. And I think it would have really saved everybody, including my client, more specifically, I should say everybody, a lot of heartache, a lot of doxing. I've been doxed, threatened to be raped and killed in my family. It's out of control because I'm working with someone who is innocent and I've said as such, and that's just not OK.

So, you know what? From a moral standpoint, if she was victimized, it should have been thoroughly investigated and resolved and she should be made whole, however that means. But from a moral standpoint too, this young man, it would have benefited him if the police got involved more thoroughly and had been able to make a statement back then and had an investigation because we would have been done and this would have been over.

BROWN: All right. Jeremy Salan, I'm really sorry to hear that you're getting threats. You and your family, that's unacceptable. That shouldn't happen, right? Thank you for coming on. I'm sorry to hear that.

SALAND: Thank you.

BROWN: All right. So, you just heard our conversation. I now want to bring in Tompkins County District Attorney, Matthew Van Houten. Thank you so much for being here. I just want to start where I just ended there with Jeremy. He said there at the end that it was fair to question why didn't police do more? Why didn't your office do more in the very beginning? He talks about the fact that in the very beginning, police didn't interview his client.

Your understanding is they didn't interview the other defendants. He believes that had a thorough investigation been done then that this would be over. We wouldn't be in the place that we are in now. What do you say to that?

MATTHEW VAN HOUTEN, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I say that we knew what happened. We knew everything that happened and we knew it and we believed it because Jane Doe told us through her six-page written statement what happened. There were no blanks. There were no question marks. There was no additional need to find information because we knew all of the information that the police collected from Jane Doe through her very detailed, very comprehensive statement that she provided.

[11:50:00]

And we start out with the foundation that we believe that. We keep that until there is some objective evidence to believe to the contrary. And we always believed it. We still believe Jane Doe's statement.

So, when you know that that very detailed, comprehensive account does not establish a crime, it's not ethical for a prosecutor or for the police to go out and look for or cross-examine her to find evidence of a crime. We don't have an agenda to make a criminal prosecution. Our agenda is the truth.

BROWN: I understand that. Your agenda is the truth. But clearly, she went to police for a reason. She alleges she was sexually assaulted and gang-raped on October 19, 2024. What is your understanding of why she went to the Cornell police in the first place?

VAN HOUTEN: So, first of all, Jane Doe never alleged that she was, quote/unquote, "gang-raped." And that's from social media.

BROWN: That's -- well, in her civil suit --

VAN HOUTEN: We all know better.

BROWN: In the civil suit.

VAN HOUTEN: Show me those words in the civil suit. They're not there.

BROWN: OK.

VAN HOUTEN: But let's move on to your question, which is why did Jane Doe go to the police? People don't know. I think we all agree that what happened is morally disgusting. It's the wrong thing. Those young men did the wrong thing. And it's repugnant. It's disgusting. People don't know whether that disgusting, morally reprehensible conduct is a crime. She went to the police because she knew it wasn't right. And the police investigated it.

They found that sat down with her and an experienced investigator who's trained in sexual assault and trauma-informed investigations sat down with her and took her statement that was incredibly detailed. She made over 20 handwritten annotations to it, which means that she was being very careful and thorough and complete with the information she gave.

BROWN: So, what was it? So, just to follow up with you, because I think this is important. In the civil suit, I have it right here, Section 163. It says, in doing so, the defendant organized and encouraged other chapter members to join in on the gang rape of plaintiff in the fraternity house. So, it does say gang rape in the civil suit. If you want to read it again, it's on page 28.

But just to follow up with you, why would she go to police? As you well know, people don't go to the police after having consensual sex. So, even if her original statement didn't rise to the level of sexual assault or rape in your office's view, why did you not press for more at the time to figure out why she was reporting this incident?

VAN HOUTEN: Well, as I mentioned, whatever the legal conclusions are based upon New York state penal law, she felt that something was wrong and she was right. The young men who engaged in that conduct were morally wrong. It was disgusting. And so, she reported that to the police and the police investigated it. That does not mean if it's morally wrong or disgusting or offensive, all those things, it does not mean that the penal law was violated. BROWN: So, I just want to --

VAN HOUTEN: And the use of -- go ahead.

BROWN: Well, just in terms of reading her statement and looking at the civil suit, I've read both multiple times just to make sure I fully understand. And we're not jumping to any conclusions here.

VAN HOUTEN: You've read her sworn statement?

BROWN: I've worn what you released.

VAN HOUTEN: You've read her --

BROWN: I've worn what you -- I have read what you have released, which I would love to see everything so that we can make sure we're getting the full picture here. But there are parts of here. I know that what you're saying is, you know, she's saying that she consented to everything. She clearly, she said, there's no evidence in Jane Doe's statement indicating she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act.

But in reading through this, her statement from what you released there, are there parts that not, that didn't raise questions to you at the very least? That, you know, where she said a male member walked in, grabbed her face, started kissing her. She quickly backed away to stop the member from kissing her. That many of the men walked into the room and she hid under the covers at that moment. Did that not raise a question to you of maybe there should be more I should be looking into here?

VAN HOUTEN: We credited her testimony, her statement as true. And we looked at it, we reviewed it very carefully and we determined that when there was some level, when someone moved their hand toward her vagina, she pushed them away. That was the lack of consent and that person did not continue that behavior.

[11:55:00]

BROWN: But if the person tried to assault her -- I mean, tried to do that, would that be OK under these circumstances? Without her consent?

VAN HOUTEN: When someone tries -- if someone makes an advance to you and you reject it and they accept your rejection, which is what happened, that is not a crime.

BROWN: But how do you know if you didn't further investigate and talk to the defendants at hand and talk to the witnesses, how can you say that with such certainty?

VAN HOUTEN: Because as I said, we know, she told us. She told us what happened. There is way more detail.

BROWN: But you never talked to her. She told the police and the police gave you the report. You never talked to her. VAN HOUTEN: We told the police that we wanted to talk with her. If she wanted to talk with us, we would sit down and explain to her the law, answer all of her questions, explain the basis for our assessment of her statement. And that never happened. And I don't know why it happened. It didn't happen. But we would have done that.

BROWN: So, you went to the police and told the police. OK. You said -- you told the police you wanted to talk with her.

VAN HOUTEN: We told the police, as we do in every case where we review their investigation, that we would sit down with her.

BROWN: And in terms of the Snapchat that we now know is in the civil suit that I have right here, when did you actually receive that? Because I was watching your interview yesterday with my colleague Jake Tapper. You said it was the police eventually gave it to your office. My understanding is you didn't see it right away. Can you just help us? Can you clear that up and help us better understand?

VAN HOUTEN: So, that's a red herring in the sense of the legal analysis because we received it, but it was not relevant to the assessment of whether Jane Doe consented or whether there was any evidence of lack of consent on her part as defined by the penal law. It's relevant in the sense that it's disgusting and it's evidence that these men did the wrong thing and it's repulsive, but it is not evidence as it relates to the penal law assessment of whether there was a crime.

BROWN: We will hope we're going to have our attorney on and ask him about that. I know he argues that it provides context around what they are alleging, but that is your position. Just really quick, have you talked to Jane Doe or her attorney and is there a timeline for this grand jury?

VAN HOUTEN: I reached out last week to Jane Doe's attorney. Eventually he got back to me and we communicated via email. I understand he's out of the country. He's back tomorrow. I've expressed to him our desire to meet with Jane Doe to start the conversation, to understand what insights she has gained over the last two years, what additional reflections and healing that she's done that she can provide to us in terms of additional evidence that we could present to the grand jury. My hope is that we can start that process tomorrow.

BROWN: And will you? I mean, walk us through that, what that will take to get this going and who you want to bring before the grand jury exactly.

VAN HOUTEN: Sure. I assigned an experienced female prosecutor from my office to this case. She, in fact, tried a case less than a year ago of a Cornell student who was alleged to have raped another Cornell student and she got a guilty verdict on that case. She is very experienced in this kind of a case and she is trauma informed. What I want to do is first set up a meeting via Zoom between Jane Doe and that attorney to start a connection, to start the conversation. And that will be an extensive conversation where Jane Doe will be as comfortable as possible going into the grand jury and have as much confidence as possible that we are --

BROWN: Oh, well, we just lost him, but we appreciated the time that Matthew Van Houten gave us. And we do have a statement from Cornell University. It says, it barred the fraternity chapter from its campus and launched a sexual assault task force shortly after the incident. The school says, quote, "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 pe- perpetuate the under-reporting of sexual assault."

And we also just want to note that if you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted or abused, you can contact RAINN 24/7 to connect with someone who can help. All you have to do is go to rainn.org or call 1-800-656-HOPE. Wolf.

BLITZER: An important interview indeed, Pamela, thank you very much. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media, @wolfblitzer and @pamelabrowncnn. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning. Every weekday morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern for two hours. Inside Politics with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts right now

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]