Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump "Officially" Changes The Name Of AI To Super Intelligence; GOP Senator's Perjury Trap For Jack Smith Backfires; NY A.G. To Review Cornell's Response To Rape Allegations. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 29, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Scan the QR code on your screen, or go to CNN.com/Watch to learn more.
I'll be back on TV tomorrow at 07:00 a.m. on "CNN NEWS CENTRAL."
In the meantime, "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight. President Trump wants to change what you call it, just not how it's regulated, which is not at all.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
At the White House today, President Trump assembled a who's who of leaders in tech and artificial intelligence. It was an impressive collection of leaders in AI, whom the President called the, quote, Biggest people in the world, and who signed their names to an agreement that the President compared to the Constitution.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They came together and they did something that few people really -- it's almost like a constitution, in a way. And the biggest -- and the biggest people in the world signed that, and I signed it as president, and it really is a form of protection.
REPORTER: Is this accord that everybody signed? Is it binding in any way?
TRUMP: I think it's morally binding.
They almost viewed it as a separate kind of a constitution, and I think they -- when they signed that, it meant a lot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Well, the President released a picture of that one-page agreement, which he likened to the Constitution, twice, as you heard there.
This is what he posted on social media, and when you look at it, the top line appears to be, police yourselves with no formal government guardrails. Even the ones that some of those very leaders who were standing with the President there as he took questions from reporters have called for.
Now that's what happened at the White House today. You heard the significance the President attached to that.
But also remember, how it was only three years ago when executives, from some of these very same companies that were at the White House today, came to the White House under President Biden and made what appears to be a similar commitment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, 46TH U.S. PRESIDENT: And today I'm pleased to announce that these seven companies have agreed to voluntary commitments for responsible innovation. These commitments, which the companies will implement immediately, underscore three fundamental principles: safety, security, and trust.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, while the commitment to voluntary safeguards might sound familiar, the President has decided to call what these leaders are building something different, a term that he says he made official, at least for federal government purposes, with an executive order today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We've changed the name officially today. We've changed the name, Steve, officially to SI, OK? SI like SI, SI instead of AI. You know what that means? Super Intelligence, so.
REPORTER: Mr. President--
TRUMP: So the name, I guess, that's really quite an announcement because -- but the name has been officially changed by the biggest, the smartest, the greatest people anywhere in the world at this. And I was with President Xi a few days ago, and he would admit he said these are the smartest people in the world at what they do, and it's a big -- it's a big thing. But it's been officially changed to super intelligence or SI.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: This comes, of course, at a time when three out of four Americans are concerned and worried about AI, at least according to the latest CNN poll. And President Trump is arguing today, though, that this industry can self-police.
And when he was asked today, Well, what happens if an AI agent commits a crime? What do we do then? Who holds them accountable?
The President instead said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Who should be held accountable when the AI agent committed a crime, like-- TRUMP: It's not AI. It's SI. That's the other thing. We've -- we've changed the name officially today. We've changed the name, Steve, officially to SI, OK? SI like SI, SI instead of AI. You know what that means? Super Intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You'll notice he didn't answer the question there. He instead just talked about what they are calling it.
Now, for context of why this is so important, why that question matters so much. It was only a few days ago that OpenAI announced that for the second time in three months, it was pausing all training and testing on its most advanced models. That comes after one of them once again found a way out of its testing environment and gained access to the open internet.
And in documents that were leaked to Reuters as part of Anthropic's preparations to go public on Wall Street, we're also learning more about the internal warnings that AI may pose an existential risk to humanity.
Still, the President did say there might be more to come.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're also thinking about forming a committee of sorts, where we put maybe 10 people on that committee, it could be from that group, so that we can -- so the committee can watch over the whole enterprise.
REPORTER: Have you decided on an AI or a super intelligence czar?
TRUMP: I'm very close to making a decision.
REPORTER: Mr. President--
TRUMP: I'll be naming, I'd say, over the next three or four days.
REPORTER: Mr. President--
TRUMP: I want to -- I want to check with the companies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And I'm joined now by CNN Contributor and host of both the "On" and "Pivot" podcasts, Kara Swisher.
Kara, the President says this agreement that these executives signed is, quote, Morally binding. Do you believe that's how they see it?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY EXPERT, PODCAST HOST "ON" & "PIVOT": Yes, I don't -- I think it's ridiculous, the entire thing. I mean, why don't we just let plane companies police themselves and not have the FAA or not have -- pharmaceutical companies, they can police themselves? I mean, this is just ridiculous and just an announcement.
No, they're not going to be bound by any moral thing. They'll be bound by whatever political nonsense is going on at the time. And we need real guardrails that are in law, by the people and for the people, and not for these companies who can't seem to leave the White House. They're the only people allowed in there to talk about AI. Not critics, not academics, not scientists. Just the companies who have a financial interest. So, this is just ridiculous on every level.
COLLINS: I mean, the President keeps saying the guardrail is in place. He talks about the DOJ using what it has. I mean, is there anything in place right now?
SWISHER: Well, once -- say one of these LLMs creates a massive virus that kills a lot of people, I guess we could sue them or we could put them in jail.
But no, there's no guardrails, and not this DOJ, which has become a, you know, a personal law firm of Donald Trump. No, this DOJ has shown that it has no interest in policing anything except for people who are opposition to the President. So no, no. In a normal presidency, I would call this weak sauce. In this presidency, it's something even worse, I think, for the American people.
COLLINS: I looked at the document the President posted, and there's basically four points that these leaders signed their name to today.
Implement robust internal controls to monitor the capabilities and alignment of models during training and deployment.
Empower an internal team to ensure all of the controls, monitoring, and detection is operating as intended.
Partner with an independent external auditor or evaluate to carry out independent assessments on the controls, monitoring, and detection are operating as intended.
And designate an independent committee of the board of directors to oversee and receive reports from the teams operating the controls and the internal and external auditors and evaluators.
When you hear all of that.
SWISHER: Yes, a pinky -- yes, it's a pinky swear. I swear. I mean, they've had such a great history about social media that we should absolutely trust them to do the right thing for the rest of us.
It doesn't really matter. These companies can't. They have financial interests. They have conflicts of interest. And so, they can't govern themselves on something so -- if they think it's this important, and I think the American people get it, they get it plenty, the issues going on here. If they think it's so dangerous and so important, and they're even pulling these LLMs, like OpenAI just did, then it's worthy of government scrutiny and government regulation. I mean, obviously, there's no -- as someone said, is there any way to hold them accountable if they do this wrong? There isn't. They just think he promised to do it, and there's no repercussions.
COLLINS: Kara, you mentioned one thing. The President, when he was asked today, if one of these AI agents somehow commits a crime or something happens, who's going to hold them responsible and accountable? And the President, in that answer, instead of answering it, which was a really important question, he instead said, No, it's not artificial intelligence. We changed the name to super intelligence. I mean, he was more focused on what the name was than--
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: --from what I heard, did not answer that question. I wonder what that said to you.
SWISHER: It said they don't care about having any accountability that other companies have. Every single company in this country, except for the tech companies, have laws in place to help govern them because they have financial interests and might make some bad decisions. A pharmaceutical company might cut corners and hurt people, and they are liable if they do that. Companies like CNN, if they act irresponsibly, need to go to court. This is the only group of people that is allowed free reign and full immunity to do whatever they want and make decisions for the rest of us.
And it just -- and then he moves on to calling it super intelligence. It's been called that before, by the way that -- it's just a bunch of hand waving and not real concerted effort to think about a very serious topic. And they just stand behind him and just nod their heads to it. And why wouldn't they? They're getting a free hall pass to do whatever they want.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: Was there any takeaway today, Kara, from what you saw, that made you feel more reassured, about something that is such a big issue--
SWISHER: No.
COLLINS: --that so many people care about.
SWISHER: No, we're just going to have to wait till after the midterms to have real legislators in place, to actually do something about this. I mean, this is -- this is a bought and paid for administration when it comes to tech. And they put money in and they get what they want out. This is what I've said over and over again.
And it's not even good for them to be like this. They need the cooperation of elected officials, advocates, scientists, citizens. Everyone should be part of this important thing, and it shouldn't be up to a group of CEOs. It just shouldn't. The voters know this. The people know this. It's just Donald Trump that enjoys having dinner with powerful people and bragging about it and renaming things. But this is meaningless on every single level.
COLLINS: Kara Swisher, thank you for joining us.
SWISHER: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: My political sources are here tonight as well. Democratic strategist, Paul Begala. And Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton. Both CNN contributors.
And Shermichael. Americans are really worried about this, and they also say it's going to be important to their votes.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you think what the President said today, with all the world -- all these tech leaders gathered behind him, was reassuring to voters?
SINGLETON: Well, look, I think it's important for political leaders, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, to understand that there are very legitimate and real concerns for the American people, regardless of what party they vote for, as it pertains to how this will impact jobs, how this will impact the environment.
I mean, there are certain companies that I will give some credit to. You look at what OpenAI is doing down in Georgia, where they're paying for their own electricity, where they're having closed-loop water system, they're spending about $5 million to feed children in a school district there. And so, that is one such example where companies can earn the trust of the American people.
But I do think, to Kara's point, you have to have some type of regulation. Now, look, I'm a conservative. I'm certainly not for overregulating because we certainly want to beat the Chinese here. But I think you cannot dismiss the very real concerns that millions of Americans have, regardless of political party, in terms of how this will fundamentally change our lives.
COLLINS: Paul, what do you think?
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, yes, I want to pick up on what Kara said. This is a new product, a new technology. It's being introduced with absolutely no regulation. That's astonishing.
So, I went and looked. The Twinkie is regulated by five different federal agencies: the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration, OSHA for Occupational Safety and Health, the EPA, the Federal Trade Commission, and for good reason.
And Twinkie is a complicated thing. It's got 39 ingredients, and I looked them up, Kaitlan. Sorbic acid, pyrophosphate, potassium sorbate, sodium stearoyl lactylate, I have no idea what those things are. So you know what? Our government hires a bunch of scientists and nutritionists and doctors and experts to protect us, so that I, as a dad, as a consumer, have some protection to make sure that that Twinkie won't create a virus that exterminates all of humanity.
Dear God, what are we doing here? We don't have any regulations on this thing that some people think could kill us all, and certainly could take a lot of jobs. And we have five agencies regulating the Twinkie?
COLLINS: Point taken, I guess.
SINGLETON: Well look, I think--
COLLINS: But Shermichael, can I ask?
SINGLETON: Sure.
COLLINS: To Paul's point about the Twinkie and the regulations that exist in terms of food safety, and to Kara's point about flying. I mean, there were times today where the reporters tried to ask the tech leaders who were gathered there, the AI leaders, what they thought. Because they have called themselves -- for themselves to be policed here.
And the President answered for them in several of those moments, and basically said, We're all on the same page in terms of where this is going. They're going to self-police. I mean, Bill Gates is saying, this is something that could be potentially devastating. And when the President was asked about that, he said, Oh, he said that before, and the reporter pointed out, no, he said that two days ago.
SINGLETON: I mean, look, I think -- look, some of the concern is legitimate, but I also think there's a lot of positive.
You look at the sort of active intelligence phase that we're going to now, where people have access to their own individual agents that act like assistants that really can make jobs that were more complicated, longer, a lot shorter, so people have more time to enjoy their lives and do -- and pursue other things that make them happy. So, I think we have to consider that as we discuss this.
That said, I think there's a reason that many of these companies are saying, Hey, there's an intelligence here that's moving fast enough, so fast that we're embarking upon a phase of this where we may not even understand how it operates, how it functions, and how it even communicates with itself. And so, we're requiring some level of governmental oversight because maybe we may want to self-govern a little bit.
[21:15:00]
But what happens if there's a new bad actor out there that decides, Screw self-governance, I'm going to use this to cause harm, chaos, et cetera. And so, I think that's a part of the concern of many of the CEOs.
Again, I get the President's point. His point is, China doesn't care about regulation. They could care less about rules. They're going to allow their companies to go as fast and far as they possibly can. And he is right in that regard. But I think the rest of the Western world is going to look to the United States for guidance in terms of how we should govern this, and we must lead in that front.
COLLINS: Well, right now, everyone's following the same rules, which are no rules. So, we'll see what happens.
I want the both of you to stick around. Because there was a moment that happened on Capitol Hill today, and if you haven't seen it yet, it's truly a special one. It was where a Senator was trying to pin down the former Special Counsel, Jack Smith, arguing that he had perjured himself, that he had lied under oath. It did not go as planned. We'll play the whole moment for you, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: When the Special Counsel who brought two indictments against President Trump in 2023, testified in front of Congress today. Republicans who would like to see Jack Smith himself criminally charged were eager to portray him as dishonest.
But it was actually questioning by one Republican senator who accused Jack Smith of perjuring himself, that resulted in no discernible lies but one major airball.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024?
JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: What city would that be in?
SCHMITT: Atlanta.
SMITH: No.
SCHMITT: OK.
So, your testimony today is that you did not go to a Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024. Is that correct?
SMITH: I have no recollection of that.
SCHMITT: OK. Is it your testimony that you were not in Atlanta on February 3rd, 2024.
Let me -- let me just give you a little context.
SMITH: Yes.
SCHMITT: The day before Fani Willis came clean with her affair with the prosecutor. You know, the Atlanta prosecutor that was also trying to get Trump. The next day, were you in Atlanta?
SMITH: I do not believe so. SCHMITT: OK, did you ever go to Atlanta during your time as Special Counsel?
SMITH: I really don't think so. It's possible I flew through the Atlanta airport on the way to Florida, but I do not have a recollection of going to Atlanta. I definitely did not go to a Hawks game. I'm sure of that.
SCHMITT: OK.
What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warrior-Hawks game, on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair?
I don't think you know that we have this stuff.
SMITH: Yes.
SCHMITT: So, I'll give you a second to process it, so you don't, you know, perjure yourself.
SMITH: You just took it down really quick. If I could look at that again?
SCHMITT: OK.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Mr. Chairman, can we give the witness a copy so he can see what's being read to him?
SCHMITT: Well, I think you've already sufficiently answered. I want to -- I want to run through -- we'll put it in a follow-up. You can respond. I think you've already perjured yourself, but.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we see it? Can we see it?
SCHMITT: Did you or your office seek--
DURBIN: Can we see?
SCHMITT: This is my time.
DURBIN: Senator, can we see--
SCHMITT: If you want to use your time to criticize my question, go ahead, Ranking Member.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): We couldn't see what it said. And I'm a former prosecutor too, and I have never seen anyone just say, What do you think of this? and put it down.
We need a copy of the actual text. Can you give the witness the courtesy of giving him a copy of that?
SMITH: If this is the correct basketball game, I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing, right around that time, and the Marshals Service was there with me. You could check if that was the exact date.
KLOBUCHAR: Could it then be that University of Iowa's, the Hawkeyes? Could that be it? And maybe before we show this kind of thing.
That might be the confusion over the names of the team, but perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully.
SCHMITT: I mean, whose questioning is this, by the way, Mr. Chairman?
KLOBUCHAR: Well, you are the one--
SCHMITT: Are you -- are you using your time, Senator? Is this what this is?
KLOBUCHAR: No.
SCHMITT: Are we just -- are we just having like an open session here?
KLOBUCHAR: I will begin my questions. I just -- I'm just in shock that--
SCHMITT: Yes. Well, I'm glad you're trying to rehabilitate the witness, but it's not your time.
KLOBUCHAR: I mean, you are calling a witness a dirtbag and showing him these things?
SCHMITT: I presented him with text messages about him wanting to meet with people that could have obviously been related to the prosecution that was coordinated with his office in Atlanta.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
KLOBUCHAR: I will -- I'm going to begin my questions now. But I think that people should have their facts straight--
SCHMITT: Well we had burned this time around here.
KLOBUCHAR: --before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the teams wrong.
SCHMITT: I stand by that statement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, it is easily one of the most classic moments in Capitol Hill testimony history.
Our sources are telling us tonight that Senator Schmitt had reviewed text messages that he believed appeared to place Jack Smith at a basketball game on February 3rd of 2024.
And a source tells my colleague Lauren Fox that the Senator had checked which men's college and NBA teams were playing on that day. The only men's team that was scheduled to play, the Atlanta Hawks, which is what led Senator Schmitt to conclude that Jack Smith had been at the game in Atlanta.
But what Senator Schmitt had apparently not considered was that Jack Smith might have been at a women's basketball game, something that he seemingly admitted to reporters tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Will you admit that you just mixed up the basketball games?
[21:25:00]
SCHMITT: Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan?
Listen, we had information he was at a basketball game. There was only one NBA game that night at 07:30 tip off, which was why I asked him if he was in Atlanta. He answered the question. So, that's what these hearings are for. You ask questions, you get answers. You know, Jack Smith has perjured himself before, but if he says he's at the game, maybe he's a Caitlin Clark fan. We'll accept that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Paul Begala, I got to ask you what you thought about that moment as someone who's spent a lot of time in Washington.
BEGALA: Oh my God, bless his heart, Senator Schmitt. I mean, that was as feeble and stupid, and it just -- I'm glad they did it, OK? Because now we can see what a mental giant Senator Schmitt is.
It's spectacularly stupid. I have to say, on top of that, having the hearing at all is spectacularly stupid. With 35 days to the election, gas is $4.50 a gallon, diesel is $6.50 a gallon, ground beef is $6.92 a pound, and they're beating up on Jack Smith and apparently can't tell the Atlanta Hawks from the Iowa Hawkeyes. That's just too much.
If you thought that people wanted change and they're sick of Republicans before this hearing. They're going to be a lot more sick of them after.
COLLINS: I mean, Shermichael, what was going through your mind when you were watching that moment play out?
SINGLETON: Yes, I don't care about this, and I'll tell you why. We have a race in Texas, Georgia, Michigan, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, that are either toss-ups or slightly leaning Democrat. We're going to have to spend a lot of money to get these people across the finish line.
A lot of our base, working-class people, men of color, are struggling. They're barely getting by. There are a lot of people who are wondering how their children and grandchildren will get through college and afford a house. And so, as a strategist, a Republican one, I want to talk about those issues, the tangible issues that the American people are saying, this is what they want to hear from their political leaders. I could care less about Jack Smith in this particular moment when we're weeks away from a midterm, when I want to focus on drawing a contrast to the other side and figure out what are the policy solutions to resolving the issues that are clearly impacting everybody in this country right now. That must be the focus of my party and the messaging going into November.
COLLINS: So, are you saying that Republicans should not have invited Jack Smith to Capitol Hill today?
SINGLETON: For what? I mean, what in the hell are we getting out of this? I mean, I'm just being very honest about this.
Paul, you've been at this way longer than I have. You're a strategist. You know when you're close to a midterm what the priorities must be.
And so, again, my advice: let's focus on what's going to help us win the election. We got to turn out our base, where there's clearly an enthusiasm gap with the other side compared to our people. We're losing some independents. We need to try to get some of those folks back.
And again, our coalition is very different today, Kaitlan, than what it used to be 15 years ago. What happens with some of those low- propensity voters? Will they turn out? Trump isn't on the ballot. They're not happy about the economy. These are very real structural things that operationally--
COLLINS: I mean, can we just--
SINGLETON: --we must figure out a way to address.
COLLINS: OK. Yes, I understand. I know. We talk about this every single night in terms of the midterms and what this looks like going up.
But just, I feel like the whole moment today was summed up by Katie Britt's face, the Senator from my home state of Alabama, where I mean, as this exchange was playing out, where Klobuchar seemed to -- Senator Klobuchar was putting the pieces together in real time, that clearly the game he was at was the Iowa Hawkeyes. I mean, she just kind of looked stunned in that moment as her Republican colleague was -- I mean, his question at least was self-imploding.
BEGALA: Yes, it--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: This is why you got to do your homework.
BEGALA: --from--
COLLINS: Go ahead, Paul.
SINGLETON: Go ahead, Paul.
BEGALA: It tells me a great place form--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Shermichael's like, Go ahead, Paul.
BEGALA: My--
COLLINS: He doesn't want to talk about this.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: --and I are both from Texas. and I don't know if you know that about me, Kaitlan, I'm a Texan.
There is a wonderful -- was a wonderful writer named Molly Ivins. She's passed now. But she once said about another politician. Made me think of that today when I saw Senator Schmitt. She once said, If his IQ goes down another point, we're going to have to water him. And that's kind of how I feel about Senator Schmitt right now. Poor guy. Bless his heart.
COLLINS: I mean, Shermichael, I know you want to talk about what's going on in these races. We have you on to talk about that every night. But can you just comment on this moment in and of itself? Because it was so--
SINGLETON: I know.
COLLINS: --I mean, it is--
SINGLETON: I just -- I mean, Kaitlan, what is their--
COLLINS: There's a lot of bad moments on Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans but--
SINGLETON: I'm being so serious. What is there for me to say about this? You just heard Paul. When you went to Paul, he laid out, very eloquently, all of the things that a party should focus on when the President's approvals are low, when the American people aren't very happy about what the party has done or isn't doing to resolve some of their concerns.
[21:30:00]
And this is what some of these Democrats, since last year, who've won a lot of these special elections, who've won back some of these young men, particularly of color, they've been focused on this issue. Now the party as a whole, they have a whole image issue. That's a different conversation. But individually, some of their candidates have done well. Why? Because they're focusing on the stuff that people are saying that they want to -- they want to talk about. They want to hear politicians address.
We on the Republican side must stop the shenanigans and focus on what matters to most people. It's not Jack Smith. It's the kitchen table issues. And so, I really don't have anything to say about Jack Smith because I could care less, in this moment right now, Kaitlan. I'm just being honest.
COLLINS: And also, maybe pay attention to women's sports.
Shermichael Singleton. Paul Begala. Great to have both of you here tonight. Even if Shermichael doesn't want to have any fun with us. Thank you both for being here.
(LAUGHTER)
SINGLETON: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. We'll continue following that moment on Capitol Hill and all the headlines out of Washington. We're also following a very serious headline coming out of New York, where the Attorney General said today she is reviewing what Cornell's response was, after that disturbing lawsuit came from the former student. We're following it all very closely here. And my legal sources are going to weigh in on what's expected to happen next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: The New York Attorney General, Letitia James, says her office is now reviewing Cornell University's response to the former student's allegations that she was drugged and gang raped inside a fraternity house in 2024.
The local district attorney reopened the case this week, after the student sued the school. And the Tompkins County D.A., Matthew Van Houten, says that he hopes to start a process tomorrow to speak with the student, who so far is only identified as Jane Doe, and her attorney, something he says he and his team did not do back in 2024 when the incident was first reported to the police.
On CNN today, Van Houten defended why his office did not prosecute this case two years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW VAN HOUTEN, TOMPKINS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal sources tonight are:
CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig. And the former federal prosecutor, Berit Berger.
And it's great to have both of you here today.
Because Elie, I think now the big question is: with this case reopened, how prosecutors are going to move forward here?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, part of the valid criticism of the D.A. is what his office did not do back in 2024. Some of which they can still do now, but some of which, because so much time has passed, they're not going to be able to do right now.
If you could go back to 2024, you would first of all criticize the D.A. for not speaking to Jane Doe, the woman herself. Jane Doe spoke to the Cornell Police Department. Cornell Police Department wrote up a six-page report and then gave that, just paper, over to the D.A. And so, if the D.A. was taking it seriously, he would have interviewed her back then. He surely will try to interview her now.
The other things you would do is you would look for text messages. Was there -- what was Jane Doe saying to her friends the next morning? What were her communications at the time? You would perhaps want to get a medical forensic exam done. Of course, you can't do that now, two years later.
So, there's still some important things that can be done, but definitely not as much as could have been done back in 2024.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, and that's why I think there's been so much outrage, Berit, over this is the timeliness of this and the fact that they didn't speak to this woman at the time.
She's now filed this lawsuit, and in the lawsuit, she's saying that she came to the fraternity house, that she had consumed about 10 drinks, that she was then given more alcohol. She says she was pressured to snort ketamine, that she was incapable of consenting to what happened next.
When you're looking at the law here, though, in New York, on consent, on what this looks like based on what she's laid out, what stands out to you?
BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, LECTURER, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: Yes. So, in a case like this, you've identified the crucial issue that's consent, and there's a lot of ways that we're able to determine whether a person consented to having sex, one of them is if they actually said yes.
We also look to situations where there's no chance they could have consented, and New York has a few of those categories. One of those is if they were so intoxicated that they could not have said yes.
However, New York has this weird loophole that is unique amongst other states, where if a person voluntarily drank to the point of intoxication or took drugs, sometimes that ability to say I couldn't consent because I was drugged or drunk isn't available to them.
So, my guess is that's what the District Attorney is referring to here, when he said this couldn't have met the legal threshold because, he says in her initial statement she says that she voluntarily took some of these drugs and was intoxicated.
However, I don't think that can be the end of the analysis here. You have to look at this, consent is not fixed in time. Somebody could potentially consent at one point, and later in the night -- the allegations are this went for seven hours -- later in the night, that consent may not have been given anymore. So, you have to do a thorough investigation here to see, did she consent to every act with every individual that's alleged to have assaulted her here?
The fact that they didn't go through this really comprehensive investigation to figure out, was consent given at each stage, is really a tragedy for the survivor, and they're going to have to have a lot to answer for because of that.
HONIG: If I can pick up on that? Because I think there's a really important point here.
COLLINS: Yes, go ahead.
[21:40:00]
HONIG: The D.A.'s position is, The statement that Jane Doe gave us at the time does not meet the requirements of New York law when it comes to consent.
And I think Berit's exactly right. If you look at the sequence of events, as reported by Jane Doe, there are moments -- I won't get into details -- where Jane Doe says to some of the males who were there, No, I don't want that specific action to happen. And that happens a couple times, and then the males who are there stop doing that, but they do other things.
And so, that to me is a tricky question, right? Was there a clear statement of no, or was it more limited? And I think for the D.A. to conclude, based just on the paper record, There you go, we don't have a lack of consent. I think there's a real question to be raised there.
COLLINS: Does it make any sense to you why they didn't interview her then?
HONIG: Just expediency. There's no reason they -- there's no reason for them not to have interviewed her then. It would not have taken a massive expenditure of resources. You could interview her in a couple hours. I'm speculating here, but they may have just wanted to close this thing out, not deal with it, and move along.
COLLINS: Berit, in terms of where this goes now. Cornell posted an FAQ tonight and says the school's disciplinary proceedings are separate from criminal investigations. Obviously, the editorial board at the student newspaper published the names of the men involved here. They have been following up on this. They've talked about what happened to these students that were involved.
What do you make of the school's role and what they're doing next here?
BERGER: Yes, I mean the spotlight is rightly on Cornell right now. We have a few different legal proceedings that are going on. You obviously have the criminal case that's being reopened by the District Attorney. You have the civil lawsuit. We're going to get a lot of discovery within the civil lawsuit. We will learn a lot more.
Cornell is going to have to answer for things. Obviously, the individuals that were involved. There's other defendants that were named in the civil lawsuit. And then there's going to be separate investigations into what Cornell did.
Cornell is absolutely right. The standard that they have to use for a Title IX investigation is different than that of a criminal investigation. They're not trying to bring criminal charges. That's not the focus of their investigation. Their investigation has a lower standard of proof, and it's really focused on: Are we doing enough to make sure that the student body is safe, that this particular student is safe, and that we're doing everything we need to in order to keep the community, healthy and thriving here?
Cornell, I think there is a lot of question about whether what they did was sufficient here. The fact that this student, at least according to her attorney, didn't feel safe returning to her classes, couldn't continue getting her education at Cornell because the people who had attacked her were still going to school there, leaves a lot to be said for what Cornell's reaction was.
So, I think this will shine a real light on those disciplinary proceedings. We'll have to see whether or not they were sufficient if Cornell took enough to do.
COLLINS: Yes.
BERGER: So, it's a lot for them to answer for.
COLLINS: Berit Berger. Elie Honig. Thank you both for joining us on such an important story here.
Up next. The Supreme Court now says the Trump administration can restart deporting people rapidly to some countries that they have no connection to. My next source is someone who is all too familiar with the administration's attempts at deportation. He was held without charges for more than a 100 days. Mahmoud Khalil joins me next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Supreme Court has just allowed the Trump administration to resume rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than where they are from, making this now the third time the court has allowed the administration to move forward with this process of removing migrants to countries they don't have any connection to.
And the court is also expected to hear arguments about this practice in the coming months, marking what is going to be a major legal battle, and the outcome, of course, remains uncertain.
My next source tonight is someone the White House has been trying to deport for more than a year. In March of last year, ICE agents entered Mahmoud Khalil's home in New York and arrested him as he was holding his green card and his pregnant wife watched nearby. He eventually became the face of the Trump administration's attempt to deport non- citizen, pro-Palestinian student activist. Months after that, Columbia University graduate played a prominent role in the protest against the Israel-Hamas war on Columbia's campus.
Now, in a new book, Khalil reveals the harrowing experience of being transported from his home in New York, to a federal immigration detention facility, 1,300 miles away, where he was detained without criminal charges for a 104 days.
And Mahmoud Khalil is my source tonight. And his new book, "No Land to Stand On," is available now.
And thank you for being here.
And I want to talk about the book and what happened when you were being held in detention for that period. But on the Supreme Court ruling today, that they can rapidly deport migrants to third countries, basically countries that they don't have any connection to. Do you fear that's something that could happen to you?
MAHMOUD KHALIL, AUTHOR, "NO LAND TO STAND ON," PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST DETAINED BY ICE: Absolutely. I mean, the first thing that my lawyers were looking at, when I was arrested, was flights to Guantanamo or flights to other countries. Because, to them, what happened to me was a surprise, that a person could be transported in less than 24 hours from New York to Louisiana. So, it's a big fear, and I feel for the families, the migrant families who are, I think, now living in that fear across the country.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, in speaking of the Supreme Court. You're still fighting. They're still trying to deport you right now. You've gone to the Supreme Court with an appeal here. Obviously, this is all still playing out.
[21:50:00]
In terms of how you look at this, and what your attorneys are asking is to reverse the order, the deportation order, on constitutional grounds. If the Supreme Court takes your case, how confident are you that you're going to prevail?
KHALIL: So, previous Supreme Court justices affirmed once and again that non-citizens in this country, they have the First Amendment rights. They also have the right to challenge their detention in federal courts. What this administration now is trying is to prevent me from actually arguing my case in front of a federal -- a federal court, a federal judge. They want it to be within the immigration system that's fully controlled by the Trump administration. The immigration judges are fake judges; they are not real judges. That's what they're trying right now.
Now, about the confident -- you know, it's a fight. It's a chance we have to take. This administration has been trying its best. The full weight of the Justice Department right now is on my neck, trying to get me out of the country.
And this is not only -- this fight is not only about whether I get to stay in this country. It's only -- it's also about whether anyone in this country can speak out against this administration, against the policies of this government, and they don't get punished. So, if they get away with this, with a non-citizen, this administration would definitely try this with a citizen.
COLLINS: Well, you write in your book about why you believe this happened to you. You said, quote, "The king wanted to send a message, and I was the messenger, sent to everyone who might consider speaking out... The message was simple" in your view, you said: This could be you. Your rights will not protect you. Your innocence will not protect you. We can take you in the night, and there is nothing you can do about it.
What is your -- what would you say to President Trump, if you could, about what their attempt to deport you and what your experience has been?
KHALIL: I was part of a student movement that encompassed thousands of and hundreds of -- hundreds of thousands of American students across the country, calling for the end of the U.S. support to Israel. And I will not stop. Like, whether I am here, whether I'm in another country, I will continue to speak out for the rights of the Palestinians.
And I wrote this book as a message that no attempt will succeed in silencing me, but also in silencing the people in this country who are really now mad about the continued support of the United States to Israel, sending 2,000-pound bombs to Israel. But also, the immigrant communities in this country.
So that's, you know -- and I would tell like President Trump like, is this a legacy that you want to leave, that you went after non-citizens for their freedom of speech?
But this is one thing that we've been saying from the very beginning that they start with the Palestinian, and the Palestinian is the canary in the coal mine. Because you know, they started with me. But right after, they came after the journalists, they came after the law firms, they came after federal funding for universities. And just a couple of weeks ago when CNN and other outlets were banned from the White House. This is part of this administration attempt to silence anyone who dares to speak out against them. COLLINS: Well, and they point back to obviously your role in the protest and how prominent that was. You were someone who didn't cover your face in that protest when a lot -- there were a lot of people who did, obviously, as everyone can remember.
When you look back on that and you see that the Jewish students who said they felt unsafe or intimidated on campus during those protests. In hindsight, is there anything that you would have done differently?
KHALIL: No, we take -- we should take antisemitism very seriously, just like any other form of bigotry. But we must acknowledge as well when that charge is being used and weaponized -- used as a smear and weaponized to silence rightful criticism of the State of Israel and to divert from the real fact that the U.S. is investing and is paying for Israel to commit war crimes against Palestinians, to kill Palestinians.
So, I take these, you know, these very -- very seriously. I'm proud to have been part of a movement where Jewish students were part of it. You know, I went to my first -- to my first Shabbat dinner during the protests. I broke bread during these Seder meals. Also, I first went to, as now we are in Sukkot, I went to my first Sukkah with the Jewish students at Columbia. But the fact that this movement has been vilified is only to protect Israel.
COLLINS: Well, the administration, you know, one thing they pointed to at the time, I mean, when you were on CNN was when you were asked, specifically to condemn Hamas, you did not do so. Why not do so?
KHALIL: Because they are not interested in my views about Hamas. This question is being used as a litmus test. As--
COLLINS: But what's the litmus test, I guess?
[21:55:00]
KHALIL: The litmus test is basically like, why would you ask me if I condemn Hamas? Why don't you ask an American official if they condemn the U.S. government for killing over 80 girls in Iran, or any Israeli official for their crimes in Gaza? This question is only being used to ask Palestinians as a sort of, you know, if you say yes, just say yes or no, it's a black and white.
That's why it's not about refusing to condemn Hamas. It's about refusing the whole premise of that question. And that's why, as a Palestinian, I refuse. I want to get into the root issues of these -- of these issues.
I'm a Palestinian. I believe in a free Palestine, in a free Palestine, where every person, between the river and the sea, regardless of their faith, of their background, lives with dignity, with freedom, with justice, with equality. It's as simple as that. But this administration is trying to dehumanize me.
And these type of questions are, to me, are silly questions. They wouldn't get us anywhere. That's why we refuse to answer such questions.
COLLINS: I have to ask you before you go. Your son was born while you were being held in detention. How is he doing?
KHALIL: He's doing great. He's a wild wonderful 17-months-old right now. He and his mother just, you know, they are my world right now.
COLLINS: Mahmoud Khalil. The new book is "No Land to Stand On." Thank you for joining us tonight.
KHALIL: Thank you so much for having me.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time.
And that new book is out today.
And we'll be right back after a quick break.
[22:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: And you can stream THE SOURCE live or watch it on demand anytime if you have an All Access subscription. To get one, scan the QR code that is on your screen right now. Or you can go to CNN.com/Watch to learn more.
Thanks for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
