Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
U.S. And Iran Sending Key Negotiators Back To Pakistan; Iran And U.S. Giving Mixed Signals Over Potential Peace Talks; Hegseth Hits Outs At European Allies; Justice Department Drops Powell Probe; Fighting Amid Ceasefire In Lebanon; Documentary On Mysterious Creator Of Bitcoin. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired April 24, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, and
you're watching "The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, the White House says that U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will head to Pakistan for talks on Iran. Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth says mocks European leaders as the Pentagon reportedly lays out options to punish NATO allies who refuse to join the
war against Iran. And, "Finding Satoshi," the documentary looking to uncover the true identity of the creator of Bitcoin.
We do begin with the on-again, off-again negotiations with Iran. The U.S. is sending special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump's son-in-law,
Jared Kushner, to Pakistan to participate in proposed talks with Iranian officials this weekend. The White House press secretary says that they will
head there Saturday after the Trump administration noted, quote, "some progress from Iran."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is, as I've said many, many times to all of you, always willing to give diplomacy a
chance. We hope progress will be made, and we hope that positive developments will come from this meeting. We've certainly seen some
progress from the Iranian side in the last couple of days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Sources tell CNN that the vice president, J.D. Vance, is not planning to attend the meeting since the man seen as his counterpart,
Iran's parliamentary speaker, is not participating either.
Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, arrived in Pakistan earlier. However, his spokesperson has written just a short time ago, quote, "No
meeting is planned to take place between Iran and the U.S. Iran's observations would be conveyed to Pakistan." Something of a contradiction
there.
Kristen Holmes is standing by at the White House. Who's right? Are there talks or are there no talks?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we certainly know that Witkoff and Kushner are on their way right now to Pakistan. So,
it seems as though there are talks. Now, it is going to be more of a working level instead of a principal level, because it's not just that Vice
President J.D. Vance isn't going to be there, but the speaker of the parliament is also not going to be there from Iran. And he's been largely
seen as the person who has the most authority to actually negotiate a deal.
Now, President Trump said that Iran contacted them, that they wanted to talk. And he told Reuters in an interview that they were going to come back
with an offer or a deal to try and meet some of the U.S. demands, but said that he had no idea what that deal was going to look like.
Now, interestingly, President Trump did say that they believe that they are now negotiating or they know they're negotiating with the actual people in
charge. Remember, that's one of the things he's been saying now for several days, that they actually don't know who is in charge because the leadership
there has been so fractured.
And you played that sound from Karoline Leavitt. That was to a question I asked her specifically about whether or not they were going because they
had gotten a unified proposal. Remember, that was the one thing that the U.S. said that they wanted was a unified proposal, and yet we're still
going to these talks. It doesn't sound like they had gotten that, but that's where she said that they had made progress in the last week. We'll
be watching this very carefully.
Again, as you noted, the vice president is said to be on standby. He could leave at any time if this goes in a positive direction. But I do want to
note also, it appears if these talks do go through, that Iran would be crossing their own red line because they have been saying, in addition to
what we just heard and you just read that statement, they've been saying that they wouldn't meet for another round of negotiations unless the United
States reopened the Strait of Hormuz, which obviously they have not done. So, that would be Iran kind of stepping over their red line as well.
Again, we still have no answers on how long this ceasefire is going to last, what President Trump is trying to determine for a timeline. But we do
know that tomorrow, Witkoff and Kushner will be on a plane to Pakistan.
SCIUTTO: Well, we'll see who's there to meet them on the other side, I suppose, and where it goes. Kristen Holmes at the White House, thank you.
Well, just a short while ago, the U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, had harsh criticism for America's European allies on the war with Iran.
[18:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: We are not counting on Europe, but they need the Strait of Hormuz much more than we do and might want to start
doing less talking and having less fancy conferences in Europe and get in a boat. This is much more their fight than ours.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Well, this follows a report from Reuters that the U.S. is now considering punishing some NATO allies for not doing more to join the U.S.
war with Iran. A leaked Pentagon email listed possible options, including suspending Spain from NATO, not clear how they would do that, and reviewing
the U.S. position on Britain's claim to the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are a British overseas territory in the South Atlantic. Argentina and the
U.K. fought a war for control of the Falklands back in the early 1980s. The British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, responded shortly afterwards, saying
the U.K.'s stance on the islands was, quote, "unchanged."
Joining me now, retired Marine intelligence officer Hal Kempfer. Hal, where does the alliance stand with Europe? I mean, this has been a long-time
building. It's quite clear that European leaders don't trust the U.S. anymore, at least to the degree they used to, don't trust its commitment to
the alliance. And President Trump, it's not the first time President Trump has threatened to leave, punish, et cetera. I mean, is the alliance as good
as done at this point?
HAL KEMPFER, RETIRED U.S. MARINE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: Jim, I don't think it's as good as done, but it is very strained. As you saw, of course, more
recently, we saw their talk about two tiers, or sometimes called that the White House will have a naughty list, a nice list for European countries. A
lot of it seems to be really focused on the reluctance of European countries to get pulled into Epic Fury to do anything in the Strait of
Hormuz or do anything with the war with Iran.
And, of course, the White House says you should be down there because you have a bigger stake in getting the Strait open than we do. And that's
exactly what Pete Hegseth said today in his remarks, which was, in so many words, basically saying Europe has more use for the Strait, the oil,
natural gas, everything comes out of it than the U.S. does. But, yes, it has put a great strain on the alliance, although with some countries like
Poland, I think we'll probably have a stronger relationship.
SCIUTTO: The question is, though, this is not the only dispute, right? I mean, a few weeks ago, the alliance was, it seemed, ready to blow up over
President Trump's demand to take over Greenland, the sovereign territory, of course, of NATO ally Denmark. And the issue that I hear from European
officials, at first privately, but now you hear it quite publicly, is they just don't believe that the U.S. would come to their defense. I mean,
that's the root of the alliance, is it not, mutual defense?
KEMPFER: It really is. I mean, Article 5 -- and of course, I would remind everyone, the only time Article 5 was ever invoked, which is the Musketeers
thing, which is one for all and all for one, basically says that countries have to commit to the common defense of all the countries. Now, what it
doesn't say specifically is what that commitment was.
And the fear, I think, in Europe is the U.S. remains a member, but if something happens, for example, if the Russians were to encroach on the
Baltics, would our response be somewhat lagging in that response, or certainly with the problems we're having with what's sometimes called gray
zone activities by the Russians all over Europe, you know, hybrid warfare, the U.S. response is lagging. It's not what it used to be. It's not this
robust leadership role that we have. That's where the strain is really being felt.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this as an intelligence officer yourself. Who controls the Strait of Hormuz right now? Because President Trump, of
course, has claimed that the Iranian Navy has been destroyed. It has certainly been damaged, deeply damaged, but it still has the ability to lay
mines. And there is an intelligence assessment that found it could take up to six months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz. Does Iran maintain
effective control?
KEMPFER: Well, I would say nobody actually controls the Strait of Hormuz. But, in fact, Iran still has tremendous influence and a degree of control
over Hormuz. They don't have the big Navy they had. They don't have the larger combatants. They do have these fast boats, these gunboats that
they've been using. That's what they use to basically seize two ships that were going through. That's about what they're relying on. That's
Revolutionary Guard Corps, I should mention, not the regular Navy that runs those. They have mines.
And, of course, there's been discussion of we're going to start attacking any boat that we think is laying mines out there. And then they have some
midget submarines or so out there. But they just don't have a robust naval presence. But it doesn't take much. This is modern warfare. This is warfare
with drones, missiles, things like that.
So, yes, they do kind of control it away. But I would say nobody really does control it. That's the problem.
[18:10:00]
SCIUTTO: Yes, asymmetric warfare on so many fronts. Before we go, what's your best assessment as to the status of these U.S.-Iran negotiations?
We've seen a number of delays, various extensions of deadlines. And now, you have -- I mean, listen, the president's son-in-law and one of his best
friends, Steve Witkoff, are on their way to Pakistan, we're told, tomorrow. But the Iranians are saying, well, we're not really having talks tomorrow.
Are there talks?
KEMPFER: I didn't see any talks happening. I found it was interesting. You know, Araghchi, the foreign minister, going out there, he's not just
visiting Pakistan. He's actually making a big trip around. He ends up in Russia and some other places. But we're sending a delegation out there,
maybe on the off chance we can speak to him.
You know, he has a voice. He is someone that we can talk to, I think, more than others. But the problem is he doesn't call the shots in Tehran. So,
whatever he would say or agree to, it still has to go back to this hardcore element of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.
They're going to actually make the decisions. And so, far, we've seen whatever comes out of Islamabad, you have to take it with a grain of salt
because you're not quite sure if the Iranians agree to it. We're just saying they agreed to it.
SCIUTTO: That's a problem when you're sitting across the table from each other. Hal Kempfer, good to have you on the show.
KEMPFER: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Adam Smith. He's the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thanks
so much for coming back.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): It's good to see you, Jim. Thanks for having me on.
SCIUTTO: I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Hal there. Are there any substantive peace negotiations underway from your perspective?
SMITH: Well, not right now. Basically, we're working through Pakistan. It's quite possible that Iran is talking to Pakistan. I know Pakistan is talking
to us, but there's certainly no direct contact. And it's very clear now that there's no agreement at this point for direct contact. There is the
hope that at some point the two sides will get back together in Pakistan.
But, you know, I mean, the president has been saying that there's been talks when there clearly haven't been. That certainly undermines our
credibility. And to your point at the end there, who are we talking to? The IRGC is running things, and the people talking in Pakistan do not
apparently speak for the IRGC. So, add all of that up, and right now the obvious conclusion is no. There are not substantive peace talks going on.
SCIUTTO: President Trump said yesterday, give me some time. I've got all the time in the world, paraphrasing, to move forward towards an agreement.
I wonder if Iran might think the same thing, right, that they have time as well. As punishing as the blockade is, they don't seem to be in much of a
rush either.
SMITH: No, because that's the asymmetric warfare point that you pointed out. Iran is prepared to suffer a lot of pain, and they just have to
survive. They don't have to win. They don't have to defeat us. They have to survive, and they have to be able to inflict pain on the Gulf states, and
not even completely control the Strait of Hormuz, just threaten it, threaten it enough so that traffic can't flow through it.
Look, I mean, where the White House is at on this is insane and incredibly dangerous. They keep declaring victory. They keep saying that they've won.
They keep saying this isn't going to be a never-ending war, and then they say they have to escalate in a whole bunch of different ways. They are
incoherent right now on where we're at and what they want, and that puts us in a very bad place. The cost of war continues as the Gulf is still in
turmoil. We're seeing the effect on gas prices, on fertilizer prices, on helium. You know, the cost to our economy and the global economy only
continue to go up, and it is 100 percent clear Trump and Hegseth have no idea whatsoever how to get out of this.
SCIUTTO: You said the plan is incoherent. Given the president, in his public statements and positions, has contradicted himself at times, in your
view, is the president himself incoherent on the path forward?
SMITH: Yes. Yes, I don't think that's my view. I think that's simply a fact. I mean, let's go back to a week ago. A week ago, Friday, we all woke
up to Trump saying, it's over, we won. Iran has agreed to give up their nuclear programs, agreed to give up their ballistic missile program, agreed
not to support terrorist groups, the Strait of Hormuz is open. And I looked into it, and I talked to my staff, and they said, yes, none of that is
happening.
And yet, all day long, people reported on it. I was in doing interviews, and I was arguing with people, and they would say, well, Trump, are you
saying the president isn't being truthful? Yes. OK. And it's very obvious that he's not. And in the middle of a war, I mean, I think people should be
a lot more troubled by this than they are. He is trying to wish into existence an outcome.
Well, meanwhile, he has no plan for achieving that outcome. And let me just say, the only option on the table for us right now is to negotiate. What
Secretary Hegseth was derisively saying, what the Europeans are doing.
[18:15:00]
What are European boats in the water going to do, Secretary Hegseth? Our boats can't stop it. And we've got like a hundred times maybe any of these
other countries do. They're not choosing not to engage because they're wimps. They're choosing not to engage because unlike you, they know the
futility and the cost of it. We need a negotiation. And that's what I think it's like 44 nations that the U.K. and France have brought together to try
to have a conversation with Iran. That's the only path out of this. Tough talk, beating your chest, denigrating our allies has gotten us exactly
nowhere.
SCIUTTO: What is Congress going to do, right? Because Democrats want to hold a vote and have voted for measures to reduce the president's power in
this war. And there have been some Republicans who have at least raised that possibility. And some have said, well, once we get to 60 days, maybe
we will. Is there any substantive movement in Congress for a vote to rein in the president in this war?
SMITH: We do not yet have the votes. We have a clear path to do that, to basically say, no, this wasn't authorized. You do not have the authority to
continue it, to sort of force him to the bargaining table. But thus far, as big a disaster as this war is, the Republicans in the House and the Senate
have decided to simply put their head down and do whatever President Trump tells them, even as this becomes more and more untenable.
We're going to keep the pressure up. We're going to keep pushing it. Now, I will point out that even at this point, even if we're able to stop the
actual war, we still have to have this negotiated. And that, too, is a very dark picture. We have very able diplomats in the State Department, all of
whom have been sidelined, if you will forgive me, for two real estate agents from New Jersey, OK? That's who's trying to solve this.
And J.D. Vance, who also has zero international diplomatic experience. We have capable diplomats. The Republicans have capable diplomats. They've
sidelined all of them in favor of Kushner and Witkoff, who, by the way, to date, after 15 months, have accomplished exactly nothing in all of the
negotiations that they're trying to do across the world.
SCIUTTO: Yes, certainly no progress in the Ukraine war conversations. Before we go, I do want to ask you about the DOJ announcing today. It is
looking for a way not just to speed up federal death penalty cases, but to bring back firing squads for federal executions. What's your reaction?
SMITH: Yes, I think the DOJ has a lot bigger problems. To begin with, they apparently have to sober up their FBI director. I think they have to get
back to the business of paying attention to the things that are threatening us. They're actively trying to prosecute their political opponents all
across the country.
So, look, I don't support the death penalty. I don't think it's what we should be focused on. And bringing back a firing squad is not a solution to
anything we need to be working on. So, I think it's a dangerous distraction from some of the larger problems that we have.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Adam Smith, we appreciate having you on.
SMITH: Thanks for the time, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, the criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell is over, at least for now. We'll discuss the Justice Department's move, what
it means for Kevin Warsh, who is President Trump's pick to replace Powell.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ closed Friday's session at new record highs on hopes for U.S.-Iran
peace talks this weekend, which we should note, the Iranians say aren't actually happening. The NASDAQ also got a boost from chip giant Intel. It
shares soared 23 percent after releasing strong quarterly results driven in part by A.I. NVIDIA shares closed at record highs as well, with its market
cap now topping $5 trillion.
In the energy market, oil prices held steady, but Brent Crude continues to trade above $105 a barrel. New numbers show that U.S. consumer sentiment
hit all-time lows this month as gas prices surged. Inflation expectations for the next year jumped as well.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 77 percent of registered U.S. voters surveyed blame President Trump for those rising gas prices.
In other news, the Trump administration dropped its three-month-old criminal probe into the Fed chair Jerome Powell today. It's an abrupt end
to an investigation widely criticized by Democrats and Republicans as being purely politics and without legal merit. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro
announced the move in a post on X, saying the Fed's inspector general will continue to look into the cost of renovating the Fed headquarters. That's
the issue that led the president to ask for this probe. But that's something Powell had asked the inspector general to do already.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt today continues to insist the Fed chair is mismanaging the project.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: If you drive by the Fed building, the president has a point. This is a project that's been going on for a very long time. It's costing
taxpayers billions of dollars. And I think it's in the best interest of the taxpayer to get to the bottom of it. So, the investigation still continues.
It's just under a different authority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Today's announcement might help advance the nomination of Kevin Warsh, who is President Trump's pick to replace Powell. A key Republican
senator, Thom Tillis, said he would oppose the nomination until the Fed dropped that probe. But Pirro's assertion the investigation could be
reopened might complicate Warsh's path.
The White House is challenging Fed independence in other ways, too, attempting to fire the Fed governor Lisa Cook over claims that she
committed mortgage fraud. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the next few months on whether he can remove her.
Joining me now is Scott Alvarez. He's a former general counsel to the Fed Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee. Scott, good to
have you on.
SCOTT ALVAREZ, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD: Pleasure to be here, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, is this the end of this Chairman Powell investigation, or should we take Pirro at her words that, well, she might bring this up
again?
ALVAREZ: Well, I think that's the million-dollar question. I think this is half a step towards the end, but it's certainly not the end. I imagine that
there are discussions going on right now between Senator Tillis's office and the Department of Justice and probably the Federal Reserve as well
about the last sentence of the Pirro statement. The first part says she's closing the investigation. That's all very good, but she reserved the right
at the end and quite strongly to reopen the investigation if she thinks the facts warrant.
So, that leaves a big question. How will she make that decision? What kind of facts is she looking for? She brought this investigation without any
facts to start with. So, I imagine there's going to be concern that she may just reopen the investigation without any facts either. And that's the
thing the Fed and Senator Tillis will be trying to figure out.
SCIUTTO: As a lawyer, what was the purpose of the criminal probe? Because, as I understand it, the Fed's inspector general was already looking into
the issue. And also, as I understand it, Pirro's own lawyers acknowledged they hadn't yet found evidence of a crime.
[18:25:00]
ALVAREZ: Exactly. So, there were two prongs to the investigation. One was lying to Congress. And the chair -- the Republican chair of the Senate
Banking Committee and seven other senators said there was no lie. Powell did not lie to us. So, that prong seems to be sparrowless.
And then the second one was, well, I don't know. And there, the Fed has put out tons of information on its website about how the renovation is managed.
The inspector general has already looked at it once and found no improprieties. And a judge looked at the evidence the Department of Justice
had, which DOJ admitted was no evidence at all, and said that this is just a political fight and not about the renovation at all. So, the grounds for
the subpoenas, the grounds for the investigation just seem to have totally collapsed, evaporated.
SCIUTTO: Where does the Fed's independence stand? Because that's the key here. And it's quite clear the president launched this investigation
because, listen, he seems to be upset that the chair has not bailed out his economy by lowering interest rates more quickly. Is Warsh going to preserve
independence going forward? Is the simple existence of this investigation for three months, does it threaten the independence? Where does it stand?
ALVAREZ: Yes, I think the investigation does threaten the independence. But also, the Supreme Court has to make a decision in the Lisa Cook case. And
that will be key to deciding how much to finding out how much independence the Federal Reserve has. The Supreme Court sort of hinted that it thinks
that the Federal Reserve is different from other agencies in the government and that Congress can limit the president's ability to remove governors
from the Federal Reserve for policy reasons.
If the Supreme Court actually reaches that conclusion, finally, it's only hinted at it. It hasn't actually made that finding. But if it does make
that finding that the Fed is different, that will be a very big step towards independence. But then there's some extra questions there. The
president could only remove a governor for cause.
Well, what does cause mean? Who gets to determine what cause is? Is there due process in deciding whether cause has been found? Those all have to be
decided. And that will determine how much independence the Federal Reserve has.
SCIUTTO: I mean, the other question is, is the new proposed chair willing to push back when the president applies pressure to cut interest rates? He
said that the president never asked him to lower interest rates. We've seen the president's public comments. We know where he wants interest rates to
go. Based on his answers in the confirmation hearing, do you have confidence in him as a steward of an independent Fed?
ALVAREZ: So, I think that's an excellent question. You can set up legal ways to make the Fed independent. But in the end, it's the decision-makers
that have to use that independence in their decision-making. And Warsh was very careful in his statements, suggesting he would be independent. But he
has been quite an advocate for lower rates along the lines of what the president has asked for. So, whether he'll actually take advantage of the
independence is unclear.
SCIUTTO: Scott Alvarez, thanks so much for joining.
ALVAREZ: Pleasure. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Well, checking some of today's other business headlines. Procter & Gamble warned Friday that its annual profits could take a $1 billion hit
due to the Iran war. It says the higher price of oil is driving up its manufacturing costs. It's also facing supply chain disruptions from the
closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Earnings are holding up well for the time being, however, with results from the past quarter topping expectations for
now.
The Trump administration is freezing almost $350 million worth of cryptocurrency it says is linked to Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
says officials have sanctioned multiple crypto wallets belonging to the Iranian regime. A U.S. official tells CNN that the assets could have been
used to help circumvent sanctions and facilitate trade. Digital currency firm Tether announced Thursday that it helped the U.S. freeze those funds.
CNN has not been able to confirm that the Tether accounts were indeed linked to Iran.
Microsoft has confirmed to CNN that it will offer workers buyouts for the first time ever. The firm says 7 percent of its U.S. workforce will be
eligible to take part. It's the latest move by a major tech firm to reduce staff significantly as they ramp up investments in artificial intelligence.
Meta plans to cut 10 percent of its workforce to offset its investments in A.I. and other areas.
[18:30:00]
Still to come on The Brief, fighting continues in Lebanon despite the announcement of a ceasefire. Why Israel's operations there are drawing
comparisons to its operations in Gaza. Just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.
Iran's foreign ministry says there is no meeting planned with the U.S. and Pakistan. This, as the White House says, it's sending envoys, Steve Witkoff
and Jared Kushner, to Pakistan for those talks with Iranian officials. Iran's foreign minister, he did arrive in Islamabad earlier today.
Multiple tornadoes ripped through parts of the central U.S., including a powerful tornado in Oklahoma. This video shows the remarkable path of
destruction in the town of Enid, Oklahoma, 100 kilometers, 60 miles northwest of Oklahoma City. Thankfully, officials say no fatalities.
Remarkable.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he quietly underwent treatment for prostate cancer. A source tells CNN the 76-year-old began
radiation therapy about two and a half months ago. He had surgery for an enlarged prostate back in 2024.
Hezbollah says the ceasefire announced between Lebanon and Israel, quote, "has no meaning" after continued attacks there. Lebanese state media report
that the IDF has killed two more people in southern Lebanon less than a day after the White House announced a ceasefire extension. For its part, Israel
says it will continue to attack anything it deems a threat. Not clear how that amounts to a ceasefire.
The U.N. said that its aid mission on Thursday witnessed charred cars, piles of rubble, and neighborhoods leveled in south Lebanon. It also says
it has documented direct attacks by Israel against civilians over the past month.
[18:35:00]
Israel's operations in Lebanon are now drawing comparisons to its operations in Gaza. CNN's Jeremy Diamond has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISRAEL KATZ, ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER (through translator): All houses in villages near the border in Lebanon will be destroyed. According to the
Rafah and Beit Hanoun model in Gaza, in order to permanently remove border- area threats from the residents of the north.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After leveling homes, neighborhoods and entire cities in Gaza --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Four, three, two, one.
DIAMOND (voice-over): -- Israel is exporting that model to southern Lebanon, raising civilian infrastructure in towns and villages near the
border to carve a buffer zone out of Lebanese territory, which the Israeli military says is aimed at distancing Israel's northern residents from the
threats posed by Hezbollah.
But in one town after the next in southern Lebanon, rows of homes have been flattened. Shops torn to the ground. Entire neighborhoods erased. Over six
weeks of war the Israeli military systematically demolished the town of Al- Shaybah, now practically wiped from the map.
Along this street in the border town of Adisa, which once held a pharmacy and auto repair shop. One building after the next has been reduced to
rubble. Even the local mosque was not spared. Steps away, an excavator and alongside it a multi-story building not yet destroyed.
To Hassan Ramal, it represented plans for the future, a building he erected in his hometown, apartments on top, with shops on the ground floor. It had
been partially damaged in a previous Israeli strike. Construction was underway just one month before the current war broke out. Those dreams
dashed the moment Ramallah saw this video confirming the worst.
HASSAN RAMAL, RESIDENT IN SOUTH LEBANON (through translator): Somebody sent me images and I saw that the building I was renovating had been destroyed.
I felt that the hope that once existed had diminished. For you to build, only to be demolished. Build, demolish.
DIAMOND (voice-over): There are countless stories like Ramal's in South Lebanon, a Shia majority area where many, like Ramal, support Hezbollah. In
the town of Bint Jbeil, fierce fighting with Hezbollah militants soon gave way to controlled demolitions, razing the city's old quarter and buildings
beyond.
Such massive destruction of civilian infrastructure is considered to be a violation of international law and a potential war crime. The aftermath is
both apocalyptic and yet terrifyingly familiar, revealing the same kind of systematic destruction Israel carried out to create a buffer zone in Gaza.
And, like in Gaza, the fragile ceasefire in Lebanon doesn't mean Israel will cease demolitions. Israeli officials say they will continue. In videos
filmed by nearby residents post ceasefire, the ruins of this Lebanese village give way to more destruction.
Excavators working to tear down more buildings. Lebanese communities within this roughly five-mile-wide buffer zone now controlled by Israeli troops
are facing more of the same. That buffer zone means Ramal hasn't been able to return home, but he remains defiant.
RAMAL (through translator): Israel can say whatever it wants. There will be no buffer zone.
DIAMOND (voice-over): And refuses to give up on his dreams of homecoming.
RAMAL (through translator): This land is dear and precious. Even if we build a tent, I will continue so I can smell the soil of my village.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Jeremy Diamond, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Just ahead, a new documentary tries to discover the mysterious creator of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. We're going to share their
remarkable discovery right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
SCIUTTO: A new documentary looks to uncover one of the biggest mysteries in finance, the identity of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency's creator. The name
sign on a 2008 white paper that introduced blockchain technology was Satoshi Nakamoto, which stopped being used a little more than two years
later. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Satoshi creates one of the most groundbreaking financial innovations in decades, and he disappears.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoever Satoshi is, that's the not the name on their birth certificate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Satoshi completely disappears. No posts on any of the forums. No emails. No transactions on the blockchain.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Satoshi Nakamoto is worth billions of dollars. To not touch that wealth, that's not human nature.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: So, who is the person or persons behind Bitcoin? Joining me now are the two men leading that hunt. Investigative journalist William Cohan
and private investigator Tyler Maroney. Gentlemen, good to have you on.
WILLIAM COHAN, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND NEW YORK TIME BEST-SELLING AUTHOR: Thank you.
TYLER MARONEY, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, QUEST RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATIONS: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So, William, if I could begin with you. The identity of Satoshi, one of the greatest mysteries in the crypto world. I want to get to the
investigation itself. But first, what was the inspiration to seek the answer to this question?
COHAN: Well, Jim, as you said, it's one of the greatest financial mysteries of the 21st century is who is Satoshi Nakamoto and what is it that he has
created that has become so powerful, worth as much as a trillion dollars in total.
And so, you know, I was working on some other things and I got approached by the producer and the director, Matthew Mealey. And he said, would I be
interested in pursuing this investigation? And of course, as a financial journalist and former investment banker, of course, the answer to that was
yes.
SCIUTTO: Tyler, I was fascinating looking into your methods here, everything from digging deep down into the code behind all this. Can you
explain in layman's terms for our listeners how you carried out this hunt?
MARONEY: Sure. So, it was an exhaustive four-year investigation, Jim, that included not only an analysis of the code that was written in C++, but an
analysis of Satoshi's writings, which included the white paper, emails, Internet posts, as well as interviews with more than 100 cryptographers,
which are computer scientists who design the systems that keep us private and secure. And this is the world from which Satoshi emerged in the early
and mid-2000s.
And so, spending time with these cryptographers who taught us not only about what cryptocurrency could be, but the history of where it came from
and predecessor technologies and the kind of political libertarian thinking that went into it was very valuable to us, because we were able to get
family members, friends, former colleagues of the people that we concluded created Bitcoin to talk to us on camera, honestly, for the first time ever.
[18:45:00]
SCIUTTO: Including spouses. So, these two people are Hal Finney and Len Sassaman. Bill, who are they? Tell us about them.
COHAN: Well, as we've uncovered in this investigation, and as Tyler was alluding to, they are a very important group of part of a very important
group of cryptographers who cared very much about their privacy and were increasingly concerned that financial transactions generally were going to
be taken over more and more by centralized banks and that their privacy would be invaded by banks and then governments.
And so, they were very concerned about keeping that -- those kinds of transactions private. And the more that we -- Tyler especially, I just
would hasten to add that I probably spent a year and a half interviewing all sorts of original people who had invested in Bitcoin and were very
serious about investing in Bitcoin.
People like Michael Saylor and Fred Ehrsam and Katie Haun and Brian Kelly, people like that, who didn't want me to uncover who Satoshi was, which is
why after a year and a half of sort of getting nowhere, we turned to Tyler, a private investigator, to try to help us get beyond that and get into this
cryptography community. And he's probably better to tell you more about these two individuals than I am, to be honest.
SCIUTTO: Well, one of those interviews, Tyler, as you know, was with the widow of Hal Finney, Fran Finney, and this quote stood out to me. She said,
the white paper itself, I didn't think he wrote, but he could have helped making edits for it. So, what you present in the film makes sense to me.
How did the widow's testimony, in effect, their interviews contribute to your ultimate conclusion?
MARONEY: So, I'm glad you brought this point up, because in many ways, the willingness of Fran Finney and also Meredith Patterson, who is the widow of
Len Sassaman, the willingness by them to participate in this film gave it the kind of emotional gravitas that we really wanted it to have.
Because since both Hal Finney and Len Sassaman are no longer with us, we said to ourselves, if we can't interview them, who can we interview that's
credible and can give us the kind of testimony about who they really were and why they may have contributed to this? And so, it was not only Fran
Finney and Meredith Patterson, but the very best friends and close former colleagues of both men, who, by the way, to answer your earlier question,
were brilliant computer scientists who emerged in the 1990s as part of a group of what's called Cypherpunks. And these are mathematicians who
realized that we needed to use computers to help protect our privacy. And that is really the beginning of what Bitcoin was intended to be.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, and that desire for privacy seemed to contribute to this desire to not be known. Bill, as you know, a lot of people have tried
to solve this. John Cario in The New York Times came to, as you know, a different conclusion. And now, the person who he identified as the real
Satoshi, a person named Adam Back, is calling your conclusion odd. What's your response?
COHAN: Well, first of all, people should come to this movie and go to findingsatoshi.com to watch it. But I have nothing but the highest respect
for John Cario. He's one of my journalistic heroes. But his own Adam Back, who he identified as Satoshi, has come out and said he's not Satoshi.
One of the things that I take, and I find that odd, I think one of the things I take great comfort from in this, Jim, is that, as I said in the
trailer of the film, it'd be not like human nature to have an $80 billion fortune and not touch it. And the fact that both Len Sassamon and Hal
Finney are deceased, I think adds to the credibility of our conclusion that this is a fortune that will never be touched. And the fact that Adam Back
is alive and he hasn't touched it makes no sense whatsoever.
[18:50:00]
SCIUTTO: So, let me ask you a very basic question before we go then, Tyler. What happens to that $80 billion or so, and who would have a claim to it?
MARONEY: So, you know, our sources told us, and we believe that the answer is nothing will ever happen to it. Because the only person who could access
it is somebody who has Satoshi's private key, meaning a password used to access those wallets. And actually, fascinatingly, many of the
cryptographers we interviewed told us how common it was for cryptographers to lose their passwords, just like the rest of us. So, that might sound
like a silly answer to your question, but it happens quite often.
The other thing is that we assume that early mining, which is the process by which Bitcoin were created and verified, were created for the purposes
of generating income. But most of our sources told us that that early mining in the first few years was really designed to just test the system,
because Bitcoin had no value early on. So, it was helping to assemble this machine that would become Bitcoin.
SCIUTTO: Well, the documentary is "Finding Satoshi." It is available at findingsatoshi.com. I mean, your own expression of independence, right?
Putting it out there on your own. William Cohan, Tyler Maroney, we appreciate you joining.
COHAN: Thank you, Jim.
MARONEY: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: A new open-source A.I. agent called OpenClaw is drawing major attention across the A.I. world. CNN's Hadas Gold breaks it down.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JENSEN HUANG, CEO, NVIDIA: Every company in the world today needs to have an OpenClaw strategy, an agentic system strategy. This is the new computer.
HADAS GOLD, CNN A.I. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang recently praising OpenClaw, the most popular example of how A.I. is
shifting from something you talk to, to something that proactively works for you.
HUANG: OpenClaw is the number one. It's the most popular open-source project in the history of humanity. And it did so in just a few weeks.
GOLD (voice-over): It's an open-source platform released just in November that lets users run an autonomous A.I. agent locally on their computer.
OpenClaw was created by this man, Austrian developer Peter Steinberger, who was recently hired by the ChatGPT maker OpenAI. Instead of simply
responding to prompts, an OpenClaw agent can carry out multi-step tasks over time. Think of it less like a chatbot and more like a digital
assistant living on your laptop.
JASON MELLER, VP OF PRODUCT, 1PASSWORD: It actually does things. You text it like a coworker and it handles emails, calendar, errands on your
computer. Instead of requesting permission for every little thing, what if OpenClaw just went and did it? And it was really up to the user to decide
whether or not that was good or bad.
GOLD (voice-over): Once installed, OpenClaw is always on. It can keep running in the background as system level software. You give it
assignments, not just questions. And it keeps working on its own within the rules you set, even when you're not watching.
[18:55:00]
For example, it could check a website every day, tracking prices and sending updates automatically. Behind the scenes, OpenClaw connects an A.I.
model like large language models from OpenAI or Anthropic to your personal computer. You can control it through a browser or even remotely through
messaging apps like Telegram or WhatsApp.
HENRY SHEVLIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, LEVERHULME CENTER FOR FUTURE OF INTELLIGENCE: What OpenClaw did was create a pretty easy-to-use framework
for accessing these large language models and integrating them into something like a more coherent agent that could operate really for extended
periods without human input.
GOLD (voice-over): It runs locally on your own device, having direct access to your files if you allow it. And it can take action persistently without
constant input. But with that power comes risk. Because it can access file and take actions, security becomes a major concern.
SHEVLIN: Worries about prompt injection or the idea that someone could include malicious instructions in the way they communicate with OpenClaw
are pretty serious.
MELLER: But we also have to make sure that the artifacts that it's producing are stored in a safe place and that they don't end up becoming
the fodder for a criminal to really blackmail us or to do things to us that previously weren't possible.
GOLD: OpenClaw is one of many new A.I. agent systems. And though the technology is still early, many experts say OpenClaw points to a future
where A.I. agents could fundamentally change how we use computers and how much control we're willing to hand over to machines.
SHELVIN: I do think this is another chat GPT moment. I do agree with Jensen Huang that this is another real paradigm shift, another real milestone.
GOLD (voice-over): Hadas Gold, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Thanks so much for your company. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
