Return to Transcripts main page

What We Know with Max Foster

U.S. Justice Department Says No Charges Coming After Friday Release; British PM Wants Former Prince To Testify To U.S. Congress; Sources: U.S. & Iranian Officials Set To Meet In Turkey Friday; Rafah Crossing Partially Reopens After Nearly Two Years; Kennedy Family Slams Trump's Plan To Close The Kennedy Center For Two Years For Renovations; Father And Child Detained By ICE Return To Minnesota; Emails Show Musk Tried Coordinating Visits To Epstein's Island. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired February 02, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:25]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Questions remain after the latest release of Epstein files.

And this is WHAT WE KNOW.

The U.S. Justice Department says no new charges are coming, and it doesn't intend to release any more files related to the late sex offender, Jeffrey

Epstein. But there's still plenty of fallout stretching around the globe.

Here in the U.K., the prime minister, Keir Starmer, calling on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to testify before the U.S. Congress about his

relationship with Epstein after new photos emerged. They show former Prince Andrew leaning over a woman or girl on the floor. It's unclear when and

where they were taken, but he's repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

And Peter Mandelson, who was already fired as British ambassador to the U.S. over his Epstein ties, has resigned from the U.K. Labour Party. He

says he doesn't want to cause it further embarrassment after more revelations surfaced about him.

Let's bring in Stephen Collinson. At this point, because if we look at this from the survivors' point of view, it's pretty dissatisfying. Theres lots

to back up their narrative, but no one to take account for it.

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: That's right. And I think the difference between what's happening in the United Kingdom and what's

happening in the United States in terms of consequence of these releases, is very interesting. I think one of the reasons for that is that the

Justice Department and the U.S. Congress is now solely an operating mechanism of President Donald Trump. And, of course, Mr. Trump has been

mentioned a thousand times in these releases so far, although there is no public evidence to suggest any criminal wrongdoing. And he's denied knowing

anything about Epstein's behavior. But this, I think, shows the difference between the politics of this and the United States and the politics in the

United Kingdom.

The fact that Todd Blanche came out again yesterday and said there will be no charges, I think is causing great upset among the victims. One of the

most extraordinary facts about these latest releases are the fact that many of the victims names were not redacted when they should have been. And you

see these sheets of paper that were released showing massive slabs of redacted type, apart from the name of the victims. That is one reason why

the victims' lawyers have called for all of this stuff to be taken down off the Justice Department website until it can be properly gone through and

proper redactions take place.

But, the truth about this Epstein story as its unfolded over the last six months is that every attempt to get more stuff out by the White House or

the Justice Department to make this go away, only creates a deeper political storm. And I think a lot of that is to do with the nature of

Jeffrey Epstein's network and ties with famous and rich people in the United States and elsewhere.

FOSTER: There has been a report to the police in the U.K. about Peter Mandelson, but that's about this accusation that he was sharing

confidential, market sensitive information from the government with Epstein. So, it's separate from any claims of abuse. But the prime minister

also calling on Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten to testify in Congress.

Another thing, the families and the survivors want because they want, you know, they just want them to share -- they knew what they knew. They were

in that world. They could share information that might be useful even if they don't implicate themselves. But there's nothing is there that Congress

can do to force them to go over.

COLLINSON: Well, no, but they could be asked publicly. And I think in some cases they have been. But the problem here is the committee that is

investigating this in the House is a very partisan Republican-led committee. Later this week, it plans to vote to hold president, former

President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for not answering a subpoena to show up, to give testimony to their committee. Some

Democrats actually voted with the Republicans in the committee to move this to the full House.

But others are saying, well, why are they going after the Clintons when President Trump was mentioned many times, why are other people not being

brought in? Why aren't the victims being brought in to testify in the conditions of Congress, where they can say what they know and they have

some sense of legal immunity there?

So, you know, the -- that's what I mean about the mechanism of accountability. The Justice Department is run by Trump's people still,

although many Republicans revolted against the president last year and voted in Congress to have these disclosures, they are not ready at the

point where they're willing to take on the president and the rest of the administration, which wants this stuff to go away.

[15:05:09]

The problem is, as I said, it never goes away.

FOSTER: Stephen, appreciate it. Thank you so much for joining us.

Epstein survivors outraged at some of their names were exposed in the latest files release. As Stephen was saying, whilst their alleged abusers

remain hidden, survivors lawyers are now asking judges to force the DOJ to take down the files posted online, saying the redaction failures have

triggered an unfolding emergency.

Last hour, one of the survivors' attorneys spoke to CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: I'm wondering whether these survivors are being punished because a lot of the information about the

sexual predators is being protected, but the information about the survivors is exposed. It's out there for all the world to see. We have

asked that our clients' information be redacted. We worked over the weekend, our legal team, and we sent what needed to be redacted to the

Department of Justice.

But it's too late because a lot of people already have downloaded that personal information about the survivors. And this is just unprecedented.

It's outrageous. Shame on the Department of Justice. The people who were hurt were the ones who trusted them. And unfortunately, they couldn't trust

them. They were betrayed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Joining me now, Randee Kogan, who works as a therapist to some of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein.

I mean, they're looking for closure, aren't they? But they just can't seeing -- keep getting more stress from this process.

RANDEE KOGAN, THERAPIST TO SURVIVORS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN: They keep getting revictimized over and over and over again through this process. I mean,

there's so much fear instilled in them. There's anxiety. You know, not every one of their family members knows exactly what happened to them. And

now with their names and identifying information exposed, they're quite petrified that this information is either going to be used against them or

people with whom they were protecting, like family members are going to find out what happened to them. It's unfair.

FOSTER: The Justice Department says it's gone out of its way to redact all their identities. When we, you know, these documents dropped they were

saying that that was the priority. That's why it's taken so long. It just seems like the system isn't working

KOGAN: I don't know who's -- what was a priority to them, but it certainly wasn't redacting their names. There was too much information that wasn't

redacted. And it calls to question, you know, is it the predators that they're protecting? Because for some reason, the survivors are the only

ones who are experiencing consequences throughout this entire process.

FOSTER: Apart from Ghislaine Maxwell, the two big U.K. names are obviously Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Mandelson. Prime minister, pushing them

to testify in congress. They don't have to legally also pushing to take away Lord Mandelson's title.

Do you get the sense that the U.K. appears to be, you know, there's a will here to do more than there is in America?

KOGAN: Absolutely, absolutely. We have seen absolutely no accountability. And with Ghislaine Maxwell we thought that, okay, there's an element of

justice when -- when she was -- when she was charged and then what happened? She was sent to, you know, a prison that made life a little

easier for her. So, the only people who are getting life sentences right now are the survivors, and they are truly suffering through this process.

FOSTER: Do you think if Andrew and Lord Mandelson did appear before Congress, at least it would show that they were putting the survivors front

of mind and not themselves, because, you know, they could presumably, you know, negotiate some sort of deal where they go there voluntarily and they

don't implicate themselves, but at least can shed some light on how Epstein's world worked, which would help your -- your clients.

KOGAN: Absolutely. However, I don't know if the survivors will be holding their breath for that because this wouldn't be the first time that Andrew

indicated that he would cooperate, and he didn't cooperate in the past. So there's a large trust factor right now with, people indicating that they'll

do what's right for the survivors. But so far, they're still waiting for that to happen.

FOSTER: So, what's next? Pushing for the redactions, pushing for the remaining files? You could do as well, couldn't you? Because there are

another 3 million you haven't even seen.

KOGAN: Absolutely. And they're pushing for accountability.

[15:10:02]

They're pushing for exposure. They're pushing for some sort of justice where it is not only the survivors who are the ones who are experiencing

consequences, but there has been hope for 18 years that there'll be some sort of justice for them. And they are still waiting.

FOSTER: I think, for people on the outside, it's quite remarkable. I mean, I'm sure, you know, obviously the survivors have been thinking about this

for some time, but, you know, in this latest tranche of documents, you saw lots of images and, you know, emails and the like, which didn't deliver any

evidence specifically against certain individuals. But every time we get these drops, they reinforce the survivors' narrative and they take away

from the men's narrative every time. And so, it's all heading in one direction. But it must be incredibly frustrating when there isn't any hard

evidence that you can actually implicate any of the individuals with.

KOGAN: Exactly. And they are still having to look at these images, and it triggers flashbacks and memories of being abused by Epstein. And it's --

it's a feeling as if they are trapped and there's nowhere to go. There's nowhere to escape, because everywhere they look, whether it be on TV,

whether it be on social media all over their phone, every electronic device, there is no escaping these photos, these videos of tragedy.

FOSTER: Randee Kogan, I really appreciate you joining us today. I know it's an incredibly difficult week.

KOGAN: Thank you.

FOSTER: Now to other news, and sources telling CNN that top U.S. and Iranian officials are planning to meet in Turkey on Friday. That's as fears

rise over the potential of U.S. military action and a wider regional conflict. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says the military, the

American military, is more than prepared to strike against Iran if a diplomatic agreement on Tehran's nuclear program can't be reached.

In Tehran. CNN senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen spoke with Iran's foreign minister in an exclusive interview.

Here's what he had to say about the possibility of war with the United States, and the latest remarks from President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: So, I'm not concerned about war. What I'm concerned of is miscalculations and I think President Trump is

wise enough to make a correct decision.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How can a meaningful negotiations process be jumpstarted right now?

ARAGHCHI: We have lost our trust to the United States as a negotiating -- negotiating partner. There are now some mediators, some -- some friendly

countries in the region who are trying to build this confidence. So, I see the possibility of another talk. If the U.S. negotiation team follows what

President Trump said, fair and equitable deal to ensure that there is no nuclear weapons.

PLEITGEN: So, if this confidence is built, you are ready and willing to sit down directly with the American side.

ARAGHCHI: No, the question of directly and indirectly is something else. That is the form of negotiation. And we have to -- we have to --

PLEITGEN: That's what they say they want.

ARAGHCHI: Yes. But we have to take care of the substance of negotiation. And that is more important.

PLEITGEN: President Trump says that negotiations are already going on. Would you say that these talks that are going on right now are fruitful?

ARAGHCHI: So far? Yes. Fruitful.

PLEITGEN: Things like enrichment things like ballistic missiles, things like proxy forces in the region. Is that completely out of the question for

you, or is that something you could at least talk about?

ARAGHCHI: President Trump said no nuclear weapons. And we are fully agree. We fully agree with that. That could be a very good deal. Of course, in

return, we expect sanctions lifting. So that deal is possible. Let's do not talk about impossible things.

PLEITGEN: What do you think the consequences would be if there was a full on military confrontation between Iran and the United States?

ARAGHCHI: If war starts, that would be a disaster for everybody. In the previous -- in the previous war, we tried hard to limit the scope of scope

of war between Iran and Israel. This time, if it is between Iran and the U.S., since the U.S. bases are spread all over the region, then inevitably

you know, many parts of the region would be involved, engaged, and that could be very dangerous. Being prepared doesn't mean that we want war. We

want to prevent a war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Well, the Rafah Crossing between Gaza and Egypt is partially reopened. Meanwhile, it's been closed for nearly two years, but the number

of people allowed through extremely limited. Egypt's state linked news affiliates say no more than 50 people will cross in each direction per day,

at least in the beginning.

[15:15:10]

Passing through the crossing has historically been expensive, though it's unclear whether a toll is currently in place.

Nic Robertson has more now from Jerusalem.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): For a lucky few of Gaza's war wounded, a day they've dreamed of, boarding buses

in Gaza to take them to treatment in Egypt. Fareed Halid al-Qazzaz (ph) hoping he'd make it across.

"We want proper, lasting treatment," he says. "We are people who want life and love peace."

The once bustling Rafah border post, closed by Israel 20 months ago and still controlled by them, opening for the first time. According to Gaza's

ministry of health, an estimated 20,000 Gazans need medical treatment outside of the war torn enclave.

Ibrahim al Batan is war wounded and needs dialysis, is hoping to get out soon to.

"There used to be a hospital in the north, another in the city center. All of them destroyed," he says. "I came out of intensive care two days ago.

There's no treatment at all. So, what am I supposed to do?"

On the Egyptian side, more hopefuls, Gazans who fled the war desperate to go home, facing Egyptian, then E.U. and then IDF controls before they're

free to reunite with loved ones.

Omar Zared (ph) left with a sick relative last year and is desperate to go back. "I own a piece of land," he says. "But when the war began, it was too

dangerous to work there. And now I struggle for regular contact with relatives."

Israeli officials said the border could only reopen once the remains of the last hostage was returned. That was a week ago. But Rafah is far from back

to pre-war business as usual. No trucks crossing and for now, only a few dozen carefully vetted Gazans able to do so.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Now, several members of John F. Kennedy's family are slamming President Donald Trump's plan to close the Kennedy Center for renovations.

The president says the performing arts venue will be closed for two years, while the reconstruction takes place. In December, the board of trustees,

stacked with his allies, voted to rename it the Trump Kennedy Center.

Joe Kennedy says -- Joe Kennedy III says President Kennedy would remind us that it's not buildings that define the greatness of a nation. It's the

actions of its people and its leaders.

Kevin Liptak is at the White House.

Two years, incredible -- incredibly long time. It must be a huge project.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. And it certainly seems like longer than you would need to change out the seats, for example,

in the Opera House, or change some of the rigging backstage, which is what, until now we had understood would be the parameters of this renovation.

You know, two years is quite a long time. And so, I think it's opened a lot of questions about what precisely President Trump might be planning here.

He said that it would be, quote, "construction, revitalization and complete rebuilding" because, in his words, the building was broken and dilapidated.

You know, Congress has already allocated more than $200 million for this project. And so, I think, you know, what comes out of this two years from

July 4th of this year remains to be seen.

I think the other sort of backdrop to the president's announcement here is what had been going on at the Kennedy Center over the last year or so. Of

course, as President Trump took over the institution, as he stacked the board with his loyalists, as he put his own name on the building, you also

saw a number of acts drop out of the Kennedy Center, most recently, Philip Glass, the composer who had been commissioned to write a symphony for the

United States's 250th birthday but later said just last week that he would be unable to follow through on that because of what he said were the

viewpoints of the administration.

You also saw ticket sales and bookings sort of drop precipitously. Just, you know, anecdotally, when you go to the Kennedy Center its sort of half

full. You know, institutions like the national symphony orchestra. You know, I was there last week. The theater was only half full, which is very

rare.

In the past, you know, Washington is a city that tends to support these kinds of things. And so I think it was clear that the administration under

President Trump, which, by the way, had no experience in arts administration, was having some difficulties booking the facility and also

selling tickets to it.

[15:20:10]

And that seems to have been one of the backdrops, at least to the president's decision to close it for two years and to engage in this

renovation.

Now, the president has been actively involved in all of this. You know, you've seen him, for example, instruct the building to paint the columns on

the outside gold. He has also, you know, weighed in on social media about the armrests in one of the theaters. So, he is actively involved in trying

to renovate the building to his specifications. But certainly, I think the precarious condition of its finances, as evidenced by some of the troubles

it's had selling tickets, certainly has to be taken into consideration as well.

FOSTER: Okay, Kevin, thank you.

Coming up, a father and his five-year-old son swept up in a U.S. immigration raid, a release from a detention center. What comes next in

their asylum case when we return?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: The five-year-old boy who was taken into custody last month in Minneapolis, has been released from detention. On Sunday, Ecuadorean Liam

Conejo Ramos and his father were released from a facility in Texas. They were taken to ICE custody last month and are now back in Minnesota, the

family's attorney says they are in the U.S. legally as they pursue a claim for asylum.

Whitney Wild is in Chicago.

I mean, they've become real standard bearers, haven't they, for a lot of people.

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: It has become such an important story, and it was that image of that little boy with the hat and

the floppy ears and the Spider-Man backpack. He looked like any other child on any other day, except he was standing outside of a salt-stained law

enforcement vehicle, it appeared, with the federal agents hand on his Spider-Man backpack.

As you mentioned, we now know that they are home.

[15:25:01]

The judge in this case issued a really scathing order and basically called the Trump administration's actions here bereft of human decency, and said

that they were ill-conceived and incompetently implemented and said that this was all just an effort to reach an arbitrary daily quota that took

nobody, you know, took the ramifications or did not take the ramifications into account. And basically, the order said that it risked even

traumatizing children and yet suggested that the administration did not care about that.

The order made very clear that Liam and his father were to leave custody. It was a short order. It was very sharp, and it ended with two references

to the Bible. The final reference was simply, "Jesus wept".

Moving forward, it is not clear what lies, you know, ahead for them. Their home in Minnesota, but their immigration case is still in limbo, and the

DOJ has made clear that they think there is a potential for an appeal here, saying that insofar as the judge's order leaves that open, you know, if

there is an opportunity to appeal his order, they will. And so, while they are home for now, their fate is certainly in question, Max.

FOSTER: Okay. Whitney Wild, appreciate it. Thank you.

Still to come, why? The British prime minister says it's time for a former prince to testify to the U.S. Congress. We'll have details coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: U.S. House Rules Committee has a meeting scheduled in about half an hour from now, considering a number of critical items, including a rule

for a vote on the funding package that would keep the government open, as well as a resolution to hold former President Bill Clinton and former First

Lady Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress.

[15:30:08]

The Clintons have refused to comply with subpoenas involving the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is now calling on former Prince Andrew to testify to the U.S. Congress about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein. It

comes after new pictures were released from the Epstein file, showing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on the floor with an unidentified woman. Newly

released emails also show Mountbatten-Windsor continued talking with Epstein even after Epstein pled guilty to soliciting sex from a minor.

So, what we want to know is, can Congress force Andrew to testify about Jeffrey Epstein?

Joining me now is Shira Scheindlin, a former U.S. district court judge.

Thank you for joining us. I think the strict rule is that, you know, they have no jurisdiction over someone in the U.K., but I'm wondering if they

could push for this now. They have support, at least for the British prime minister.

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: No, I don't think so. He's clearly not in the U.S. He's not a U.S. citizen. There's no

way to compel a person in the U.K. to come to the U.S. unless they're willing to do it voluntarily. And I take that to be the point of Starmer's

statement. He's basically saying to the prince, you ought to agree to do this, but I can understand why he wouldn't be anxious to do it, given what

these pictures show. And his relationship with Epstein.

Now, with respect to the Clintons, which you had mentioned a moment ago in your introduction, you know, they did agree to testify. They just asked for

certain conditions to do it in their office, and it would be recorded. So, they had agreed. But I think that the congress, the majority of the

Congress, the Republicans, wanted to make this into a political theater and make sure that it was public and everybody could see it on tv just to

humiliate the Clintons and take the pressure off of Trump.

And so, they're now trying to hold them in, hold both of them in contempt. And that's -- that's the problem of why I would not think the former prince

would want to come voluntarily.

FOSTER: I'm wondering if there's a halfway ground here in that they allow him to come over. He doesn't have to implicate himself. He just has to give

information that might be useful for the investigation in relation to Epstein's world, that he was clearly very much part of.

SCHEINDLIN: Well, it's theoretically a possibility, what you describe. But that means you have to trust the Republican leadership in this conference

and in this Congress. And I don't think the trust is very high these days. So, if somebody says they're going to make an arrangement with you, I'd

sure want to see it in writing and signed by the speaker of the house, because otherwise there'd be no reason to trust them. Andrew's theoretical

halfway point. Yeah.

FOSTER: Yeah, I think the issue here is that Andrew has consistently failed to, you know, mention the, you know, Epstein's victims first

throughout. And this is something that they want him to do. So, it's something that he could do for them, which may be his only hope of any sort

of rehabilitation.

So I'm wondering if, you know, away from all the politics that you're talking about. It's a -- it's a solution for him to try to help the

survivors.

SCHEINDLIN: Well, you said mention the victims. That would mean that you assume he actually knows the names or ages of some of these women at the

time, years ago. And I don't know that he does.

FOSTER: I don't say that. It's just the way the world operated. They just want, you know, he saw sides to it that the women didn't see and how it

worked. And that might be useful for the investigation.

SCHEINDLIN: I understand your point. I'm just saying he may -- he may not have any knowledge of their names or their ages, really who they were. You

see the picture of that girl on the floor? It's very likely he has no idea who she is.

So it's a tough situation because if you come and say, I don't know who that is, they're going to say you committed perjury. They won't believe

you. And that's a real problem. When talking about the political theater that I mentioned, you almost can't give testimony that you think is

truthful, that they don't think is truthful. You\re putting yourselves in the crosshairs.

FOSTER: Just on the Clintons, if they're found to be in contempt, what does that actually mean?

SCHEINDLIN: Well, in theory, it could mean a jail sentence until you can purge the contempt, but you can't purge a criminal contempt. You can only

purge a civil contempt. And I think they're talking about criminal contempt here. So theoretically, there would be a possibility of going to jail, but

I don't believe that will happen. No way do I believe that.

FOSTER: Are you concerned that, you know, Congress, you know, obviously central part of your legal system you know, other people will look at the

way the Clintons are behaving and just say, oh, it's just political theater.

[15:35:02]

I'm not going to appear.

It kind of undermines the whole system, doesn't it? Even if you, as you say, the Clintons may have a point.

SCHEINDLIN: Well, I said the Clintons were prepared to testify. They --

FOSTER: On their own terms. It doesn't really work like that, does it? You know, it's how, you know, Congress should be not because it's a

congressional committee.

SCHEINDLIN: Sorry, one of one of the arguments the Clintons have made is that they've made exactly those agreements with people they favor, but they

wouldn't do it for the Clintons. So with Republican higher ups, they've agreed to all kinds of conditions in testifying. So it's not -- it's not

unheard of to not do it publicly at the Congress, at the physical location, with the television cameras rolling. It's not required.

So, they have made arrangements with others and they're treating them differently, probably because they're Democrats and not Republicans, and

putting pressure on a former Democratic president of the United States takes the focus off President Trump.

FOSTER: So if they're found in contempt and they end up in prison, you know, it's the ultimate sort of sanction. They may still not actually

appear before the committee, presumably.

SCHEINDLIN: Well, well, that's true, too. But I told you already that some judge has to make that determination. It's a criminal case. It goes to

trial. There's a trial. The contempt is found. All that Congress does is recommend a contempt prosecution. The prosecution is brought, the trial is

held, the judge decides and the judge decides on the sentence.

And knowing the judges in the D.C. district court, I'm telling you again, it is highly unlikely that a former president of the United States is going

to be sent to jail for contempt when he was prepared to testify on the record.

FOSTER: Okay, well, we've got the House Rules Committee meeting very soon. So we'll wait to see what they come up with. Sure. I really appreciate your

time as ever. Thank you.

SCHEINDLIN: My pleasure.

FOSTER: Now, the final moments of trade on Wall Street and U.S. stocks are higher. The Dow firmly in the green back above 49,000.

This is our Business Breakout.

Donald Trump says he's agreed to a trade deal with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and will cut some India tariffs.

Mr. Trump says India has also agreed to stop buying Russian oil and will instead buy more from the United States or Venezuela.

Meanwhile, it's been a day of big volatility on the markets. Some of the most popular trades of recent weeks have turned sour, with bitcoin failing

more than falling rather more than $7,000 and South Korean stocks falling 5 percent. Investors are blaming geopolitical uncertainty and worries over

A.I. spending.

A firm backed by the United Arab Emirates bought nearly half of the crypto company founded by the Trump and Witkoff families. That's according to "The

Wall Street Journal". The investment firm reportedly bought a stake worth half $1 billion in World Liberty Financial, just days before Donald Trump's

second inauguration.

"The Journal" says the Trump and Witkoff families received more than $200 million from the deal. The White House insists there's no conflict of

interest.

Elon Musk is denying any wrongdoing after records show he exchanged multiple emails with Jeffrey Epstein about visiting one of his islands. The

files show Musk tried in 2012 and 2013 to coordinate a trip to the island. He had previously claimed to have rebuffed Epstein's attempts to have him

visit.

Now, over the weekend, he insisted he had never attended Epstein's parties nor visited his island, nor done anything wrong at all.

Hadas Gold joins us now.

I guess there's nothing to prove. He went to the island, but there does seem to be evidence that he wanted to go to the island. But you tell us

what he's saying.

HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, based on what Elon Musk had said in the past, he made it sound like Jeffrey Epstein had been

begging him to go to the island, had repeatedly tried to invite him, and that Elon Musk kept rebuffing. Now what we're seeing, according to some of

these emails that have been released by the Department of Justice, is that there are several emails showing a back and forth between -- a very

friendly back and forth between Jeffrey Epstein and Elon Musk, specifically about trying to coordinate when they meet up at these Caribbean islands.

In one of them, in 2012, Jeffrey Epstein invites him, says, come visit me on the island, bring your friends and Mr. Musk replies, sounds good. We'll

try to make it.

In 2012 again, there seems to be even a more concrete plan. Jeffrey Epstein writes, how many people will you need for the heli for the helicopter to

the island? Elon Musk says the next day would be just him and his then wife, Talulah Riley.

Then he writes, what day/night would be the wildest party on the island in 2013. So then a year later, a year later, Elon Musk's email, Jeffrey

Epstein saying that he'll be in the area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit? Then they have some exchanges trying to figure out which day

would work best. Musk says that he would need to fly back to Los Angeles.

It's not exactly clear that Elon Musk ever actually made it to the islands, and he says over and over again that he never actually went to the islands,

that he never stepped foot on Jeffrey Epstein's plane and said that he never attended any of these parties or did anything wrong at all.

[15:40:02]

And he has been posting constantly on X over the past few days, saying nobody has fought harder for the full release of the Epstein files and

prosecutions of those who abused children more than I did. But what's kind of ironic in all of this is, if you remember, in the height of the feud

between Elon Musk and President Trump, back when Elon Musk left the White House, he dropped a big bomb, he said on social media and claimed that

President Trump himself was in the Epstein files.

He, of course, later deleted that post. And then they made up and were friends. But this goes to show you that there's a lot of people implicated

in the or at least who are mentioned in these files, including Elon Musk himself.

But Musk has continued to say that Epstein hounded him relentlessly to go to his island, and he always declined. But once again, these emails do show

that there was at least a friendly back and forth between the two men. And I should note, these were in 2012 and 2013. These are years after Jeffrey

Epstein's first conviction for being a sex offender.

FOSTER: Okay, Hadas. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Still to come, the mother of a popular news anchor is missing. Officials said a crime may have been committed. Details on the search for Nancy

Guthrie after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Police are appealing to the public for help to find the mother of NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie, who host "The Today" program. A family

member reported Nancy Guthrie missing on Sunday from her home in Arizona, and police say the 84-year-old's home is now considered a crime scene.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS NANON, SHERIFF, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: We saw some things at the home that were concerning to us. We believe now, after we processed that crime

scene, that we do, in fact have a crime scene, that we do, in fact have a crime. And we're asking the community's help. This is a 84-year-old lady

who suffers from some physical ailments has some physical challenges, is in need of medication.

[15:45:08]

Medication that if she doesn't have in 24 hours, it could be fatal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Josh Campbell joins us now.

I mean, they're against the clock. I mean, it's frightening what he just said.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Time is critical, as the sheriff said, because of the medication issue. This is someone who they say

didn't leave on her own accord. They're calling this now a crime.

Authorities gave little information about what actually led them to make that conclusion. They're keeping that information close to the vest right

now, not saying what they actually found after processing the scene. It also raises the question if it's a crime, a crime committed by whom? They

haven't indicated that they have any possible identity of a potential suspect.

What they are doing is asking members of the public, particularly those in and around that neighborhood, to proactively look through things like Ring

camera footage, any type of home security, surveillance footage that people might have just to see if they can see an individual coming and going.

They're also employing technology, including license plate scanners, in order to try to determine if there was indeed a suspect vehicle that may

have come to the residence and then departed, as this all happened.

As you mentioned, she was last seen by family members on Saturday, but it wasn't until Sunday when she didn't show up in church that the family got

concerned, called authorities. They worked throughout last night. Max, this large search party trying to find her, sadly, to no avail. And so, you

know, obviously, this has taken now a dire direction, not just a missing person's case, but authorities now saying they believe this was a crime.

FOSTER: What did you make of the language of the sheriff there describing it as a crime scene? But he wasn't filling in any of the gaps. I mean, what

would the working assumption be in a situation like this?

CAMPBELL: Yeah, it's interesting. In each of these investigations, authorities always have to make that calculation. How much information do

we share with the public and how much do we actually keep close hold? Because if you were on the cusp of potentially identifying a suspect and

then you want to identify where that person is located, oftentimes that's not information that authorities will actually put out there because they

want to have the element of surprise if they are able to actually identify who may be responsible for this disappearance.

But again, it's always a balance. You know, obviously the public wants information. We do see police there proactively pushing out her image,

asking them to provide any type of information, Max. Authorities are saying that no tip is too small right now.

If someone was in that area, they saw something that was maybe a little off, that was a little suspicious. They want people to err on the side of

calling police. They're still very much an information gathering mode as they try to determine what happened here.

FOSTER: Okay, Josh, appreciate it. Thank you.

CAMPBELL: You bet.

FOSTER: Now, still to come, Bad Bunny and Kendrick Lamar were big winners at the Grammy Awards. But there was a prominent political theme of the

night. You can imagine what it was.

Next, how artists use the event to take on U.S. immigration policies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:50:42]

FOSTER: The music world's biggest night was held on Sunday in L.A., and U.S. immigration policies were making just as many headlines as the

winners. Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny was already guaranteed to have a big week with his Super Bowl half time show next Sunday. But first, he took

home three Grammys and had this message for ICE.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BAD BUNNY, MUSICIAN: Before I say thanks to God, I'm going to say ICE out.

We're not savage. We're not animals. We're not aliens. We are humans, and we are Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Stephanie Elam standing by. I know you thought it was a great show, but you must have found the politics fascinating, too.

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was expected, Max. I interviewed the head of the recording academy earlier in the week, and he said that he

expected that the artist would probably say something when they got on stage. He said, by definition, musicians are vocal. And so, he expected

that.

And we've seen that at the Grammys previously, so it wasn't a surprise. Maybe. What was a surprise that some of the people who are wearing "No ICE"

pens or these little white pens that said "No ICE" on them, and black capital letters. You saw Justin Bieber wearing it, Hailey Bieber, his wife.

You saw many of the performers wearing them. You see them in the audience.

So, they did stand out. It was a small there you go. Youve got an example right there of Joni Mitchell.

So, you see these "ICE Out" buttons that were everywhere. And many people did take to the stage and mention it.

You did hear from Billie Eilish, who has been very vocal about how celebrities need to speak their mind and stand up against what they think

is wrong, and what's happening here in the United States. And she at one point said no one is illegal on stolen land, so it was definitely present.

Trevor Noah's jokes were definitely touching in on the president of the United States as well, which the Trump -- the president has then posted a

social media message about saying that he might sue him. So, these are all -- none of this is, I don't think, surprising to anyone. What I will say,

though, if you move away from that and go to the music, it was a fantastic night for music. It was one of the most entertaining shows in recent years.

It was super full of music from many different genres, and they were just very creative about how they did things. For example, the in memoriam was

awesome. It started off with Reba McEntire singing. You thought it was going to be a standard in memoriam, but then they go to stage and they have

Ozzy Osbourne's picture up, and then you have the likes of Slash and Chad Smith on stage, along with Post Malone. And Andrew watt all getting on

stage and playing "War Pigs" from Black Sabbath, honoring Ozzy Osbourne.

And then they went from there to another side of the stage where you had Lauryn Hill leading the memorial tribute to Roberta Flack and D'Angelo, who

both passed away last year. You had John Legend on the stage. You had Lalah Hathaway, you had so many great people.

Chaka Khan was on the stage. It was just phenomenal. Raphael Saadiq, who is also up for an Oscar this year for his work in "Sinners". So, you just had

amazing artists come together. And at the very end, Wyclef Jean came up who, you know, was part of the Fugees with Lauryn Hill, and they did the

original version of "Killing Me Softly", which is Roberta Flack song, and then transitioned into the Fugees version.

It was a full-on concert. It was amazing fun to watch and so much history was made to last night.

You mentioned Bad Bunny, his album is the first Spanish language album to win album of the year, so that was phenomenal for him.

And Kendrick Lamar, who had the most nominations. Nine walked away with five Grammys. He's now the most winning rapper in history of the Grammys as

well.

FOSTER: Yeah, those -- I mean, that's the headlines I was saying about those two. It's incredible night for them, wasn't it? I mean, the music's

good. As you point out, Steph, we should be talking about that, shouldn't we? Thank you.

Finally, tonight, you'll now have to shell out a few euros to get up and close to toss a coin in Rome's Trevi Fountain. It seems tourism officials

are hoping the fee, just more than $2, will curb the massive crowds who throw coins, take selfies and linger around.

[15:55:02]

Residents don't have to pay. Entrance is free to all during overnight hours, so pick your moment to throw your money.

And if you think you can duck barriers or chuck some coins from a distance, well, a city official says patrols are on the way, probably wearing

helmets.

Leaving you with a view of another Italian landmark. And this is the Milan Cathedral, the Duomo. The city is getting ready to host the Olympics

beginning later this week. Look at that.

I'm Max Foster. That's WHAT WE KNOW. Stay with CNN. We'll have more in just a moment.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS