Dozens Of FBI Records Missing From Epstein Files

Tonight on 360, missing records from the Epstein files and the unverified allegations they apparently contain about the president. Also tonight, new backwash from the FBI director's beard-chugging trip to the Winter Olympics and what a whistleblower is saying about his use of the Bureau's private jet. And the most significant law enforcement activity seen in days at Nancy Guthrie's home, just 24 hours after Savannah Guthrie announced a million-dollar reward for information about her missing mom. Good evening. We begin tonight keeping them honest with the name that was not spoken at last night's State of the Union message, Jeffrey Epstein. That and the name that we learned today has turned up in FBI records missing from the Epstein files, Donald Trump. We know this because a numbered evidence log in the Glenn Maxwell case catalogs about 325 FBI witness interviews. But of that number, more than 90 do not appear to be present on the Justice Department's website. And three of those witness interviews are related to a woman who told agents that Jeffrey Epstein had repeatedly abused her, starting when she was approximately 13 years old. She also accused Trump of sexually assaulting her. Now, we should point out here that the president has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, and the White House is calling the allegations, quote, false and sensationalist. The documents related to her testimony with the FBI are not there. So our question to the FBI and the DOJ is, why aren't the documents there? Why have they been removed? And Congress, under the Transparency Act and the subpoena, have a right to see them. So that's the House Oversight Committee's ranking Democrats today. The president, as you know, has been treating the files as the ultimate not guilty verdict. I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I've been totally exonerated. And I've been totally exonerated. I've been totally exonerated on Epstein. Well, you know, I'm the expert in a way because I've been totally exonerated. But I'm the one that can talk about it because I've been totally exonerated. Well, keeping them honest, that might be easier to say if the public had access to everything the federal government has on Epstein, Maxwell and the many powerful people they moved among. Then citizen Trump included, who again says he did nothing wrong. These latest allegations first arose in July of 2019, just days after Epstein's arrest on federal charges. A woman called an FBI tip line. Agents interviewed her two weeks later. during which she told them Epstein had repeatedly abused her at a home he was staying at in South Carolina. The abuse started, she said, when she was about 13 years old. Now, according to the FBI interview record, a form known as a 302, when she showed agents a photo of Trump and Epstein that a friend had sent her, her attorney said that she was, quote, concerned about implicating additional individuals, and specifically any that were well known due to a fear of retaliation. The Maxwell Evidence Log notes three additional 302 forms dated in August and October 2019 related to the same alleged victim, as well as three other sets of interview notes. Now, none of those appear to be present in the files released by the DOJ. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have now said the release files, which took an act of Congress to get released, are not all there is. And it's been more than a year since the attorney general said this on Fox News. Tomorrow, Jesse, breaking news right now, you're going to see some Epstein information being released by my office. It's sitting on my desk right now to review. A truckload of evidence arrived. It's now in the possession of the FBI. It's a new day. It's a new administration. And everything's going to come out to the public. A few days later, a bunch of right wing influencers emerged in the White House. binders labeled the Epstein files phase one. They soon found out there was nothing much new in them. That was February. By July, the Justice Department was trying to slam the door on it all, saying, quote, while we've labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government's possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. A bipartisan slate of lawmakers, including some of the president's Otherwise, diehard supporters were not buying that and set about forcing through legislation mandating full disclosure, of course, over the president's resistance. We have nothing to do with Epstein. The Democrats do. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. You just keep going on the Epstein files. And what the Epstein is, is a Democrat hoax. Is there something incriminating in the file, Venezuela? Quiet, quiet. Well, he finally did sign the bill. but when the deadline came, only a portion of the files came with it. And so what we're doing is we are looking at every single piece of paper that we are going to produce, making sure that every victim, their name, their identity, their story, to the extent it needs to be protected, is completely protected. And so I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. Well, that part about protecting the victims with redactions, that did not happen for some. And though more documents would come out and expose, for example, that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had lied, saying he'd cut ties with Epstein in 2005, they would bring embarrassing revelations about former Harvard President Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who announced his retirement from Harvard today, and lead to the criminal investigations of a British lord and a disgraced former prince. That said, for the most part, the files we've seen have been notable for the absence of names hidden behind redactions, which both Republican Thomas Massey and Democrat Ro Khanna both say conceal potential co-conspirators. And to the files we've seen, you can now add the ones that are missing. Reading now from the Justice Department's statement of them, several individuals and news outlets have recently flagged files related to documents produced to Ghislaine Maxwell in discovery of her criminal case that they claim appear to be missing. As with all documents that have been flagged by the public, the department is currently reviewing files within that category of the production. Should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the act, the department will, of course, publish it consistent with the law. More now from CNN's Kara Scannell. So what more do we know about these files that are not there? So what we found, CNN's investigative team looked into these files. This was first reported by NPR, and we went to see what exactly was here. And it was discovered that there are there were three hundred and twenty five three oh two's that were part of the interview that was turned over to Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers when that investigation was going on and that 90 of them are missing from the public record. And they were able to do this because there were serial numbers attached to each of the files that were in this evidence log. So it was able to go back and see, OK, look for the serial number, search the files and see what's missing and what's there. And the determination that 90 of these 302s, the witness interviews, are not there. And included within that are the three from this woman who said back in the 1980s, she said she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump and then was assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein going back to when she was 13 years old. You know, the White House has called that false and said it's a lie. and it does not appear that the FBI was ever able to substantiate it. There was another file that was also included in this where the FBI says that, you know, there was one person who claimed abuse by Trump, but that person refused to cooperate. So that might have been a dead end. We don't really know because we can't see all of the witness statements in the 302s. But this is part of this practice that the Justice Department's publication of these records. There have been mistakes over redactions. A number of survivors have complained. They then taken files down, redacted names, put them back up. So it's kind of been this clunky process that has kind of undermined the trust in the system that is being felt by survivors, by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. And then when you look and you're able to see that this was about the serial numbers, you can see, well, this should be something they can quickly figure out, and maybe they can search for other serial numbers that are missing. And has the DOJ said anything about why they might not be there? I mean, initially, yesterday, when they were asked about this, they said it could be because these were privileged materials or part of an ongoing investigation or they're duplicates. And then more and more news organizations were reporting about this. And then they came out today saying that they're going to review it. And if any of these files should be made public, that they will make them public. So that's something that will take probably hours, a couple of days till we see. And in the meantime, people are still finding records that are either improperly redacted, photographs that are improperly redacted or more missing files. And then, of course, just the questions. There are about three and a half million that have been released, but the total universe of them is about six million. Right. Kara Skinnell, appreciate it. Thank you. Joining me now is Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton. Congressman, do you see these files as just a mistake as the DOJ was going through millions of pages? Do you think this could have been an intentional omission? How do you see the DOJ's role in this? I mean, the DOJ seems very clearly that they are Donald Trump's personal lawyers. And so I don't think there's any question that this was a mistake or a haphazard omission. They're clearly trying to protect the president here. And to be honest, if these accusations had any semblance of being false, then they would release the records. They would release the records that show that the FBI investigation it pursued came to a dead end, concluded that the allegations were not substantiated. So it's very suspicious that they're covering them up. Do you know if these missing files included, were included in the unredacted collection that was available to members of Congress to view? I don't know. I mean, one of the problems with the unredacted version is it's just so massive, six million documents, that it's very hard to even know where to start if you're looking through it. And then, of course, it comes out that the Justice Department is tracking our searches. So if you as a member of Congress go in and try to understand what's in these files, the DOJ is surveilling your search. Talk about warrantless wiretapping. I mean, this is beyond the pale and it's completely unconstitutional. Congress has a right to see these files as part of our duty under the Constitution to act as a check on the executive. And so as a result of that, there are a lot of members of Congress who are really not able to do the kind of oversight that we should be able to do. And so we just we don't know. Do you trust the DOJ is going to look into this and release anything that they have? It was improperly withheld. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And no one in the world should trust Trump's Department of Justice to do the right thing for anybody except for Donald Trump. I mean, we've heard these stories come out of U.S. attorneys being instructed across the nation that your job is to support the president, to support the president's agenda, not to support the Constitution, not to support the American people, not to support the rule of law, but just protect the president. And that clearly what is happening here And that why you have Trump appearing over a million times in the Epstein files And no one gives a care in the world You know Howard Lutnick was there at the State of the Union last night, just shaking everybody's hands like there's nothing wrong. And yet overseas, you know, a couple of mentions of some British officials, and they're hauled into, they're arrested. I mean, it's a complete double standard here. And it seems that if you're an American in the Epstein class, you can get away with it. If this omission was on purpose and rises to the level of violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, what happens? I mean, is anybody, is anything, can anything be done about that? Well, of course, something can be done, but it requires Republicans who control the House and the Senate to actually have the political courage to go against the president. And when you saw the sycophants on display last night, it's very hard to imagine doing it. I got to praise my Republican colleague, a conservative Republican, no less, Thomas Massey. Congressman Massey has been pushing the administration to do this. He was the co-author of the Transparency Act because clearly this is required. We cannot count on the Trump administration to do the right thing here. And at the end of the day, Anderson, let's not forget that as we go back and forth about all these billionaires and others who seem to be able to get off scot-free, at the end of the day, we're talking about abusing young girls. I mean, we cannot forget the victims here who have never had justice, you know, have never had transparency. And that's why the American people are so upset about this. There seems to be a different set of rules for those in power than for everybody else. Congressman Moulton, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Coming up next, what Julie Kay Brown makes of these latest developments, her groundbreaking reporting, as you probably know, on Epstein led to what we know today. Also breaking news off the Cuban coast, Cuban authorities said they killed four people aboard a Florida-based speedboat. We'll have details. And new police activity at the home of Nancy Guthrie in the wake of Savannah Guthrie's offer of a million dollars for her mom's return. We also know that she may be lost. She may already be gone. This week on The Assignment with me, Audie Cornish. Industry is a show about a lot of things. Yes, finance, failed IPOs, coke binges, sex in the workplace. But it's also a show that asks really big questions like what makes an antihero? Ken Leung is here to talk to us. He's one of those actors like where you think, where have I seen you before? Rush Hour? Lost? But you're never going to forget his performance on HBO's Industry. I've met a lot of people who tell me that I remind them of bosses that they've had. Big time. I'm always quick to say I'm so sorry to hear that. Because he seems to fit some kind of archetype of a boss in this world. Listen to The Assignment with me, Audie Cornish, streaming now on your favorite podcast app. More on our breaking news tonight, a number of developments in the Epstein-Files saga. Economist and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, as we mentioned, announced today that he'll be retiring from Harvard at the end of the academic year amid scrutiny over his ties to the convicted sex offender. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Bill Gates apologized to his foundation staff during a town hall over his own ties to Epstein. Gates reportedly admitted he had two extramarital affairs that Epstein later discovered, but that they did not involve any of Epstein's victims. Meanwhile, questions are being raised about dozens of FBI records apparently missing from the files, including interviews related to a woman who accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her decades ago. The White House called the allegations false and sensationalist, as we've been reporting. Now, some of those missing files could also shed light on the FBI's investigation to convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. For perspective now, we want to go to Julie K. Brown, award-winning investigative reporter for the Miami Herald. Her work was vital in exposing the extent of Epstein's sex trafficking range. She's also the author of Perversion of Justice, the Jeffrey Epstein story. In your view, Julie, why are these apparently missing FBI records so significant? Well, because they represent a complaint that was filed to the FBI tip line in 2019, right after Epstein was arrested, the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York reached out to the public and asked the public for information to help them with their case. And this was one of the tips that was phoned in originally. And then subsequently, it was followed up on. It appears they had interviewed this woman who was allegedly had been assaulted by Trump. At least that was what the tip was. And they did interview her. And she became quite distressed when they started pressing her on the other men, wealthy, powerful men that she had been trafficked to by Epstein. and she sort of broke down and they said, okay, that's enough for today. We'll interview you again. And it appears that they did interview her three other times, but we do not know what the result of that was. President Trump said last week he'd been totally exonerated in regards to Jeffrey Epstein for years, has consistently denied wrongdoing. What more do you want to know about this accuser, her, and her account? Well, I think the public deserves to know whether this account was determined to be, whether it was corroborate or whether it was verified or whether they found her credible. You know, all these tips, I think, are important whenever you have a case as serious as this, which involves the sex trafficking of children. This woman was allegedly 13 years old when this happened. So I think it's important that we just get to the truth. The DOJ now says it's reviewing whether any Epstein files were improperly withheld. Do you think this was an honest mistake? Well, it's hard to know. I mean, you know, I think everybody's going to have a different opinion on that. I personally think that they have omitted a lot of information that doesn't make sense and that calls into question whether they're trying to cover this up. There's been plenty of other things in these files that are completely redacted that shouldn't be redacted. It hurts their credibility, quite honestly. The public is very distrustful of the way the administration is handling this. And I mean, it seems like it seems like these documents were noticed to be missing because of an evidence log that was related to Glenn Maxwell's case. Is it clear to you what light they might shine on the FBI's investigation into Maxwell? Well, it's an interesting aspect of the case that has happened, isn't it? because here they gave this information to Maxwell for her case and they may not have realized or recalled that they had done that and not also realized that this evidence log would have been in the files. It would make people look at this evidence log and find out that there's other things missing. So it is kind of an irony that they may have tried to hide this, but they can't hide it even though they may have tried to. Do you have faith that the missing FBI reports to be found or restored? I think they're going to have to because I think there's too much public pressure. You know, unless they come up with a good reason now, there's always, you know, the possibility that this is still under investigation. And as you know, anything that's still under an open criminal investigation can be withheld even under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So it's possible they might have a good reason for withholding them. Julie Kay Brown. Thanks, Julie. Thank you. Up next, Republican Congressman Tony Gonzalez remains defiant as more lawmakers in his own party call for him to resign him in allegations he had an affair with a younger staffer who ended up dying by suicide. Plus, Democrats calling for an investigation into FBI Director Kash Patel's travel as he faces new accusations from a whistleblower and the questions about his trip to the Olympics. There's new pressure on Texas Congressman Tony Gonzalez to step down, even from some of his Republican colleagues. He's accused of having an affair with the younger staffer, who later died by suicide. But he says he's not going anywhere, as he faces a primary challenge next week in his district. More tonight from CNN's Sunderland, Sir Fadi, and a warning. Some of the details are disturbing. Tony Gonzalez, he's doing fine. He's a disgusting pig. Calls for Republican Congressman Tony Gonzalez's resignation are intensifying, including from members of his own party. I think he needs to go. I just, that's the line. Harassing an employee, a male harassing a female employee, I just can't stomach it, dude. Amid new lewd details emerging of his alleged affair with a congressional staffer, who later died by suicide in September. I think that this is a gross reflection of everything wrong with Washington. Text messages from 2024 obtained by CNN show racy messages between Gonzalez and his then regional director, Regina Santos Aviles. Gonzalez asking her explicit sexual questions and pressuring her for a photo. Then send me a sexy pic, he writes. She responds, this is going too far, boss. So how long have you thought I was this hot? Since you worked at the chamber, he writes back. Santos Aviles' husband discovered the alleged affair and exposed it to her co-workers via text in June of 2024, saying, I just wanted to inform all of you that we will be getting a divorce after my discovery of text messages and pictures that she's been having an affair on me with your boss, Tony Gonzalez, for some time now. He spoke to CNN's Erin Burnett out front. She had been acting a little strange, and that's when I felt like I needed to go through her phone, And that's when I found out about everything that was going on. Over a year later, Santos Aviles died after setting herself on fire outside her home. Do you think that the alleged affair with Congressman Gonzalez was behind her tragic death? He predatorized my wife, you know, and he pushed her to the sense of having an affair. I mean, I made that evident in the messages that are released. The congressman has denied the alleged affair. Are those text messages correct? Are they accurate? I am not going to resign. And remains defiant. And I serve the people of Texas every single day. I serve them yesterday. I serve them today. I serve them tomorrow I serve them the next day I serve them a day after that The allegations are alarming and detestable House Speaker Mike Johnson stopping short of calling for his resignation but did summon Gonzalez into his office Wednesday I've said to him publicly and privately, he's got to address that directly and head on with his constituents. Johnson is balancing a razor-close margin on Capitol Hill, a margin that would become even slimmer if Gonzalez were to go, which would make it tougher for Johnson to advance the GOP agenda. I'm not the Speaker of the House, don't get me wrong, but we've got some very thin numbers. Complicating things further, Gonzalez is in the midst of a tough GOP primary fight against Brandon Herrera, a U2 personality who ran against him in 2024. Gonzalez beat him in a runoff then by just 354 votes. There's a primary there in less than a week. These things will play out, so we're allowing that to happen. And certainly many Republicans up here on Capitol Hill are paying very close attention and looking at the results of Tuesday's primary in Texas, certainly giving voters a chance essentially to settle this and this growing problem that they now have on their hands up here in Capitol Hill. If he wins, of course, this problem simply does not go away from him. For him, we've heard that very vocal cry from many of his Republican colleagues, many women Republican colleagues, most notably from Congresswoman Nancy Mace herself, also a sexual assault survivor. She's promising to likely move on a censure resolution, which is essentially a formal reprimand up here on Capitol Hill. But Anderson, that guarantees that if he wins, this will continue growing into a larger problem for Republicans. And of course, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who is walking this very, very tight rope with their razor close margins and need him to vote to get their agenda forward. Sondland Serpani, thanks very much. FBI Director Cash Patel is also under pressure just days after this. That is him chunking beer and celebrating the U.S. men's hockey team's gold medal victory in Italy last Sunday. He flew there on the Bureau's private jet, a taxpayer expense. As he was partying, his senior staff back home was tracking the outbreak of drug cartel violence in Mexico, and the country was preparing for possible airstrikes on Iran, with all that could mean at home in the way of Iranian reprisals. Now, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin says he's been hearing complaints about the director's travels from whistleblowers who claim that Patel's use of an FBI jet has actually caused delays in certain high-profile investigations. He and others are calling for the Justice Department's inspector general to officially look into it. Those trips, as you know, have included visits with his girlfriend, a golf outing and other hockey games. Even though back when he was a podcaster and someone else ran the FBI, he was saying this. I'm just saying Chris Ray doesn't need a government-funded G5 jet to go to vacation. Maybe we ground that plane. 15,000 every time it takes off. Just a thought. 15,000 every time it takes off. Joining us now, a former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe. Andrew, does the explanation of why FBI Director Patel was in Italy, passed the smell test, in your opinion? They're saying that there was a number of, you know, bureau business he had there. Yeah, not at all. Not at all. That explanation is just patently ridiculous. I can tell you from having been involved in overseeing the FBI's deployment of assets to help secure foreign Olympics, those decisions, those meetings, particularly ones that would require the involvement of the FBI director, they took place a year ago. There's none of those meetings going on the night before the last day of the Olympics. So I think his excuse was ridiculous. And, of course, from the video you're showing now, we can see why he went. That's what he was there for. What was your reaction when you saw this of him wearing the medal, pretending like he's part of the team there? Obviously, it said he's a big hockey fan. He's shown up at a lot of hockey games. What did you think when you saw this, given his criticism of FBI Director Chris Wray for using the FBI plane, which is mandated by law, I believe? It is mandated by law. That was a step that Congress took after 9-11 to ensure that the FBI director always has secure communications capability when he's traveling. But, you know, there's another there's another equally compelling reason that that immediately came back to me when I saw that video, as I know it did to everyone that I served with in the FBI. And that is from your first day in the FBI as an agent, as an analyst or professional staff, you're always told, don't ever do anything if you think it will embarrass the FBI. And that performance was an embarrassment. Look, nobody, everybody's happy about the win of the great American hockey team. And certainly people would love to be there. But the optic is just so terrible. It sends such a terrible message to FBI people that in this time of crisis, maybe on the verge of hostilities with Iran, we have an extended high-profile missing persons case in the case of the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie. All these like very major things are going on. And that's where he chooses to be a taxpayer offense or a taxpayer expense. The whole thing is just a terrible look and it's a terrible message to the FBI people. Especially for a guy who's been, you know, accused of using the FBI jet for a whole, you know, a number of times for questionable things. Date night to attend a performance by his country music singer girlfriend in Pennsylvania. fly her back to Nashville. I mean, are you aware of any previous FBI director doing things like that? Absolutely not. In fact, all of the FBI directors that I worked closely with, so Director Wray, Director Comey, Director Mueller, all of them went out of their way to absolutely minimize the necessity of flying on that aircraft for personal reasons. Sure, They all took some vacation days once a year or whatever, visited their relatives around the holidays. But they always made sure that that plane was available for operational requirements first. The priority in the FBI is always operations. And every director I worked with was happy to cancel business travel or professional travel at any time if that plane was needed for operational requirements. that's just good judgment. And what I see here from this director, having already been talked about in negative ways about his use of the FBI plane, to go ahead and do this in such a high-profile way around the Olympics, it shows a lack of judgment. And that is very concerning. It should concern Americans as to how that poor judgment is affecting his performance as director in many other ways. Yeah. I mean, it's amazing to me as a podcaster, he's, you know, attacking Chris Ray for plane use and does this when he's, you know, when people get in power, it's amazing the things they do that they said they never would. Andrew McCabe, appreciate it. Up next, more breaking news. Cuban forces kill four people who are on a speedboat from Florida, what Secretary of State Marco Rubio is saying about it. And as Andrew McCabe alluded to, new activity today outside Nancy Guthrie's home after her daughter Savannah announces a million dollar reward. Hey, I'm Jesse Palmer, host of The Bachelor, with some exciting news. After more than 20 years of drama, The Bachelor Mansion is getting... Is getting... My bad. A makeover. Your favorite former contestants move back into The Mansion to spill their secrets, refresh rooms, and win the hearts of the judges. Bachelor Mansion... Bachelor Mansion Takeover, special series, March 2nd at 8 on HGTV. More breaking news. Cuba says it killed four people and wounded six others during a shootout with the Florida-registered speedboat. Their nationalities are unknown right now. Here's what Secretary of State Marco Rubio is saying about it. Suffice it to say, it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that. It's not something that happens every day. It's something, frankly, that hasn't happened with Cuba in a very long time. CNN's Cali Atwood joins us now with more. So what else are the administration saying about this, and what have Cuban authorities said, if anything, about the incident? Well, the Cuban authorities were the first ones to announce this. The Interior Ministry saying that this was a shootout that resulted when there was this speedboat that entered into Cuban territorial waters. It was approached by officials from the Interior Ministry trying to get some information about those who were on the boat. And then those on the boat opened fire. They shot at the Cuban authorities, which resulted in this shootout between the two sides, killing, as you said, four of the people on the boat, injuring six of them. The Interior Ministry then said that they brought those who were on this boat that they allege is a vessel that is tagged to Florida in for some medical assistance. The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, traveling with reporters saying tonight, that effectively the United States isn't going to take Cuba's version of events. They're looking into more details right now that the U.S. Embassy in Havana has asked for access to the people who are on that boat to try and figure out exactly what their citizenship is, you know, where they were living, what they were doing. Listen to a part of what he said earlier this evening. I'm very, very confident that we will know the full story of what happened here, and we will know it soon. And then, you know, we'll respond appropriately based on what that information tells us. He also went on to say this is highly unusual. We don't know the intention of the people on the boat, why they were in Cuban territorial waters. Tonight, the Cubans are saying that they were Cubans who were living in the United States, and they were intended to infiltrate Cuba with terrorist purposes. Of course, the United States has not gone that far. We really don't know exactly went down here yet, but the US side is trying to get more information on this. Anderson. Kelly, I would. Thanks very much. In Tucson, Arizona today, new activity at Nancy Guthrie's home after Savannah Guthrie announced that the family is adding a million dollars to the reward for information leading to the return of their missing 84-year-old mom, who's last seen about a month ago. The FBI said that announcement led to 750 new credible leads yesterday. Here's of what Savannah Guthrie had to say. We still believe. We still believe in a miracle. We still believe that she can come home. Hope against hope As my sister says we are blowing on the embers of hope We also know that she may be lost She may already be gone CNN says Lavenderos at Nancy Guthrie's home joins us now. What more do we know about law enforcement activity at the House today? Well, it's not exactly clear. We've reached out to all the authorities, Pima County, pass this off to FBI investigators. FBI investigators have not said exactly what they were up to. In the past, it has been described to us as a routine law enforcement activity following up on various things. And that is something that was evident in weeks past. But this is the first time we've seen this level of law enforcement activity in a little more than a week here in the neighborhood. And it was really significant because it stood out because it comes just 24 hours after savannah guthrie and her family posted the video and the news of the one million dollar reward investigators had told us yesterday that at least 750 credible tips had come in and surged into fbi investigators after the release of that video they wouldn't update anderson specifically how many more credible leads are coming in because of that video they do say that overall since this investigation started they've received about 23 000 tips in all anderson all right ed levendara in Tucson. Thanks. I'm joined right now by CNN law enforcement analyst Jonathan Wackro and former NYPD detective David Sarni. Jonathan, what does it signal that you have authorities back at the House? Well, you know, as Ed had reported, you know, this could be routine. When I looked at the video and you look at just the positioning of the investigators and the others that are involved there, to me, it signaled a crime scene walkthrough, most likely with prosecutors or someone from the U.S. Attorney's Office. It's hard to look into what does this signal, but what it is is really we saw that they were there for a while, they were inside the house, they were walking around the perimeter. So it was really more of a crime scene familiarization that I take away from this. I wouldn't read into this action being a reaction to any of the tips from last night because we just didn't see a lot of the forensic teams there. We didn't see other types of law enforcement activity that you typically would. David, the million dollar reward, I mean, a lot of money. It is a lot of money. And, you know, people may think it's a last gasp. But the reality is when you bring more money into this reward, you will get people who may be unsavory characters, may have known, watched that video, may have known the suspect that was involved in the video that you observed at that time. So, you know, this is the one thing you're going to bring out that broad net and you're trying to bring as many fish in to try to see which one you will take in as net fish being credible. We talked weeks ago about, you know, what if the reward was more. The Guthrie family, I guess, raised the idea of a million dollar reward early on. And I guess some law enforcement told them they were concerned about overwhelming the system, the infrastructure to handle the number of tips that might come in. Just Anderson, stunning that, you know, that was raised weeks ago, because really when you when you take this million dollar reward, what is it doing and who is it for? This isn't for the abductor. This is for someone who's in the abductor's orbit, a friend, a colleague and associate. And you have put such a significant pressure incentive now with this money for them to really break their silence, come forward. Because a million dollars to somebody can be that financial incentive to break free and break that trust bond with somebody and go to law enforcement and say, either you know who the suspect is, you know where Nancy Guthrie is. Imagine if that would happen weeks ago. So to say that you don't have the infrastructure to take on, I want to know why don't you have the infrastructure? You know how significant this case is. Bring in more resources. The federal government has said, you know, they will do everything that they can. So I don't think this is an issue of resources. I think this is an issue of case management. What do you mean case management? Well, how the investigation was going on, like who was in charge, who was actually leading this. It's really the Pima County Sheriff's Department is still the primary investigative unit here. And they're the shot caller on what resources they should or should not bring in. And they're not going to get into a significant argument with the FBI. But really, I think this is a miscalculation from the very beginning by the sheriff's office. They needed to take all available resources, knowing from very early on that you were getting a lot of tips. After that doorbell video, you knew that you were getting thousands of tips. You need to scale up those resources because what we've now, four and a half weeks later, what we have come to understand is that the break in this case is going to be come from the public, not the investigative process as it plays out. David, do you agree with that? Yeah, there's a lot of things. We talk about case manager being one. You could talk about the response to the scene. You could talk about the crime scene itself, the retention of the crime scene, the evidence that's recovered, if recovered, if anything is recovered. Do you think the crime scene was given up too quickly? If I'm the detective, the way I'd feel, I would be banging my head. Because I was frustrated in the sense to see that happen because you never know what it is. And the only place that you have the perpetrator or perpetrators and the victim at one place that you know of is that residence. And that's the important factor because that place has to go stem to stern, top to bottom. And that place needed to be done properly. We don't know how it was done. We're getting the information that they had DNA. Then the DNA is mixed. They're not really sure. There's a lot of unfortunate things. But when you talk about crime scenes and you talk about the basic investigative steps, that crime scene is an interior crime scene. That needed to be held as long as possible until you got everything you wanted to get out of there. David Cerny, Jonathan Wackler, I appreciate it. Thanks. Coming up next, the Pentagon gives Anthropic, the AI company, an ultimatum. Drop your AI safeguards or get frozen out of government contracts. The question tonight, is the company already bending? AI firm Anthropic is ditching its core safety promise in the middle of a fight with the Pentagon. Instead, it's adopting new standards that it calls, quote, non-binding but publicly declared, whatever that may actually mean. This comes a day after Defense Secretary Hegseth gave the company an ultimatum, either remove some safeguards by Friday or risk losing a lucrative $200 million Pentagon contract and potentially be frozen out of billions more. A source close to the matter says today's policy change is not related to that, And a source familiar with the Pentagon talk says Anthropic is not willing to drop two safety principles that the Pentagon wants changed, namely not using AI to control weapons and enable mass surveillance. Perspective now from NYU professor and host of the Pivot and Prof. G podcast, Scott Galloway. So, Scott, Anthropic's loosening its core safety principle. What does that mean in practice? How big a deal do you think this is? Well, I do think it's a big deal. Essentially, this is a race for capital and to establish dominance. And there's kind of an unhealthy feel that there can only be one, so to speak. So these companies are erring on the side of whatever continues to scale their revenues and also taking advantage of what appears to be really lax regulation in a field that the administration wants its thoroughbreds and AI to kind of run unfettered. So they're opting for what they feel is going to help them scale at the expense potentially of privacy or consumer safety. But I would argue almost every AI company is taking that route right now. Do you think this is related to their ongoing negotiations with the Pentagon? Secretary Hegstaff is reportedly threatened to essentially blacklist them if they don't roll back some of the safeguards. Yeah, that's probably part of it. I think that Anthropik's positioning, and I would argue it was smart brand positioning was to kind of be the clean, well-lit space of AI. And just to expand on that, essentially, when the Pentagon and the government start weighing in and trying to pick winners and losers outside of just what are clearly articulated laws, the U.S. markets really suffer. One of the reasons that U.S. corporations are arguably the best performing organizations over the last century, maybe with the exception of the U.S. military, is that we have incredibly deep pools of capital, great IP, great research universities, risk-aggressive consumers. But we start to lose those deep pools of capital when investors don't feel like they understand the rules by which these companies are playing. I mean, is it disappointing to you that, you know, Anthropic has for a long time now been holding itself up to, they said, a higher standard. And now suddenly that they are, I guess, you know, In this incredibly tough competition, they're starting to step away from some of those standards. I mean, it just seems like they got the benefit of being the ones who were, you know, setting themselves apart. But then when push comes to shove and, you know, market dominance or, you know, government contracts are at stake, it would seem like they are choosing to be competitive rather than do what they ethically said that they would. Well, remember, it was just a short, I think, 24 months ago when the CEO of OpenAI said that they would never have porn or have advertising. And both those things have gone away. So if we're waiting on the better angels of these CEOs to show up, don't hold your breath. I would assume that these companies will consistently make whatever decision, regardless of whether it depresses teens or creates existential dangers, to do whatever they believe is going to give them access to cheaper capital and move their stock price up. because this is sort of a war for who gets the cheapest capital. What's needed is thoughtful elected officials who have the domain expertise to regulate these companies and have them compete by a set of rules and regulations, including what might be the existential threats of these companies. I personally think some of the catastrophizing is a bit of narcissism. I'm kind of sick of hearing from former AI executives who write very frightening articles about the peril we face. It's sort of like, well, you built this, then you cashed out, and now you're going to the Cote d'Azur to write poetry. That doesn't help any of us. Maybe you can outline what that peril is and help us fix it. It's like Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster and then pieces out for Ibiza. That's just not very helpful. But I think a safe assumption for all of us is to assume that whatever gets their stock price up and helps them raise money eventually will be the path they take. Scott Galloway, thanks very much. thank you Anderson before we go you can listen to my podcast on grief all there is wherever you get your podcast or on YouTube also at cnn.com slash all there is that's our grief community page tomorrow night you can also join me there for my all new streaming show all there is live we talk to podcast listeners about their grief experiences that's at cnn.com slash all there is thanks for watching the source with Caitlin Collins starts now