Sheriff: Nancy Guthrie’s Family Members Are Not Suspects

Tonight on 360, calling them victims plain and simple, the local sheriff clears Nancy Guthrie's family and her disappearance now three weekends ago. Also tonight, is it one of his? Waiting for word and DNA testing on whether a glove found near the crime scene is one of the gloves that this guy is wearing, whoever he is. And later, he is the first to have put up with anything like it from his successor. Former President Obama weighs in on a Trump social media post depicting him and the former First Lady as apes. Good evening, everyone. John Berman here in for Anderson. A significant development tonight in Nancy Guthrie's case, especially to her family. A statement from the Pima County Sheriff late today. To be clear, he writes, the Guthrie family, to include all siblings and spouses, has been cleared as possible suspects in this case. The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel. The Guthrie family, he adds, are victims, plain and simple. Now, we do not hear much on a daily basis from officials at all here, so the fact they are speaking on this is notable and appears to be aimed at online speculation pumped up by true crime influencers. A longtime friend of Savannah Guthrie's, who wanted to remain anonymous, hinted at the toll it has taken, telling CNN, quote, let's hope this puts an end to the reckless and malicious nonsense. As for the only suspect we know of so far, this guy, the FBI says that a glove found near the home appears to match one that he is wearing here. DNA from it is being analyzed as we speak. Also today, the president weighed in, telling the New York Post that whoever took Nancy Guthrie should face the death penalty if she is not found alive. And last night, daughter Savannah appealed one more time for her mother's return in a new video. It's never too late. And you're not lost or alone. And it is never too late to do the right thing. In a moment, our criminal justice team on what that message says to them. And first, CNN's Ed Levandera with more from Tucson. Ed, is it clear what prompted the sheriff to publicly clear the Guthrie family like that? Again, you know, we should stress no one in law enforcement had ever suggested they were involved. Right. And, you know, we are now more than three weeks into this or more than two weeks into this investigation, the beginning of the third week. And I think the way you kind of talk about it there at the beginning is probably in large part what is driving the sheriff to make this statement today. But we do know that investigators have taken a very close look at the Guthrie family, presumably, because they were members of the family were the last to have seen Nancy Guthrie alive. Sheriffs had told us very early on it was a family member that dropped Nancy Guthrie off here at her home that Saturday night before she was abducted from her home. So obviously that is part of the detective work and the investigative work that needs to be done. But over the last few weeks, this has taken on a life of its own. And presumably the sheriff has gone through or investigators have gone through the efforts to check all the alibis, to check all of that information. We have seen investigators going in and out of Savannah Guthrie's sister's home, which is just several miles away from where we are. So it is significant that the sheriff is coming out and saying that not only are they victims, but they have been cleared in this case because until now, investigators have said nobody has been cleared, that they're keeping everything open because they simply don't know who this suspect is. But they essentially said that what has been speculated about several family members online is simply, quote, cruel, John. So, Ed, when do authorities expect to get the DNA results back on this glove? As far as we know, it could be any time. We had hoped it would be today, and that also could be a very significant thing as well because the DNA from that glove that was found about two miles from Guthrie's home does contain DNA. We know that the sheriff told me a few days ago that there was also DNA discovered here on the property of Nancy Guthrie. So if those two DNA tests match, that could lead them to something. So somebody, they would have to put that DNA sample into a database and hopefully that could deliver them a name, someone to lead on. But it also is confirmation. It could if it isn't someone who's matched up in a database, it also pinpoints them to possible route leaving the neighborhood where Nancy Guthrie lives. So it could be significant. It also could end up being nothing at this point. John. Ed Lavender for us in Tucson. Thank you so much, Ed. We're joined now by our law enforcement team, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McKay, former Secret Service agent Jonathan Wackrow, and CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller. And John, let me just start with you. As I noted, you know, we don't hear a lot from officials down there, from Pima County officials. We heard from them on this. What does it tell you they put this statement out today, clearing the family? I think it means that they've been in contact with the family every minute of every day in the course of this case. they have felt their angst about this speculation and online theories and so on with nothing behind it. And they did the thing they could do, which is they came out with a definitive statement saying, you know, and this is the same sheriff who said early on in the investigation, well, everyone's a suspect because it was early on. They've had plenty of time to vet alibis and go back. I think it was a good time for them to say all of these people have been cleared. Andrew McAve, what, if anything, does that change in the investigation now? Or it could have been that they did this several days ago and just didn't tell us. Yeah, John, I think that's likely. I think that what John said just now is absolutely right. This is probably an effort really meant to prop up the family, to give to give them a kind of a vote of confidence to try to dissuade and shield them from some of this relentless criticism that some of the family members are getting online. And, you know, let's remember, they need to keep a productive, open and trusting relationship with this family. They need the family to do things like we saw today with another video that came out from Savannah Guthrie today. So doing whatever they can to keep the family in a less horrible place is a big part of their job of managing this this this crisis right now. Yeah, this video that we saw, the new Savannah Guthrie video came out last night. Jonathan, where are they, do you think, in this investigation? I know that's a big question, but on a day-to-day basis, we seem to have a new focus. It's a new video, it's a new glove, it's this, it's that. But where does that leave things? So, John, the way that I'd characterize the current state of the investigation is really unsolidified. What we have right now is, or more to the point, what we don't have is we don't have a person of interest, we don't have a suspect, and we really don't have a working motive behind why was Nancy Guthrie actually taken. What we do have is law enforcement, both at the federal and local level, working together to build out a really precise evidence matrix. And that's all we have to go off of right now. And that evidence matrix to date is really rooted in the foundational elements of the release of that video. Because if you look at everything, it has a nexus back to the release of that video. the surgeon tips, the glove that was found matching. The reason why we're even looking at this glove is because we saw in the video that the suspect had a glove on. We look at the backpack. We look at the clothes coming out of Walmart. All these threads are coming from that video. So right now, investigators are building out this matrix. They're also getting additional video evidence that may be out there, other statements asking for the public's assistance, all of which will help now solidify either a person of interest or hopefully a suspect, all with the aim of finding Nancy Guthrie. Sort of sets up concrete contours. Exactly. And you put the investigation in that more solid space. I get what you're saying with that. John, we're going to jump into the glove and the DNA testing a little bit more extensively in a moment. But first, you know, one thing Ed said was interesting. We're expecting to get the results back today or tonight. Do you think we'll learn when we get them back necessarily, or is that the type of thing they might want to keep to themselves for a bit? Depends on what the result is. It'll be easy to tell us that it came back that there's no record in the system for it and that it's another unknown contributor. It will be interesting to tell us that it matches the one at the house and it's an unknown contributor. But if they have a match that goes to a name, I don't think we're going to hear that, and for the right reasons. Right. Anna McKay, this new video from Savannah Guthrie, whenever they release a video, I feel like we have to assume that every word, every phrase is so carefully parsed. And twice she repeated in a pretty short video, it's never too late. It's never too late. Why do you think those words were chosen in a video that went out last night? john ever you're absolutely right about the involvement of the investigators and the professionals who have done this more than anyone else probably in this country fbi agents and others who are advising the family on how to stage these videos how to record them what to say each one of these videos along this horrible experience has delivered a slightly different message and i think the message that we're getting from this video it's almost an acknowledgement of the fact that kind of like John Wackrow just said, we're not 100 percent sure of what we have here. If you assume, for instance, that the original ransom demands were not legitimate because they certainly didn't conform to any sort of normal ransom demand, no proof of life, no active communication with the family, then without those, we really haven't had a ransom demand. So today's or yesterday's message by Savannah Guthrie is a direct appeal to whoever might have Nancy Guthrie and basically saying, look, if you got into something over your head and now you're in a situation where you don't know how to get out of it, you don't know what to do, there is a path here. There is forgiveness. There is redemption. We just want our mother back. It's a long shot, but I think it's a creative and potentially effective appeal. You know, Jonathan, Andrew has kept using that word ransom. Ransom. I mean, does any of this comport to the normal types of ransom cases that you see? No. Three weeks in, it does not. Not in any form or shape. And the reason being is that a ransom, a kidnap for ransom is a transaction. I have something you want. You give me money. I give that back to you. We're not seeing the basic rudiments of a transaction. What we're seeing is other individuals that are out there that are muddying the waters, that are distracting investigators. But this does not appear at all to be a kidnap for ransom. But the challenge goes back to what I said before. Now we don't know what it is. What is that motivation? Is it grievance-based or something else? Gentlemen, stick around. We're going to have more with you in just a second. Next, our Randy Kaye with a closer look at how a national database and the DNA profiles in it have broken other big cases like this one. And later, how Britain's princesses, Beatrice and Eugenie, are being swept into the Epstein scandal along with their parents, Andrew and Sarah. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, we've talked about artificial general intelligence. A lot of people in Silicon Valley, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, say they're on the verge of building it. So I sat down with Nick Frost to hear his thoughts on the future of AGI. He's an AI researcher and the co-founder of the startup Cohere, which provides AI tools to businesses. Nick explains why he thinks the industry should not be focusing so much on AGI. There are ways in which language models can be detrimental to society. Misinformation is a big one. Things like trust and safety, data privacy are much better conversations to be having for policymakers and researchers. Listen to CNN's Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts. The DNA sample in the Nancy Guthrie case is expected to be uploaded to a national database known as CODIS that is short for Combined DNA Index System. For decades, the FBI has been overseeing this program, which includes DNA profiles from convicted offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence and missing persons. If there is a match between crimes in DNA and someone in that database, investigators, they get a hit. CNN's Randy Kay takes a look into other crimes where CODIS helped crack the case. A computer programmer and father of three already imprisoned for life for murder. Now linked to five more through DNA. How do you wish to plead guilty or not guilty? Guilty. Convicted serial killer and rapist Richard Cottingham, known as the Torso Killer, for how he dismembered some of his victims, confessed to the five additional cases. They included the murder of Diane Cusick, a young mother killed on a shopping trip in 1968. I'm sure she tried to fight this animal off. Then, like it was nothing, he strangled the life out of my beautiful sister. Her family waited more than 50 years to find out who did it. Cottingham was charged with Cusick's murder in June 2022. DNA collected from Cusick's crime scene matched his DNA in the federal DNA database known as CODIS. That's run by the FBI and includes DNA from convicted felons. Authorities pointed to technological advances that allowed for more thorough DNA testing. In August 2003, 22-year-old Katie Sepich, a graduate student at New Mexico State University, was attacked on her way home from a party. The man raped and murdered her, then set her body on fire at this dump site. Skin and blood was found under her fingernails, but for nearly three and a half years, her parents waited for a suspect to be identified. Then came the call. I said, as I guess any parent would, are you sure? And he said, oh, it's an absolute match. Yes, for sure. Investigators ID'd Gabriel Avila. He'd been arrested for aggravated burglary and convicted in November 2005. As a convicted felon, his DNA was entered into the National DNA Database. With Avila's sample now in the database, investigators got a hit. His DNA matched the DNA found on Katie's body. It was such a relief to know that they had the person that murdered Katie. Tanya Frazier was last seen by friends in July 1994. Her body was discovered just a few blocks away from her Seattle middle school. Just 14, she'd been stabbed to death. It still hurts just as much. I can, like, function, but the moment anybody says anything about her or I see somebody that we went to middle school with, it makes me cry. For 31 years, Tanya's case remained cold until Seattle detectives turned to CODIS. Last fall, Seattle police uploaded DNA collected years ago at Tanya's crime scene and got a hit. Every day we can do more with less. You go back and retest things that you didn't get much result back a decade earlier that now opens doors. The door that opened in this case led investigators to 57-year-old Mark Russ, a convicted felon with a lengthy criminal record. He had been recently released from prison when they matched his DNA. He's pleaded not guilty. And Randy Kaye is with us now. Randy, what happens if the DNA put into CODIS? It isn't a match and authorities don't get a hit. What happens then? Yeah, John, well, if there isn't a match, what they have to do is sort of work the case backwards. So they would actually have to leave the CODIS database and try and find another database, a very likely genealogy-based database. and they'd be trying to find something called familial DNA, where they try and find a partial match maybe of a relative who is related to this suspect. And then they would just continue to narrow it down from there by using the genealogy in that database, because CODIS does not offer familial DNA, so that's why they have to leave the CODIS database to do that. But just to give you an idea, John, of just how widespread and massive the CODIS database is, the FBI says they have 19 million offender profiles in there. And as of last November, CODIS has produced more than 781,000 hits, including some of those cold cases that you saw in our story. So hopefully for the Guthrie family, they will have some luck. It is such a valuable tool. Randy Kay, thank you so much for your reporting on this. Back with us, Andrew McCabe, Jonathan Wackerow, and John Miller. And Andy, let me just start with you. Look, there were a lot of gloves that were found not terribly far from Nancy Guthrie's home over the last several days. I mean, how optimistic are you that CODIS could yield a hit here? You know, I wouldn't call me I wouldn't characterize it as optimistic, but it is absolutely a vital lead that must be followed through. Right. So there's a there's a number of hurdles here, though. Right. You you have first of all, you find the glove. You have to then find a viable sample inside the glove. We know from the things that law enforcement has said that they believe they have a viable sample of an unknown male. That sample has to get processed and render an analysis. Then that analysis goes through first the CODIS database that you just spoke about. If there's a hit there, then that's like the best possible result on this lead. If there's not a hit, then you go to the genealogy sites and try to build backwards off of the DNA samples submitted potentially by family members. But let's remember, even if you can identify whose glove that is, you then have to put that person in this glove at the crime scene. A mere visual resemblance from this glove to the glove that's seen on the video is not very solid evidence. But what the glove could get you to is a human being who you would then question, who might then say things that implicate himself. Jonathan, what more then? Talk to us. If they are, I don't want to use the word lucky, but lucky enough for this to be a hit, what then can you do with that glove? Well, listen, I think you have to put this DNA in context of what is it to law enforcement. It's arguably DNA is one of the greatest investigative tools that they have, and it's important in three ways. First, it's an identifying tool, right? You can identify and make direct attribution. This DNA matches this person. that's my suspect. It's also, in this case, it could be a corroborating tool. It could link that to other crimes. We may not have a direct attribution, but it could link that glove to other potential crimes that, again, that opens up a whole new investigative pathway. Or it can be an elimination tool. It can eliminate potential suspects. So just by the fact that law enforcement has the CODIS system, but also this public database really opens up the aperture of how they can use DNA in multiple different ways from an investigative standpoint. You know, if it is a hit, maybe you look at the direction where the glove is and you start looking at cameras in that direction. It's a proximity marker. From the neighborhood. Right, even if it's not a hit, the other thing about the CODIS database is it has all of the known contributors who are convicted felons, arrested in cases, and so on, but it also has samples that have been picked up at other crime scenes that are linked to other unknown contributors. Let's take a long shot. The FBI found 16 gloves during this search. One is of particular interest, but they'll go through some version of this process with all of them. But if one of them ties to another crime scene, you can actually go back to that cold case file, pull that out and say, let's go over this and see if there are any misleads here that can bring us to a name of an offender that we might also be able to connect to this other case a different way. I mean, they're really taking a wide aperture approach at this. Andy, so there was this search at this home in the car in the neighborhood. I believe it was Friday night. And since then, we haven't seen any more activity like that. Sure, at one point, it suggests we might see a lot more activity, but we really haven't. So what does it tell you that we're not seeing more searches like that? Well, let me look at it from the other perspective, John. The fact that we are seeing searches happen and that we don hear things really developing further from those I think for me that an indication that the investigators are being very aggressive They are going through those tens of thousands of leads that were called in after the release of the video, and they are following up quickly and decisively because they don't have the sort of the luxury of time here. They've got to rule these things in or out very quickly. So where you might have done a surveillance on that car for a while to see who comes back to it, In this case, you're not going to do that. You're going to get a warrant. You're going to hit that car, see if there's anything interesting in it, and then you're going to move on if you haven't found anything relevant. So I expect we'll see much more of this, people coming in to be questioned, locations being searched. We can't get our expectations up with every one of those actions. No, but the work absolutely goes on. Andrew McCabe, Jonathan Wackrod, John Miller, thank you all so much. Up next, Nancy Guthrie's neighbors say they are heartbroken over her disappearance. One member of their community will join us. next. In the two plus weeks since Nancy Guthrie disappeared, her family now has posted five videos appealing for her return. You saw a portion of the light is from daughter Savannah at the top of the hour. I want to play the full version now. I wanted to come on and it's been two weeks since our mom was taken. And I just wanted to come on and say that we still have hope and we still believe. and I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is that it's never too late and you're not lost or alone and it is never too late to do the right thing. And we are here. We believe. And we believe in the essential goodness of every human being. And it's never too late. So much strength there. Steve Lipman lives around the corner from Nancy Guthrie and joins me now. Steve, thank you for being with us. As a neighbor to Mrs. Guthrie, what's going through your mind tonight, more than two weeks after she was taken from her home? Did you ever think so much time would pass without her being found? No, did not believe that would happen. And probably first and foremost, what my wife and I feel is just deep compassion for the Guthrie family. You and I have to say the rest of us, it is just so hard to watch what they're going through. And you just wish you could do something to help to make this all come to an end for them and soon with her home. Investigators have been pouring through the neighborhood, obviously. Have you been approached and what do you hear from them? the Monday following the abduction the Pima County Sheriff detectives visited my house spoke with them at that point I really had nothing that I could offer them we did not have a ring system at that time and I really couldn't help them I had not noticed anything as far as cars or vehicles. And then last week, the FBI were up and down our street looking in the scrub in the desert area for anything. And I did speak with two FBI agents. And again, I just had nothing that I could really add that I thought might help them. What were the types of questions they were asking, especially the second time around? Did it feel more focused or differently focused it seemed a little differently focused they were very much have you seen anything have you seen suspicious people have you seen vehicles you know this is a um it's not an isolated neighborhood but it's a desert suburban neighborhood and you see the same cars virtually every single day and they wanted to know if there had been any vehicles that we had seen that were not part of the neighborhood and i just said no there's just there's nothing and i do have a dog that barks when people come up and he has just been quiet. So we've not seen or experienced anything here. You mentioned it's not an isolated neighborhood, but it's not necessarily jam-packed with cameras everywhere. How surprising is it to you that at this point, there aren't more, at least that we know of, more pictures of vehicles or anything that might have been suspicious during that night that have come to light. Is that the type of thing you would think would be available in your neighborhood? Yes, and a lot of the houses are perpendicular to the streets. So, you know, front door rings or any type of cameras wouldn't necessarily be pointing at the street. So I think there's a lot of those homes that even if they had videos, they might have not had anything that was useful. Otherwise, I know how important those cameras are, and I am surprised that it has not turned up more information for law enforcement. Steve Lipman, thank you so much for sharing what you do know and what you have seen here, and also sharing your compassion and your thoughts for the Guthrie family. Really appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much. Up next, Barack Obama weighs in on the Trump Truth Social post, depicting the former president and his wife as apes. Also ahead, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, daughters of former Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, caught up in their parents' Epstein scandals. Let's have I Got News for your ears, the podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated, totally exonerated on Epstein. Yeah. The exonerated thing. Like, it's the word he learned. I don't think he even knows what it means. Come on. He knows what exonerated means. He's been on trial enough times. He's been exonerated a number of times. To me, it's the 1980s ran for president and won. Right. Why isn't the music more interesting? YMCA. Mm-hmm. Gloria. Mm-hmm. I'm going to say that Gloria blew his mind. Michael Crawford receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Have I Got News for Your Ears releases new episodes every Wednesday. Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts. A fresh development tonight in a foul story. When the broadcast went off the air Friday night, we had just reported on the 47th president of the United States being asked whether anyone had been fired or even disciplined in connection with a racist image. This one depicting the 44th president and his wife as apes. In a moment, what the 44th president had to say about it. First, quickly, the back story. The image you just saw had been grafted onto the end of a cockamamie 2020 election conspiracy video and uploaded during one of the president's late night posting sprees the week before. It stayed up for about 12 hours and then came down after Democrats and Republicans alike erupted, including Republican Senator Tim Scott, who called it the most racist thing he had seen from this White House, which might suggest he'd seen enough others to compare. That night, the post came down. The president blamed a staffer but did not name names, nor did he apologize. And a week later, he was asked again. Mr. President, have you fired or disciplined that staffer who posted the video from your account that included the Obamas? No, I haven't. Both the question and answer presume there is even a staffer to fire or discipline. We have no evidence either way. We haven't seen it. But again, the president says it wasn't him. And he's also said this. Nobody has done more for the black community than Donald Trump. And if you look, with the exception of Abraham Lincoln, possible exception, but the exception of Abraham Lincoln, Nobody has done what I've done. I am the least racist person. I'm the least racist person in this room. In any case, here is what former President Obama said about it yesterday to podcaster Brian Tyler Green. Well, first of all, I think it's important to recognize that the majority of the American people find this behavior deeply troubling. You know, it is true that it gets attention. It's true that it's a distraction. But, you know, as I'm traveling around the country, as you're traveling around the country, you meet people. They still believe in decency, courtesy, kindness. And there's this sort of clown show that's happening in social media and on television. And that podcaster, we should say, was Brian Tyler Cohen. With us now is CNN senior political commentator, former special advisor to President Obama, Van Jones, and CNN senior political commentator and former Trump campaign advisor, David Urban. Van, what do you think about how former President Obama handled that? Class act, class act, class act. That is the Barack Obama that is still the most beloved political figure maybe in the world. I was at the NBA All-Star Game. He walked in, and every single NBA player went nuts because he's a class act, and he doesn't put people down to get where he's trying to go. And, you know, I think we need a lot more of that across the board. David, that's how President Obama handled it. How do you think President Trump, what's your view of how President Trump has handled it, specifically on some CNN reporting that he lashed out behind the scenes at Republican Senator Tim Scott, calling him disloyal when Senator Scott said the video should be taken down and Senator Scott took an early stand calling it a racist video? Yeah, look, I mean, the video is indefensible. So let's just get that straight. And, you know, what President Obama said in his his response there was, as Van said, it was a class act. He didn't punch back at President Trump. He you know, he said, you know, it's kind of race IPSA. You know, the thing speaks for itself. You don't have to say much more about it. And look, I think, look, what Senator Scott is, hey, it's an it's an indefensible post. President Obama was right that it's a distraction and it's a sideshow. And the problem that the Trump administration faces with it is it detracts from people who don't pay attention to the good things that are happening in the Trump administration that day when the president posted that. They captured, I recall, they captured the mastermind behind the Benghazi, you know, fiasco debacle murders that day, got no coverage at all. There are good things happening in the administration that day. They got no coverage in the following days because of that post. So it is a distraction. It's indefensible. It's dumb. And, you know, it's regrettable that it was up there. And, you know, I applaud President Obama's class, which we handled it. Van, I guess the question is, is it a side show or is it the show when it comes to President Trump? And another way of asking that is what impact could it have, say, in the midterm elections? In 2024, the presidential race, President Trump won 15 percent of black voters. That's according to Pew Research, up from 8 percent in 2020. So is this the type of thing that will stick and have an impact? Well, I'll quarrel with those numbers. But look, it's true that Trump made really important inroads into the black vote just a little bit more than a year ago. I think he's given away a lot of goodwill since then. And it's not just this video, you know, people taking down the museums with black people in them, black names coming down, aid support in Africa being taken away. I just think Trump is giving away a lot of goodwill. I think he built up in the first term. Look, the first time liberals don't want to talk about it, but he did do the First Step Act. David and I worked together on that, helped a lot of people behind bars. He helped black colleges. He did the Opportunity Zone stuff with Tim Scott, and he had begged some goodwill. I think, you know, you're going to see, I think, in the midterms, he's squandered a lot of that now. And I think it will come back to bite him. You know, David, very quickly, we just got word from our Kristen Holmes, who covers the president, that he has been flying home from Palm Beach, where he was for the long weekend. And on Air Force One with him is Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Lutnik, of course, is known now for being in the Epstein files, which say that he went and visited Epstein Island with his family for this lunch, even after he had said, well, he said a few months ago that he broke ties with Epstein, never saw him again, was never in the same room with again. Turns out he was at his island for a lunch. Now the president flying back with him on Air Force One. What message does that send? And do you think the president should be flying around with Howard Lutnik right now? Listen, I think it's up to Howard Lutnick what he's going to do. He chart his course in the future here. You saw the chairman of Hyatt step down. This is reverberating globally, right? Heads of state. We'll piece it up next about Prince Andrew's children. All over the globe, there are prices being paid for this. Secretary Lutnick is going to have to – I don't think this will be the last of this. I think this is going to not go away. I think people hope it goes away, but it just keeps getting worse and worse. And I think he's going to have to answer more questions. That lunch was just a piece of it. It seems like there are some other emails back and forth in there. You know, if you look at, you know, who was corresponding and discussing things with Jeffrey Epstein, it's been chronicled. There are lots and lots of other people there. More shoes are going to drop before this story ends. And so I think it's up to Secretary Lutnik to determine his future at this point. I don't think the president's kicking him out of the cabinet. No, I mean, clearly not. He's flying back with him tonight on Air Force One. Van Jones, David Urban, great to see you both tonight. Thank you very much for being with us on this long weekend. So on the Epstein case and on the release of the Epstein files, for years there have been allegations surrounding former President, excuse me, former Prince Andrew and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Newer released files reveal that Andrew's ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, also had a long-standing relationship with the late sex offender. Now their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, are being swept up into the scandal. Max Foster has more. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of Britain's royal family thrust into the spotlight after being named hundreds of times in the latest tranche of Epstein files. The saga involving the late sex offender had already engulfed both their parents, the former Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson. Now new details have emerged about Epstein's friendship with the princess's mother, who seems to have brought her daughters into his orbit even after he was convicted for sex offences. A series of emails released by the Department of Justice indicate that Ferguson, Eugenie and Beatrice all visited Epstein in Miami in 2009, just five days after he was released from jail. He served 13 months for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Do you need a ride? Epstein asks before their lunch. No, thank you, the former duchess replies, adding it'll be myself, Beatrice and Eugenie at a time when they were 20 and 19 years old. In a subsequent email, Ferguson tells Epstein, cannot wait to see you. A separate thread between Epstein and his personal assistant, days earlier, also appears to indicate that he paid about $14,000 for the trio's flights to the US. And here's another email chain, nearly two years later, in 2011, between Epstein, Ferguson and her then spokesperson. In it, the former duchess says that Beatrice advised her on how to handle a British journalist to whom she had given a statement about Epstein. Just last year, Ferguson's spokesperson said she had cut off relations with Epstein, quote, as soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations. But all these DOJ files suggest otherwise. As for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Beatrice and Eugenie's father, he remains under pressure from his ties to Epstein. The disgraced former prince has previously denied any wrongdoing, including after he reached an out-of-court settlement with a woman who said she was traffic to him as a team. Beatrice and Eugenie have kept a low profile through all of this, and there's no suggestion of wrongdoing simply because they've been named in the Epstein files. John, we did reach out to Ferguson's representatives for comment on the exchanges seen in these Epstein documents, and CNN has also sought to contact the princesses for comment, but we haven't heard back from any of them. John. All right, Max Foster, thank you so much for that Report. Tonight, remembering a Hollywood legend. We learned today that Academy Award winning actor Robert Duvall has died at the age of 95. His wife released a statement that read in part, Bob passed away peacefully at home, surrounded by love and comfort. His career spanned six decades and included some of the most memorable lines and iconic characters on film. Here's CNN's Danny Freeman. That's a terrific story. We have newspaper people on the payroll, don't we, Tom? They might like a story like that. They might. They just might. Regarded as one of the most iconic actors of his generation, Robert Duvall had a knack for bringing to life a variety of compelling characters. His debut on the big screen was playing Boo Radley in the 1962 film To Kill a Mockingbird. Is it Boo? Mr. Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley. I believe he already knows you. Yet it would be another decade before his big break in The Godfather. Tom, Tom, you're the consigliere. You can talk to the Don, you can explain. Just a minute now. Don is semi-retired and Mike is in charge of the family business now. If you have anything to say, say it to Mike. If there was no movies, I'd be on stage. But Godfather was kind of a catalyst for all the actors. It's safe to suck this beast! Duvall went on to play a psychotic warmonger in Apocalypse Now, delivering one of the most famous lines in film history. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like victory. Everybody relates to that line, I think, you know, in many places. And scenes like that, we had to get quickly because all that fire in back of me was supposed to be the napalm, and sometimes that's the best stuff you can get. I've decided. Duvall's role as a down-and-out alcoholic country singer in Tender Mercies won him his first Academy Award as Best Actor in 1984. His natural ability to transform into these characters led to more than half a dozen Oscar nominations throughout his career. It always has to come from yourself. The base is yourself. You turn that a certain way. So you're not impersonating someone. No, no. You only have one temperament, one set of emotions, one psyche, one imagination. So it's like you a certain way, you become the character, but it's you doing it. If you say, I'm going to become the character, I'm going to become the character, like this, this, this, this, and it becomes tense, becomes abstract, you lose contact with yourself. Duvall's talent went beyond just acting. He wrote, directed, and financed The Apostles, playing the leading role of a Pentecostal preacher. Duvall also had a penchant for dancing and singing, hobbies which made their way into many of his films. But as successful as Duval was professionally, his personal life was complicated. It took three failed marriages before he fell in love with actress Luciana Pedraza. The two shared the same birthday January 5th though she was more than 40 years his junior Born in 1931 Duvall was the son of an actress and a Navy admiral His passion for the arts acting and life was evident to the end Why do you like it? It's like playing house for big stakes. You know how kids play house. So it's childlike. Yeah, but it's fun and maybe not as much as other professions, but we give a positive influence to society, hopefully. Man, so talented, so good. And for the record, I do think he was a wartime conciliary. Coming up, another special hour of AC360 with more breaking news in the search for Nancy Guthrie and an in-depth look at what criminal profilers are gleaning from this video of the suspect. We'll be right back. 9 p.m. here in New York for this extended edition of 360, and we are continuing to follow the breaking news and the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the major one. And it is the first in this case coming today from the Pima County Sheriff. A statement. To be clear, he says the Guthrie family, to include all siblings and spouses, has been cleared as possible suspects in this case. The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel. The Guthrie family, he adds, are victims plain and simple. Now, the sheriff, you will recall, said at the outset that everyone was a suspect. Not anymore, which is notable. So is what a source today told CNN that investigators have still not identified a leading motive for the crime. What they have done, though, is determined that a glove found near the home appears to match one that he is wearing in this video here. That is what the FBI tells us. DNA from it is being analyzed as we speak. And in a new video last night, Donna Savannah appealed one more time for her mother's return. I wanted to come on and it's been two weeks since our mom was taken. And I just wanted to come on and say that we still have hope. and we still believe. And I wanted to say to whoever has her or knows where she is that it's never too late. And you're not lost. We're alone. And it is never too late to do the right thing. CNN's Ed Lavandera is in Tucson tonight. Ed, so what did prompt the sheriff to go publicly with this and clear the Guthrie family today? Well, for several weeks, it's been 16 days since Nancy Guthrie was abducted from her home here in Tucson. and from the onset. If you remember, investigators said it was a family member that dropped her off at the home here on that Saturday night before she was abducted. And ever since then, the family members, several family members, have been the subject of just online attacks and accusations, essentially. And there has not been enough time that's gone by where investigators must feel some level of confidence in being able to say that they are cleared. Because up until now, investigators have been very clear in saying that no one has been cleared. Everybody's a suspect because we just don't know who the man is in that video. So because of that, they haven't been able to do that to clear anybody. So it is significant that at this stage in the investigation that the sheriff comes out and says that. But I think a lot of it has to do with just the amount of online accusations that in social media accusations that several family members have endured for 16 days now. Yeah, I wanted to draw a line, basically just saying enough. Ed Lamedera, terrific reporting from Tucson. We'll let you get a drink of water. Thank you very much. We're joined now by our law enforcement panel, former NYPD detective David Sarni, CNN law enforcement analyst Jonathan Wackrout, and CNN chief law enforcement intelligence analyst John Miller. John, to the point that Ed was making, they're clearing the Guthrie family, wanting to make clear to any online sleuths that they're not suspects anymore. The law enforcement had been operating under the umbrella that everyone is still a suspect. We're not clearing anything. So what does that change? What it changes, and I mean, everyone is a suspect, is a good footing to start off on because, you know, when you don't have a suspect, you have to have that open mind. But I also think you also have to have that close working relationship with the family. They're always going to have the answers to questions you're going to need to know. And you get two weeks into this and people are still speculating about it. For the sheriff to come out and take that affirmative step and say they have all been cleared is going to lower any of those tension levels. And frankly, it's just the right thing to do. Yeah, it's just a human thing to do with a family you've been working very closely with and is going through an awful lot. Jonathan Wacker, this glove that they're testing for DNA, as far as we know, right now, still testing. We haven't seen the results. Not sure if we will get the results when they're all finished. But it does beg the question, you know, someone tossing a glove after they kidnap someone, you know, a mile and a half, two miles for the crime scene. Why would they do that? Do investigators think along these lines? Why won't that person burn it, throw it in a dumpster somewhere 10 miles away? Yeah, I mean, I think that we have to look at the glove right now is that it's not evidence. It's not really evidence until we have some sort of DNA link to the crime. And again, we want to we just don't know where this glove was found. Why do they think that this glove, this this particular one is the one that is linked to the crime. So until we get that DNA evidence that either points to making direct attribution or starts leading us to a person of interest, it is just a glove, not evidence yet. But if we do come back with DNA evidence, and it gives us the investigative leads, this could be the breakthrough that we are looking for. Why? Because it could make direct attribution, but it also could really align proximity of movement. As you said, about a mile and a half away, why were they at that moment at that time? What were they doing? Was Ms. Guthrie there with them? So again, proximity to movement pathways, very key aspect for investigators at this point. You have to run it down. You have to check it because it just could be so useful. You know, David, they're comparing it. They put it into the CODIS system, this DNA system. One of the things it does is it compares to if they've ever had anyone in custody in any files anywhere that has committed a crime that's a DNA match. In your experience, if this person went in there and kidnapped Nancy Guthrie for ransom or for otherwise, how likely would it be that it is the person's first crime that, you know, that there actually would be some record of that person on file? Well, that's the issue you're having right now, especially with DNA. And, you know, when you talk about DNA being the code of systems, people have been arrested, people have been convicted. So it's in there. Is this person who has ever been arrested in the United States has their DNA would be on file? That would be an issue. Now, here's the other thing about DNA. That substrate or that sample that's there, will it consist of a fully of a instead of a mixed result? Is it going to be a match? Because you have to deal with if you don't have the crime scene, that gloves a mile and a half away. Does that match the crime scene? In other words, they have DNA apparently from the location. Does the DNA they have there match that glove? Then you have a better lead. What happens, what we're concerned about is you get a person, a suspect based on that glove. the pitchforks and the torches come out saying that's the guy. We don't have anything to say that's the guy because we have notes. We don't know who that is. We have a crime scene where we don't know where the DNA is coming from or where it was located. We don't know what was missing from the location or what was left at that location other than DNA. So when you talk about all those things, they have to link up. We don't make them link up. It has to be based on the evidence and availability of that evidence to then say we have A, B, and C that links the person from that glove at the video to the crime. You know, in the 70th of the Lynx, John Miller, you've got this backpack that presumably is on sale at Walmart. You also have a ski mask, which you pointed out during a break. How common are ski masks in Arizona? It is something, you know, maybe it's unusual to buy something like that in Arizona. You also have the windbreaker there. What do you do with that? How do you cross-reference those on each other to try to get some kind of lead? Well, you look for anyone who bought any of those items. But you start with the easy out, which is, do you and your sales records have anybody buying all three of these items, all three of which happen to be available at Walmart? One's an exclusive. One is not exclusive, but sold there. And the ski masks are fairly generic. But if you have someone within any radius of Tucson, Arizona, prior to this kidnapping, going into a Walmart or another store and buying all three of these items, that's also not evidence but it's a great lead to start on you know jonathan wacker and just to get back to your earlier question and if you commit a kidnapping and you have you know somebody in the vehicle or you've split up in two different vehicles and you're driving down the street with a gun a holster a ski mask a pair of gloves on a 55 degree night evening you might well be tossing those out the window at different intervals to get them out in case you're pulled over so you don't have to explain them and look nothing ever goes according to plan either and there's nothing to say that whoever did this is a genius we saw in the video the person going to get the flowers and the plants to cover up a camera which you would think would have been part of the plan to begin with and i keep saying this person this guy jonathan unless unless this person this guy is the unabomber and some kind of loner which seems so rare he's spoken to someone some someone knows him. He's had some contact with another human being, either before, during, or after the abduction. How are the messages maybe trying to reach those people? Well, exactly. Like, this crime wasn't done in isolation, right? You're not going to go out and take an 84-year-old woman with, you know, serious medical conditions and try to kidnap them by herself. There was most likely a level of support to that. And that's what Savannah's message is making the outreach to. It may not be the individual themselves. It's the people that are supporting that or may have supported that. And it essentially is this moral messaging saying, do the right thing. Try to change the course of action now before it gets too late. And that message is really for those that supporting cast of characters that may have a conscience right now that may pick up the phone and lead to that tip. You know, David, you've been out there on the front lines. What happens when you do a search like the one they did Friday night? And we actually don't know what they found there or didn't find there. But if it yielded nothing, what do you then do next? If this glove comes back and there's no DNA match, what do you then do next? What happens after each mini setback? Well, then you're going to start looking at your other leads. Here's what it comes down to. You kind of package your leads. Your lead was the crime scene. Your next lead is the video. Your next lead is some evidence from that video, which is a glove. They find a mile and a half away a glove. Does that match up? And this is what it comes down to. And if it doesn't, and this is what happens, it doesn't have to. That means the 4,000 leads that have come in still have to be investigated. And that's the thing. And you have to realize this. It's not over. Just because, let's say you do get that glove and it becomes all of this. It's still a matter of, can I prosecute this case if I can find, first of all, the reality is we have to find Nancy. That's the end result. We know it's an abduction. We know it seems to be a violent abduction because of the injury she might have sustained from that. That's the main thing. And as an investigator, that's our goal. That's our main goal. I'm not concerned about all the things that are going outside. That's what you're concerned about getting. Stick around. All are going to come back in just a second. Next, more on what criminal profilers see in the video we have all been so focused on. And later, one factor that may have motivated the sheriff's statement today, clearing the Guthries, namely a backlash against true crime influencers who have flocked to this case. We're now on the breaking news in the search for Nancy Guthrie. While this person has not yet been identified, criminal profilers say the video speaks volumes about who they are. More on that now from CNN's Brian Todd. The man seen in this doorbell footage, described by the FBI as 5 feet 9 or 5 feet 10 inches tall, with an average build, wearing dark clothing, black gloves, sneakers, and a black Ozark Trail hiker backpack. Not a lot to go on for members of the public to identify him. But former FBI profilers tell CNN his movements on that front porch give other possible clues about him. I saw someone who seemed relatively relaxed. I saw someone that had a certain amount of confidence. I saw someone that did not seem to be nervous or agitated. And so this suggested to me that this is someone who is really willing to take a great deal of risk. To be clear, investigators have not yet publicly named a suspect in Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. But based on the physical movements in this video, the nature of the crime itself, and other aspects of the case, former FBI agents are describing possible personality traits. Former profiler Candice DeLong also believes this body language indicates a level of confidence, which tells her. The term narcissistic psychopath comes to mind. Someone that has no empathy for others, no guilt for what they do to other people. And the narcissism, the I am great, whatever I say will be believed, whatever I do will work the way I want it to. But experts say that's if this was a kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie for ransom. Former FBI profiler Greg McCrary says there's another possibility, that this could be a celebrity stalking type of kidnapping. You're dealing with a more delusional individual, someone that has what psychologists call a parasocial relationship with the people they see on TV. In their mind, they have a relationship with these people, which is not based in reality at all. Whichever personality traits fit the alleged offender, one former FBI hostage negotiator says their behavior could now be altered with the discoveries of the doorbell footage and DNA at Nancy Guthrie's property, which doesn't belong to her or those close to her. Now that we have these, there is nobody that's more afraid right now than the captor. This world has gotten very, very small, and he's operating under fear, under huge stress. So every movement that he makes, every time he's out in public, perhaps, he's got to be looking over his shoulder. What's not a good sign, according to our chief law enforcement analyst, John Miller, the apparent lack of communication between the possible kidnapper on one side and law enforcement and the Guthrie family on the other. As John Miller points out, no proof of life has been offered to our knowledge. And aside from two ransom notes sent to media outlets shortly after Nancy Guthrie was reported missing, that apparent one-way communication has gone silent. John? All right, Brian Todd, thank you so much for that report. We happen to have John Miller right here along with David Sarni and Jonathan Wackrao. So, you know, to Brian's point, keeps on quoting you there, if this isn't ransom, if this isn't, you know, a kidnapping, what is it? It certainly starts off with a ransom note that has details that, in theory, only the abductor would have known about the interior of the house and the placement of things. What you glean from looking at it, from the distance we're looking at it, we're not inside the investigation, is something fell apart in the ransom negotiations. The first piece is that they wouldn't or couldn't offer that proof of life. But then the break of communications. Something went wrong inside this kidnapping. And if law enforcement knows what that was, which they probably do, they're not saying it. Jonathan, how hard is it to find a person when you're not sure of the motive here? Well, I think we're witnessing that real time. We're in week number three. We still don't have a person of interest or a suspect. So what is law enforcement doing, right? They're not just sitting back, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for something to come. They're going back out and they are reinforcing their evidence matrix that they've been working off of. They're reinterviewing different neighbors. They're re-canvassing a broader area. They're looking, and we've seen that. We've seen them making outreach to the public for additional video. And what we do know is that in the aftermath of these videos that are released, both from the family and from law enforcement, we have this groundswell of new tips that come in. And, you know, the benefit there is we now have a new set of things that we can potentially action off of. The challenges for law enforcement is processing, is the intake of all those tips and now cross-matching it, what they already have. So, you know, it can be done. It takes time. There's no breakthrough moment that we have seen to date. So this is really traditional investigative processes working out. David, based on what you've seen here, and you saw the video, the profilers were looking at, what's your opinion of the competence of the person who is doing this or is behind it? I mean, obviously, they haven't been caught in two weeks plus. That says something. But then there's the covering up of the camera. There's wearing the gun in a strange way, maybe discarding a glove in an inopportune location. Well, my experience with burglars, and I always say this, nighttime burglars are the most dangerous ones to deal with because they're the ones who are going to have a conflict with somebody in the house. There's a chance a person's going to be in the house. Hence the gun, hence whatever he has in the holster. Is that a firearm? We still haven't determined what type of gun it is, regardless of that. That's something I'm concerned about because that's confidence. Because when you do these night burglars, and people are creatures of habit, that's the thing I can see with burglars. You have guys who pry doors. They're pry guys. You have guys who go through windows. It's the only two ways to go through it. We know, we've heard this forced entry. We don't know what type of forced entry that happened. So I'm hoping that during this investigation, they looked at everybody who's been released, everybody who's been on parole for these type of burgs, because they haven't told you what type of burglary, and because you have to get in the house. That's a burglary in itself. It's not an abduction, so kidnapping, whatever. But you're going to do all those things. Did you put this through VICAP to find out if there were anything like that, similar, where you have nighttime burglars coming in and doing abductions. So you're looking at all of these things. This is going back to, again, like we said, good old-fashioned police work. That's what it comes down to. Technology is great. We see technology is not working well enough for us, so we have to wait and do the work that we have to do, and we've always done. You know, John Miller, just circling back to the latest update we got from the sheriff's office clearing the Guthrie family. To be clear, it's not like they didn't investigate everyone within that very tight circle, I'm sure, probably first. And they did. But that's by rote. I mean, generally when you have a homicide or a crime, the first place you start is in the home. Who is the last person to see her? What are the family dynamics? Does anyone have a motive? Basically, it's to get that out of the way. And it may pan out, but then you have to move on to other things. You know, Jonathan, we were listening to these profilers and Brian Todd's piece. How often is it something like that? Maybe not the hard DNA match or a witness, but looking at behavior that leads to a break in the case. It could be everything, right? It could be someone looking at the way the suspect turned or the way that they presented themselves. There's all these little things. I mean, something as minute as that position of the gun in the holster in the front, to me, that's an intimidation factor. You're telegraphing that you are armed. We've talked about the gun in the holster. It's not tactical. It's not the right thing. But we're not the audience. Nancy Guthrie was the audience there. So a lot of those things are going to telegraph, you know, potentially to others that are looking at this and hopefully come back to the investigators with a lead. Right. John Miller, Jonathan Wacker, David Sarni, thank you so much for helping us tonight. Really appreciate it. Up next, an Arizona lawmaker who is calling on a so-called Internet sleuth to get out of the way in this investigation. And later, one of the last surviving members of Little Rock Nine weighs in on President Trump's threat to use the Insurrection Act, which protected black students who integrated Arkansas schools in 1957 With the search for Nancy Guthrie now in its third week Pima County Sheriff Chris Danos, as we reported at the top of the program, has released a statement clearing all family members in connection with her disappearance. He says, to be clear, the Guthrie family, to include all siblings and spouses, has been cleared as possible suspects in this case. The family has been nothing but cooperative and gracious and are victims in this case. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is cruel. The Guthrie family are victims, plain and simple. He also asked members of the media to honor their profession and report with compassion and professionalism. This comes as an Arizona state rep from Pima County implores live streamers, podcasters, and people she calls wannabe journalists who have descended on the area to go home and let law enforcement professionals do their job. And State Representative Alma Hernandez joins us now. Representative, thank you so much for being with us. Obviously, there is this statement today from the sheriff clearing the Guthrie family. What do you think of that? How do you feel about that, given how strongly you've been speaking out against people speculating? So first, thank you for having me on. I appreciate it. It's really frustrating. I believe that as elected officials, it's our duty to speak out when we see these type of issues in our community, when we see people taking advantage and using such a vulnerable situation for this family to then turn around and monetize off of it is extremely outrageous. I mean, the sheriff clearly put out a statement calling on the media. But I believe what he really meant was those individuals who are not the professionals that are actually out there trying to report the facts that are coming out as we hear them. These are individuals who are truly just out there to create havoc and who are spreading misinformation in our community. So you're glad the sheriff went out and did this with such a declarative statement? I am, but I would also like to see other elected officials. I'm the only one that has told people to stop doing what they're doing. I've heard from many who keep telling me behind the scenes, I agree with you. Thank you for speaking up. I'm hearing from many people in the community who are saying you're saying what a lot of people aren't willing to say out loud. And at the end of the day, that's what we have to do. CNN's Lee Waldman, a reporter who's been on the ground there, actually spoke to a streamer over the weekend who went from Tucson to Florida. And this is how he defended what the so-called online detectives are doing. Watch. We want transparency. We want to make sure no stone's been left unturned. You want to make sure you find the right streamer. But there's a lot of really good people, and I think the audience can figure that out. And, yeah, they're out there doing a lot of work. They're invested in it fully because they want justice. What do you think of that defense, that these are people just trying to help? They want justice. I mean, just look at what we saw the other day. We had one of these streamers ask one of their followers to send them pizza delivery. Who does that? A person who is serious about their job, who is actually a reporter or working for someone and checks their facts, goes and makes sure that they're giving us accurate information is not going to go and sit on a lawn chair posted in front of the home for days without moving to try to get any story that they can, right? So at the end of the day, people are allowed to do what they want, what they wish. However, I find it extremely unhelpful. I don't believe that a YouTuber and a streamer following the SWAT team to go and serve a warrant in another part of a city in a different town is important or helpful in any way. No one is asking these individuals to come in and do that. At the end of the day, the sheriff has been very clear. He's asking for people to share tips. We're not asking people to send random videos and pictures of just anyone in our community and blaming them for what's going on. It's, you know, they're going to do what they're going to do, but at the end of the day, I find it wrong and just irresponsible. Well, a lot of them, I don't know if folks have seen, but some of them are even accepting donations for the coffee. You can send them coffee donations. Again, someone who's serious and is doing this job because they are following the ethics of media, they're not going to go and do that type of thing. Those little stunts that they're playing, we shouldn't be allowing them. And quite frankly, they're just not helpful. Representative Alma Hernandez, we know you care deeply about your constituents and your community. Thank you for being with us tonight. Appreciate it. Up next, Hillary Clinton accusing the Trump administration of a cover up with the Epstein files in a BBC interview and the president's reply. I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. The Justice Department is naming names and lawmakers are demanding answers. The DOJ sent a letter to Congress over the weekend listing hundreds of prominent people named in the Epstein files. Now, the list includes presidents, business leaders, government officials, but also cultural icons, in some cases who've been dead for decades, including Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin, Marilyn Monroe. And all of this is raising questions on Capitol Hill. Congressman Ro Khanna, who co-authored the law that forced the files released, said the DOJ is purposefully muddying the waters on who was a predator and who was just mentioned in an email by releasing the list of more than 300 people. And this is what Congressman Thomas Massey, Conner's Republican co-author of that bill, told ABC when asked if he still has confidence in Attorney General Pam Bondi. I don't think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn't confident enough to engage in anything but name calling in a hearing. And so, no, I don't have confidence in her. She hasn't got any sort of accountability there at the DOJ. We should note that no one on the list from the Justice Department, other than Epstein and his accomplice Gilead Maxwell, have ever been charged in connection with Epstein's crimes. With us now is Congressman James Walkinshaw, a Democrat from Virginia who sits on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, this list meant to to provide information about everyone who was named in the Epstein files named at all. But it includes people, you know, who may be connected to some of the things that went on. But it also includes Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley. What do you think the Department of Justice is up to here and what are we supposed to take from it? I think the release of this list was an attempt to to just muddy muddy the waters, I guess. And look, I wish what they had done on that list is next to each of the 300 names, add how many times each name was mentioned in the files and rank order them. And if they had done that, Donald Trump would be at or very near the top because he's mentioned thousands and thousands of times, far more than Janis Joplin or Elvis Presley. Yeah, Janis Joplin died in 1970. Elvis died in 1977. Marilyn Monroe, I think, in 62. So they've been gone a long time. And being mentioned in an email here puts them in a very different place than potentially other people listed in these files. Secretary Clinton just did an interview with the BBC where she accused the Trump administration of a cover up with the Epstein files. She said she and her husband were being used to divert attention away from President Trump. The president was just asked about this on Air Force One. And this is what he said. I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. They went in hoping that they'd find it and found just the opposite. I've been totally exonerated. In fact, Jeffrey Epstein was fighting that I don't get elected with some author, a sleazebag, by the way. And I've been totally exonerated. No, no, they're getting pulled in, and that's their problem. So what's your reaction to that? Well, it's a lie. I mean, he hasn't been exonerated. For him to say he had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein is flat-out absurd. I mean, one of the things we have learned through these files, through the subpoena of the Oversight Committee, is that Trump's relationship with Epstein was much longer and much deeper than he has revealed publicly. And he has been lying about it for decades. I reviewed a redacted, an illegally redacted file at the Department of Justice, where Epstein's lawyers were recounting a conversation they had with Donald Trump, where he denied, essentially denied that he had ever been on Epstein's plane, where he admitted that he didn't remove Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, as he had claimed and continued to claim until relatively recently. He had a very long, deep relationship with Epstein. He lied about it, continues to lie about it, and he did everything he could to prevent the release of these files, and his Department of Justice continues to cover them up by not fully releasing them and over-redacting them. You know, he's never been charged with a crime and never been accused by law enforcement of any crime or connection to Jeffrey Epstein like that. But Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, we have reporting tonight from Kristen Holmes, our CNN reporter, that Howard Lutnick was on Air Force One with President Trump flying back from Palm Beach. That's notable because Howard Lutnick is mentioned in the Epstein files. And we learned from reading them that he had lunch with Epstein more than a decade after he said he cut ties. So what do you think about them sharing a flight tonight? You know, when we first learned about Lutnick's deep relationship with Epstein, I said to myself, maybe Trump will cut him loose. You know, make him the fall guy for this. because Lutnick lied to the American people, including his boss, Donald Trump. But then I realized if Lutnick were to resign or be forced out because of his deep ties to Jeffrey Epstein that he lied about, what would that say about Donald Trump, who's also lied about his deep ties to Jeffrey Epstein? So I think Trump is going to keep Lutnick closer than ever because they are so connected in this Epstein saga. Representative Walkinshaw, thanks so much for being with us tonight. Thank you. A new report out today from Axios on a potential break between the Pentagon and leading AI company Anthropic. At issue, Anthropic CEO Dario Amadei reportedly has concerns about the U.S. government's use of its systems and the potential for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens. Also, weapons that fire without human involvement. This reportedly has Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth contemplating cutting business ties with Anthropic. He could even designate the AI tech firm as a, quote, supply chain risk, which would mean that any company that wants to do business with the U.S. military would also have to cut dyes with Anthropic. That is according to a senior Pentagon official. With us now, senior contributor at CNN and host of the On with Kara Swisher and Pivot podcast, the aforementioned Kara Swisher. Great to see you tonight. So, Kara, if this reporting is correct, does it look like the Trump administration wants to make an example out of Anthropic? and how do you think other AI companies will react? Well, all the others have agreed. Google, XAI, I think all of them have agreed. Open AI have all agreed to the Defense Department's rules. I mean, it's the cost of doing business with this particular government and Anthropic has decided it doesn't want to change some of its rules, which are more around safety. It's known as the safety AI company compared to the others, which tend to be more loose, whether it's XAI and non-consensual images or OpenAI and various things they do. But Anthropic is a different company. Why would the safeguards that Anthropic wants to put in place, if this reporting is correct, why would that be some kind of a threat to the way the Pentagon does business? Well, I think it's just Pete Hechtes trying to show he has weight for as long as he has weight to do what he wants. And he wants to sort of force businesses, as the Trump administration tends to do with many companies, to do it to their own tune rather than their own rules. And so, you know, obviously it's important to Anthropic. Maybe it will give in. Maybe it's part of negotiations. I just think Pete Heggs kind of operates. I'll do what I want to do and I'll do what I want to do no matter what. You know, I'm not sure he particularly understands what's happening here. Considering so many of the Pentagon systems are classified, how big of a job do you think it would be to remove Anthropic's clawed? and start over with a whole new AI model? Well, they have to try lots of them. Like, they're using a lot of them, just the way they have a lot of defense contractors. I don't think that's unusual. I think it was very important in the Venezuela attack or the grabbing of Maduro. It was through Palantir, one of their other partners. And so what they're trying to do is put pressure on all the companies to do what they want to do, no matter what. And Anthropic is obviously worried about mass surveillance. The others, not as much. You know, when you read, Axios was first to report this, that one of Anthropik's concerns is weapons that fire without risk. You read that, and I think a lot of people can understand, weapons that fire without human involvement. Without human interaction. Yeah, weapons that fire without human involvement. I mean, gosh, it doesn't really seem unreasonable. You want some human involvement before a weapon's fired, right? Right, exactly. And so they don't want to be either responsible for doing it, or, you know, it is the Defense Department's fault if they make a mistake. But at the same time, if you're making products like this, you may not want them to be used in this way. I mean, that's the way war is going, by the way. It's all going to be a video game. It already is in many ways through drone warfare, et cetera. But people tend to be involved. These would be computers making decisions for war systems, which sometimes they get it right, and they're often probably better than humans. But at the same time, it should have human involvement. And that's one of the way Anthropic is different from other AI companies. in general. And you've heard him sending warning signs out a lot. He gives a lot of speeches where he says, you know, things are problematic with and other companies don't do that. But Dario does that compared to other CEOs. You keep talking about that as Anthropics thing in Dario Amadei's message. How sustainable is that with the way AI is going? Well, I think what's interesting is they're really focusing on the enterprise and that's where they're doing really well. And so companies really value that someone who's going to i mean it's sort of a little like apple focusing on privacy when google didn't right i think it was an advantage it was a brand advantage and for those who want to do business with it it may not get them a defense department contract but maybe they don't need that if they're doing it with companies or others and the question is who they're doing business with so they just are deciding to sell the way they want to sell the way apple did and others and that's their business and pete hector can fume all around he's got plenty of choices for people who are willing to bend to his will. So I guess he'll do that. Yeah, look, I'm not so sure I want my weapons firing without human involvement. Karen Swisher, great to see you. Thank you very much. Next, one of the last surviving members of Little Rock Nine and her reaction to Trump's threats to invoke the Insurrection Act. As part of President Trump's immigration crackdown, he has regularly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and sent active duty military troops into U.S. cities to carry out his agenda. We have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I'd do that. I'm allowed to use the Insurrection Act. Don't forget, I can use the Insurrection Act, and that's unquestioned power. We're trying to do it in a nicer manner, but we can always use the Insurrection Act if we want. It's the strongest power a president has, and you have the absolute right to do it. And If we need more than the National Guard, we'll send more than the National Guard. So you're going to send the military into American cities? Well, if I wanted to, I could. If I wanted to use the Insurrection Act, you know that I could use that immediately, and no judge can even challenge you on that. Now, it is a power that has historically been reserved for extreme situations. Back in 1957, then-President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to send troops into Little Rock when their governor refused to integrate the schools. That first group of black students came to be known as the Little Rock Nine. CNN's Ellie Honig sat down with one of the last living members. When Melba Petillo-Beals and her black classmates first tried to enter Little Rock Central High School, they were blocked by an angry mob. You're dead. You know, you're not going to live. You might as well put your books down. You're not going to live to study. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic ruling. Brown v. Board of Education. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the court prohibited racial segregation in public schools and declared an end to so-called Jim Crow, separate but equal laws. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, it would be three years until Arkansas high schools would integrate. Melba Beals, then just 15 years old, would be part of the first group of black students at Little Rock Central High School. Now, originally there were 116 African-American children set to go to Central High School. A man, a white man came to our house and knocked on the door. This is not going to be good for you. We're going to kill you and your relatives. And there was physical violence directed at you and your family as well. Physical doesn't begin to explain it, shooting in the window. The intimidation did deter some students. Only Melba and eight others ended up attending. Together, they would become known as the Little Rock Nine. My grandmother said, look, you're born on this earth to do certain things. And if that's what you're here for, then you have no choice. The first time they tried to enter the school, Melba and her black classmates were met by an angry mob. Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus had activated the Arkansas National Guard to block the black students from entering the school. Later that month, President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy the military, the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army, to escort the students into Little Rock Central High School. I have today issued an executive order directing the use of troops under federal authority to aid in the execution of federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas. What would have happened if President Eisenhower never utilized the 101st to protect you? I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be very dead. Not a little dead. Very dead. What was your time at Little Rock Central like? It was a horror movie. Put acid in my eyes. I see, for example, as I look at that light, floaters go across. Pull my hair, cut off my, try to cut off my ponytail. I would go to the bathroom and they would drop lit pieces of fire paper with matches and drop them over. While Milba knew her role was important, the burden and the sacrifice were almost too much for her to bear. But when Martin Luther King Jr. visited the Little Rock Nine, he made it clear that their mission was much bigger. You met with Martin Luther King? I did. And he said, Melba, you're not doing this for yourself. You're doing this for generations yet unborn. This was hardly the first time she'd faced challenges. As a black child born in 1941 in the segregated South, Melba Petillo Beals faced racism in every part of her life. We'd go in public and they'd call us the N-word all the time. So what it was like, it was a little hell. Because from the beginning of my little spirit said, hey, you don't treat me that way. As a child, Melba witnessed unspeakable acts of violence. Five years of age, I'm sitting in a church. And so all of a sudden, this back door opened. And there were probably, I don't know, 100, more than 100 people. And in walked these dudes in their white sheets. And I know what that meant. That's a plan, right? They went right after this man. And there were rafters in this church. And they strung a rope over the rafters. I was too little to look up to his face, but I could see his feet dangling as they were hanging him. And I could hear the car in his throat. You know, I've never forgotten that. In 1999, President Bill Clinton awarded Melba and the other members of the Little Rock Nine the Congressional Gold Medal for their role in the civil rights movement. Given her own lived experience, Melba worries about what she sees unfolding today. Sending troops is not the answer. Eisenhower sent in troops because Fawkes was not in compliance. And so I think that in the end, will we regret what's going on now? Let's wait and see. Ellie Honig, CNN. What a life, what a hero. We're lucky to have her. The news continues. CNN Newsnight starts now. News cycle making your head spin? The Have I Got News For You crew is here to help. With a comic take on the week's headlines. New episodes Saturdays at 9 on CNN and next day on the CNN app.