[0:00]The White House says it's moving on from parts of the Epstein investigation, but Congress isn't and victims want more. A CBS News investigation reveals harsh tactics used to detain children during
[0:11]immigration raids. We'll hear from some of those making the allegations. And what's this about a bridge to Canada? A leader on the other side of the span weighs in on the president's vow to keep
[0:21]it closed. Welcome to the takeout. I am not Major
[0:34]Garrett. I'm Ed O'Keefe in for him today and tomorrow. Great to be with you. Buried amid the millions of pages of documents about Jeffrey Epstein released by the Justice Department in recent days comes word then businessman Donald Trump
[0:45]reached out to law enforcement himself in the early stages of initial investigations in the one-time finance year. According to the FBI, Trump told the then Palm Beach police chief, quote,
[0:56]"Thank goodness you're stopping him. Everyone has known he's been doing this." The FBI learned about this in a 2019 interview with Michael Ryder, a former Palm Beach police chief. Well,
[1:06]the document doesn't mention when Ryder spoke with Trump. Former chief tells the Miami Herald he interviewed Trump in July 2006. That would be in the early stages of law enforcement probes and
[1:16]allegations against Epstein. asked about this revelation. The Justice Department told CBS News, quote, "We're not aware of any corroborating evidence that the president contacted law enforcement 20 years ago." And today at the White
[1:28]House, the story changed ever so slightly. >> It was a phone call that may or may not have happened in 2006. I don't know the answer to that question. What I'm telling you is that what President Trump
[1:39]has always said is that he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mara Lago Club because Jeffrey Epstein was a creep. So, you heard her there say Caroline Levit didn't rule out if the president
[1:51]spoke with the police chief and added that they're moving on from this. But Congress is not because today also yielded a more public explanation from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik about
[2:01]when he met and spent time with Epstein. The secretary recounted in an interview last year he first met Epstein in 2005 after he moved into a New York apartment next door to the former businessman. In that interview, Lutnik said the
[2:12]interaction quote disgusted him and that he vowed never to meet with Epstein again. The Epstein documents show they did communicate years later in December 2012. Epstein invited Lenik to lunch on
[2:23]his private island in the US Virgin Islands and the two men had business dealings as recently as 2014. So today, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee sought clarification and Lutnik provided it.
[2:35]I met Jeffrey Epstein when he moved when I moved to a house next door to him in New York, right? And uh I met him then. Over the next 14 years, I met him two
[2:47]other times that I can recall. Two times. I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me as were my
[2:59]four children and nannies. I had another couple with they were there as well with their children and we had lunch on the
[3:09]island. That is true for an hour and we left with all of my children with my nannies and my wife all together. >> Lutnik said that he had reviewed the
[3:20]emails himself and didn't find any other mentions of him and said there was no other wrongdoing. His wife was fully aware of everything he had done or said or every time he'd interacted with Epstein. And while political leaders in other countries have resigned or been
[3:32]fired for associations with Epstein, nobody in the American government has stepped down or been removed for knowing the convicted sex offender or his accomplice, Colleen Maxwell. But the drip drip drip that continues from the
[3:43]millions of documents is starting to give us a better sense of who knew what and when. Thing is, it's painfully slow and overdue for victims, for their families, and those who want justice. We
[3:54]begin tonight with Virginia Democratic Congressman Suas Subraman who joins me now. He's viewed some of the unredacted documents, joins us from Capitol Hill. Congressman, thank you for being with us. Now that you've seen at least some
[4:05]of these unredacted documents, give us a sense of what it is you've seen. >> You know, there's a a lot of redactions that were not necessary uh that are uh
[4:17]redacting people who are not victims in any way. There's also a lot of redactions of of investigators themselves and FBI and DOJ personnel.
[4:28]I'm not quite sure why they felt they needed to do that. Uh and just generally they still were managed to not protect victims in this process. So from that sense I think it's disappointing. But
[4:39]the bigger disappointment is that documents that we've been looking for and asking for are either still redacted. I went into the room looking
[4:48]for documents that even the DOJ itself wrote and they are still redacted in the unredacted document list. Uh, and then other documents are being withheld from
[4:59]us. 2 and a2 million documents are being withheld. So, it's hard to do an investigation when someone has the evidence and won't give it to you. >> When you say there are names that are
[5:09]redacted that shouldn't be redacted, first off, how do you know who they are? And and when or if or will you and other members
[5:20]reveal who those people are? Could you do that without getting in legal trouble? We could do that. I think one of the issues, first of all, some members have
[5:30]already done that uh on the House floor. I think if you go on the House floor, you're protected in some ways legally, but in other ways, >> you know, there's there's some issue of
[5:41]of women who are in Jeffrey Epstein's sphere and uh who may claim to be victims themselves. I think that's debatable in a few instances. There's
[5:51]other instances of women who provided Jeffrey Epstein uh victims and uh it's unclear to me why they are considered victims but there's more digging that
[6:02]certainly we want to do uh before we reveal names. I think in other cases though there's simply documents missing or still redacted and these include the draft indictments. These include witness
[6:14]statements, uh, you know, other things that even the victims themselves are looking for and are helping us work backwards to try to find those things. Uh, but we're not getting all the
[6:24]information. That's the reality. And so, we're going to have to continue to push, continue to demand transparency from this administration. Some of your colleagues call it a cover up based on what you've seen. Is it that or is it
[6:35]sloppy work amid the millions of documents that were dumped on a handful of Justice Department officials who had to quickly figure out what could be publicly released and what should be held back?
[6:46]I think it's both because you look back to last January where this administration was bumping its chest and talking about how they would have the files ready to release and then they
[6:56]claimed that they were on Pam Bondi's desk in March and claimed that they had been redacted and are ready to release and then all of a sudden President Trump uh got to see some of the files and
[7:07]didn't like what he saw and so they started stonewalling us. Well, we've had a subpoena since last August. We've had a law that President Trump had to sign himself back in December and they
[7:18]violated all of those things repeatedly. So, how do you not call it a cover up? And and certainly the redactions in this case were sloppy. They were not handled well. But I think it's more than that. I
[7:29]think this is this administration is stonewalling us and does not want people to find the whole truth. >> What did you make of Secretary Letic's explanations today? It did seem like he
[7:39]was perhaps a bit remorseful or almost like someone who had been caught saying one thing when in fact the emails revealed something else. Was that
[7:49]sufficient or is he got to go through this again? >> Well, another way of saying what he did before was he lied. He lied about his association with Jeffrey Epstein and now
[8:00]he's telling us a different story. Are we supposed to believe him this time? Uh it to me it's clear that the only way to find out his association with Jeffrey Epstein is to release all of the files
[8:11]and then do our own investigation where we can interview witnesses including him and put him uh under penalty of perjury uh before a committee. That's what I'd
[8:20]like to see. And I honestly given his association with Epstein, I think a lot of my colleagues and myself think he should resign at this point. That's what's happening in Europe. And what message are we sending in the United
[8:31]States when in Europe people are losing their titles, losing their jobs, but in the US there's no accountability? Uh certainly not for this administration or anyone in it. And
[8:41]>> and real quick, seeing the documents calling for better access to them, raising questions about the Justice Department is one thing. What does Congress do next in this realm to to
[8:53]either learn more, to seek justice, to hold people accountable? Well, we have some key uh witnesses this month. We're going to talk to Les Wexner
[9:03]helped bankroll a lot of Jeffrey Epste and his lifestyle. He was a key client and he shows up in many of the documents uh that that I've seen. And then uh the
[9:14]executives of the estate, we're going to be talking to them as well. We're going to get production from the banks and financial institutions. The victims said that if we follow the money, we'll find a lot. So there is a lot more to
[9:24]investigation and I know President Trump wants this to go away for some reason and and I would just say to him and to other people uh who want this to go away that we're just getting started >> and you're talking to President and
[9:36]Secretary Clinton as well later this month as part of this. >> We are. Yes. >> Yeah. All right. Congressman Submanion from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Thank you for spending a few minutes with us explaining what you've seen. We
[9:47]appreciate it. Joining me now here on set, Jeffrey Epstein, survivor at Danny Benky. Um, it is great to see you again and it goes without saying we thank you for continuing to talk about this, to
[9:59]advocate for it. You've been a real example to people of >> taking what happened to you and and trying to turn it into something better for the public good. Um, you co-signed a letter that has been sent to the
[10:08]attorney general um that raises concerns about how the department is handling the FC documents. You call out the deputy attorney general for suggesting its review of the matter is over and says this release doesn't provide closure.
[10:20]just quoting part of it. It feels instead like a deliberate attempt to intimidate survivors, punish those who came forward, and reinforce the same culture of secrecy that allowed Epstein's crimes to continue for
[10:30]decades. Broadly, at this point, what would you want the Justice Department to do differently with what it's got? >> Well, I think I mean, at this point, the
[10:41]redactions have been what they are. Um, there's [clears throat] been a huge release of Jane Doe's names to the
[10:50]public. We have seen nude photos of some underage girls that the government released. You know, just the the reduction process in itself has been
[10:59]absolutely horrific. Um, so we hope that we can, you know, protect whoever we still can. Um, but I think the
[11:09]perpetrators are still being covered up here. And you know, I was just looking at a document recently with Virginia Duffy's name out there for the world to see Prince Andrew's name is redacted.
[11:20]Um, in other cases, there has been the special agent who took many of our statements um in 2018 and 2019 in New York City, her information has been
[11:31]redacted, but survivors information is out there, right? And so, um, it just feels like an egregious oversight. You guys in in this letter that you sent to the Justice Department list 14 different
[11:43]questions you'd like answered. Among them, who approved the release of the documents that expose survivors names and identifying information? How did the government come to publish nude photographs and deeply sensitive material? And who will be held
[11:54]accountable for that breach? What's the timeline for releasing the remaining documents? And will you meet directly with survivors and survivor advocates before any further public release of Epstein related materials? I didn't realize they haven't met with any of
[12:05]you. No, the DOJ hasn't met with us and that's been we've been asking for meetings forever. [laughter] I mean um definitely for the last month we were requesting to meet with uh AG Bondi. We've been requesting to meet with Todd
[12:17]Blanch. Um and they've been in touch now with our lawyers, some of our lawyers, just to get reductions in place. Um but no, there's been no conversation with the DOJ. >> I want to ask you the same question I asked the congressman. Based on your
[12:29]review of these documents, you think it's intentional these names are getting out there or do you think it's sloppy work? I was going to say sloppy work in the beginning, but I I'm starting to think that the incompetence is the
[12:40]strategy here. Um, this idea of throwing all the survivors names out there. So now they're pulling documents offline to now redact. So we actually don't know
[12:50]what is being pulled down for our lawyers to work on and what is being pulled down for other reasons. Um, so I [snorts] just think that that's been Yeah, that's been a challenge. You are
[13:00]in Washington in part because they handful of congressional Democrats today unveiled what's called Virginia's law. >> Yes. I'm so excited to talk about Virginia's law. Yes. >> What would it do? What would it do differently? How would it make a difference?
[13:12]>> Well, it would eliminate the statute of limitations. So, right now, a lot of the forward- facing victims that you see are from 1999, 1996, you know, um as early
[13:22]as 1991 even. and um you know they had to beg the government for their statement to even be taken for [snorts] my situation. You know I was 17 when my abuse occurred in 2004 um and my abuse
[13:33]would have never happened if anybody listened to Maria Farmer in 1996. Um so bringing it into today basically eliminating the statute of limitations
[13:43]would mean that people who are the survivors that have been saying please take my statement can actually see justice for the crimes that are committed. there shouldn't be a a
[13:53]limitation on justice, right? Um we know that the perpetrators exist, so everybody should be able to to bring them to justice. >> And it's the statute of limitations in civil suits against these people, not
[14:04]the criminal suits, but the idea that you could sue someone for the allegations or for doing all these terrible things. >> I also wanted to throw out they have a
[14:13]GoFundMe going um for Virginia. She has a company called Soore. Um, and so there's more information on that, but just to keep their fight moving. Um, it
[14:22]would be so Annie Farmer has headed that and you can find that on GoFundMe. >> What do you want Congress to I asked the congressman the same thing. What more can they do? What should they be doing pushing for next?
[14:34]>> I mean, changing statute of limitations is a huge thing for all survivors. And and that's the craziest part about all of this is we sit here as Epste and Maxwell survivors. However, we've we've
[14:44]heard from so many survivors as a whole and women and men who have gone through um abuse and abusive situations. And so I think um you know we stand for
[14:55]everybody and I think that if we can change statute of limitations and we can start holding you know I think foreign countries are really taking this to
[15:05]heart right we we see accountability in a plethora of ways and we're starting to see um they're just taking it seriously and here it never feels like we're being
[15:15]taken seriously. survivors are being called a hoax and um saying this is over before it's even really begun. We need investigations >> to continue. Yeah.
[15:26]>> You anticipated my last question, so thank you for [laughter] that. Danny Bensky, like we said, thank you for being here again for the work you're doing. We appreciate it. >> Thank you so much for having me. >> All right, we turn now to the case of
[15:36]Nancy Guthrie. The FBI has released surveillance images of a mass subject at her front door. The FBI director, Cash Patel, described the person as an armed individual who tampered with Guthri's doorbell camera. Savannah Guthrie,
[15:48]co-host of NBC's Today Show, reacted to the images just minutes after they were released, saying, quote, "We believe she is still alive." We're joined now by Andreas Gutierrez, who's following the latest developments from Tucson.
[16:00]Andreas, good to see you. What more do we know about what the FBI is describing as a subject in this case? Well, Ed, the investigators keep coming back to the fact of how prepared this
[16:11]person looks. You can see who someone who is masked, someone who is wearing these distinctive gloves, who is carrying a distinctive backpack moving straight toward Nancy Guthri's door.
[16:21]Authorities believe the person was armed and made it a point going after that particular doorbell camera. And that detail matters because it's telling investigators that this someone, this
[16:31]person wasn't just simply stumbling onto the property, that this was very intentional. They are being very careful not to call this person a suspect, a sub a suspect just yet, but they are very
[16:42]focused on identifying who this person is. Remember, there is a $50,000 reward that the FBI is offering. They have plastered that reward mount as well as
[16:52]her face, Nancy Guthri's face on billboards across the Southwest here in Arizona and surrounding states. The FBI tip number is 1800 call FBI ad.
[17:03]>> Andreas, uh, real quick, you've been there now more than a week. When you talk to the locals, I I'm curious if they wonder what I think a lot of people across the country are wondering is why
[17:14]is this taking so long? Why weren't these images made available sooner? >> Well, that's the question we all have. It's been 10 days in. We know that they
[17:24]had all they were facing these obstacles with the subscription service not being paid for. And so, they weren't recorded to a cloud. Eventually, it took some engineers at Google, the Nest camera
[17:35]system, for them to go into their back uh channel systems, the backend systems to eventually extract this information. That's why it took so long. But now America finally has something tangible.
[17:46]They have been asking for tips, but now they can actually be looking out for the specific, you know, clothing that this individual is wearing, the gate that this person has. Uh, and remember, it
[17:56]may only be a matter of time here. Just a few months ago, I was out covering the Charlie Kirk assassination. And in that circumstance, the FBI ended up releasing images just before 8:00 that night.
[18:07]Eventually, the alleged suspect's mother realized that he said, "Hey, that looks like my son." Called her husband, who had then eventually led them to talk to their son, saying, "Hey, son, where are
[18:19]you?" and led to turning himself into police about 2 hours later. Uh ended, you know, without a confrontation. Uh and now he is uh serving uh you know, is
[18:30]behind is about to face the criminal justice system for his actions. So, it may take someone to just recognize something distinctive about this individual and they're hoping that it will provide the big break in this
[18:41]particular case. >> Yeah, we can all hope so. Andres, who's been covering this since it began, thank you so much from Tucson tonight. We appreciate it. >> Still to come, toughening tactics.
[18:53]Federal officials admit they zip tied children during a recent immigration raid in Idaho. CBS News's Matt Gutman joins us next for that story. and a backup up north. President Trump's
[19:04]threat to block the opening of a new bridge connecting Detroit with Ontario, Canada. [music] That province's premier Doug Ford joins us to discuss the move that could cost both countries billions.
[19:15]And records unsealed. What we're learning from the documents filed ahead of the FBI's raid at a Georgia election center. CBS News election lock contributor David Becker joins me live.
[19:25]The Takeout returns in 90 seconds. >> [music] >> Welcome back. In a CBS News exclusive, a
[19:37]14-year-old girl describes how she was zip tied by law enforcement during an October raid on a horse racing track in rural Idaho. The raid was targeting an alleged illegal gambling ring, but
[19:48]resulted in more than 300 American citizens and 100 undocumented immigrants in custody, only five of whom were arrested on non-violent charges. Today, the ACLU filed suit alleging the raid
[19:59]was a cover for an immigration operation and agents used excessive force against children. CBS News chief correspondent Matt Gutman spoke with the sheriff who led the raid. >> The youngest that was zip tied was 16
[20:10]years old and he had a mustache. There were kids in there. They weren't zipped. Those little ones were not zip tied. >> This is a picture of Suhee. We met her this morning. She's 14 years old. >> Okay.
[20:20]>> She's a I would say a child. uh a girl who was zip tied and these are the bruises from those zip ties. >> And have you seen that or heard? >> No, I had not. I had not seen that. But I will tell you this.
[20:31]>> I've been in this business a long time. I have gone against gang members who are a lot younger than that. >> She was with her six-year-old brother and 8-year-old sister. >> You're But you're taking that out of
[20:42]context. We We do not context do you need There's a girl with two small children with her. How dangerous could she possibly be? >> We don't know. CBS News chief correspondent Matt Gutman is following
[20:53]us for us from Los Angeles. Matt, great to see you. You spoke with some of the kids uh at the scene. What did they have to say about this? >> You know, Ed, the ACLU in its lawsuit,
[21:04]which was just filed about an hour ago, says that there were multiple children who were detained. Some of them were zipcuffed. And I spoke to Suhee T. She's 14, uh probably around 51, 10 and some
[21:15]pounds. And she said that multiple agents forced her out of her car. She asked who they were, why they were detaining her. She says she didn't get a response. She says they threw her to the
[21:26]ground and we saw bruises, images of her bruising on her side and those images you see now of bruising on her wrist. She was later uh detained and zip tied
[21:35]and uh she was crying so intensely. She was eventually reunited with her mother and crying so intensely that she had a panic attack and her mother couldn't console her because she was also zip
[21:46]tied. These are American citizens, right? There were about 500 people at this event and 105 of them were detained and arrested for not having uh documents on them, which meant the sheriff told me
[21:58]that about 375 people were US citizens, the majority of them, and some of them had residency and they were being detained against their will without being told specifically what they were being detained for until they were
[22:09]processed by ICE. And eventually those zip ties were cut off. And you know, we just went back there, Ed, and right at that scene, 4 and a half months later, you can still see those zip ties cut off
[22:21]on the ground there at that racetrack. A reminder, um, five people were arrested for nonviolent illegal gambling uh, at the site. >> That's incredible that the zip ties are
[22:31]still there. I think we have sound of of the young girl you spoke with. We should hear from her if we can. Let's let's take a listen. >> Like, what's your name? Like, get out of the truck. Get out of the truck. And I just I just stay there and like I just
[22:42]don't get out. And then that's when they pull me out and I land on my side. >> And Alfredo, did the the officers try to pull you out of the car?
[22:51]>> No, I opened the door and and I was trying to protect my sister. >> I mean, that's pretty incredible that
[23:01]his kids caught in the middle of this. >> Yeah. Saying that he was trying to protect his sister. Now, there are apparently other children who were involved. Some of them were told by local lawyers were afraid to file suit
[23:12]because they just don't want to ruffle any feathers in this community. >> And you know, we should point out to contextually this was of course occurring in the sort of in the wake of
[23:23]at the same time as the situation in Minneapolis. So it didn't get as much attention, but the fact that they've rushed this lawsuit just signals how significant the the ACLU at least believes this was. >> That's right. It happened a little bit
[23:34]before, but certainly during the peak of the immigration operations that we've seen across the country, obviously in Minneapolis, but Chicago, Maine, other cities, Los Angeles as well. Um, and one of the things that was very interesting
[23:45]about this is that we can demonstraably show that children were detained. Um, but we asked the sheriff about it. He said that he didn't believe that anybody younger than 16 was zipcuffed or
[23:56]detained. And we reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and asked them about the [clears throat] detention. and uh zip cuffing or zip tying of young children. They said it
[24:06]was a conspiracy theory. Ed >> H. Well, we'll have much more of your reporting on the CBS Evening News uh later tonight, 6:30 in the East, in the West, 10 p.m. Eastern here on CBS News
[24:17]247. Mupman, thank you so much for that reporting. We look forward to seeing the rest of it. >> A bridge too far. President Trump threatens to block the opening of a new
[24:29]US Canada span over a range of economic issues. Ontario's Premier Doug Ford has a lot to say about this and he joins the takeout next. Welcome back. President Trump is once
[24:44]again going after Canada. This time he's threatening to block the opening of a new bridge that connects Windsor, Ontario to Detroit. See it there on a map. The Gordy How International Bridge,
[24:54]named for the Hockey Great, has been under construction since 2018. Canada picked up the tab on the multi-billion dollar project. The president, though, lashed out on social media overnight, saying he would block the bridg's
[25:06]opening over a range of economic issues and that the US must be quote fully compensated for everything we've given them. Earlier, I spoke to the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, about all this. Take
[25:17]a listen. I wanted to start with your reaction to the president's threats to hold up this construction project. >> Well, I find it ironic, Ed, that the
[25:28]president back in 2017 uh endorsed it and fasttracked the the project. So, he was all in favor of it. And uh you know, this is going to be
[25:39]very very beneficial for both sides of the border, especially the people in Michigan. uh there's going to be over 850,000 truck hours per year if you want to say
[25:50]that. Uh and every day that it's uh held up or closed, that's 2,3 and 39 truck hours sitting there idling.
[26:00]Uh but it's going to hurt the economy in Michigan. It'll hurt Ontario. And uh this is all about uh politics. It's not about fact. And it's unfortunately
[26:12]uh it's unfortunate I should say that he doesn't have the facts and I'd be more than happy to to give the facts, but I think I heard a a little thing from
[26:23]Carolyn there and unfortunately his spokesperson doesn't have the facts either. >> Well, let's actually let's hear from her first because the White House was asked about this earlier today and tried to
[26:34]clarify the president's position. I'll have you respond to her on the flip side. Let's take a listen. The fact that Canada will control what crosses the Gordy How Bridge and owns the land on both sides is unacceptable to the
[26:46]president. It's also unacceptable that more of this bridge isn't being built with more Americanmade materials. He also believes that the US should own at least half of the bridge, have shared
[26:56]authority over what passes across it, and participate in the economic benefits generated by its use. >> Your response? >> Well, it's totally inaccurate word for
[27:06]word. Let's start off with first about uh we're going to determine what crosses the bridge. That's furthest from the truth. That's a split agreement between the US and Canada. They're going to
[27:17]share that responsibility. And as for not using American labor, well, Canadians paid for the whole bridge, but in saying that, uh 25% of the bridge is
[27:29]made by American concrete, American steel, American workers. And then saying that we control both sides of the bridge is just so far from the truth. Matter of fact, the interchange was built uh with
[27:40]Michigan workers, Michigan concrete, Michigan steel, and uh they they need to get their facts straight. And by the way, uh they're going to own Michigan. The agreement is that they own 50% of
[27:52]the bridge and Canadians uh paid for it. So, as a business person myself, I think that's a a pretty good deal. But th this is going to uh this is going to be the
[28:02]one of the busiest bridges in North America, if not the busiest. There'll be a billion dollars of goods going across the bridge two-way trade on a daily basis. And all this is going to do is
[28:13]hurt the uh American economy, hurt Michigan, hurt the Michigan workers. And keep in mind, President Trump only won Michigan by 1.4%.
[28:24]And there's going to be 13 Congress seats, seven of which Republicans own. And I'll tell you one thing, uh, they won't be too happy, their constituents,
[28:33]when, uh, they they don't have a job. That's that's what it comes down to. You can't I always say, Ed, you know, we've been integrated for 200 years and
[28:43]between, uh, people and and businesses. Uh, you can't unscramble an egg. Uh, you got to make the omelet larger. And that's what we need to do. And both uh,
[28:54]countries will be more prosperous. there'll be certainty, more jobs, more opportunities, and that's that's what this is all about, making sure both economies grow.
[29:04]>> Uh, back in 2017, the president did call this bridge a vital economic link when he signaled that he supported its construction. It's cost about $4.7 billion to construct, as you said,
[29:16]financed by the Canadian government, but will be co-owned by Canada and Michigan, designed to benefit both sides of the span. Do you have any sense of what it could do in the short term to delay the
[29:28]opening of the bridge? >> Well, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars of of two-way trade, unfortunately. And there'll be uh trucks stuck on the other bridge again uh for
[29:40]2,329 hours uh a day, by the way, every single day. So, that that is not a good thing for both economies. Uh this is going to
[29:50]make sure that we prosper on both sides of the border. I always say, Ed, you know, I love Americans. Canadians love Americans, and uh there's one person uh
[30:01]there causing a a few issues. Let's move forward and uh grow both economies. >> One of the things he pointed out in his message overnight is that Ontario
[30:11]continues to block the sale of US alcoholic products on its shelves. It was you who famously banned the sale of American liquor and wine in response to the president starting this trade war
[30:23]last year. Is there any hope for Kentucky bourbon, California wine being sold on Ontario shelves again? >> There there's a lot of hope. All he has to do is get rid of the tariffs uh on
[30:34]Canada. That actually a tariff on Canada is a tax on American people. They're feeling it in the US. Obviously, we we feel it as well. Uh we're the two
[30:45]greatest trading nations in the world. We're the US's number one customer. No one buys more goods off the US than than Canadians. And vice versa, by the way.
[30:54]It's a great partnership. And Ontario alone uh is responsible for 9 million Americans waking up every morning to produce a product, a widget, or a
[31:05]service for Ontario. And that's just Ontario. That's not the rest of Canada. So, it's really really important that we continue to grow the trade and uh when
[31:15]it comes down to tariffs, as Ronald Reagan said, protectionism does not work and it will never work. And uh the people are feeling the crunch and in the
[31:25]US right now, uh we want to make sure everyone prospers. >> Real quick, uh we got ahead of you in mixed doubles curling uh in the Olympics. Uh how much is the US going to beat Canada by in the men's hockey
[31:37]final? Well, we're you know something. We're we're we're champions when it comes to hockey. Uh you beat us you you beat us in baseball. So now we're we're going to
[31:46]have to have a little revenge on on the hockey side. But this is this is great camaraderie back and forth. I can't tell you how many Americans are married to Canadians and Canadians married to
[31:58]Americans. It's in the millions. Uh we've had a great relationship for 200 years and we can't let one person destroy our relationship. and that one person will not destroy it. We'll keep
[32:09]moving forward and continue uh making sure both countries prosper. >> Premier Doug Ford of Ontario, thank you for taking the time. Good to talk to you again. >> Thank you. Great to talk to you, too. And God bless America. God bless Canada.
[32:21]Thank you. >> Who knew those Canadians knew so much about Michigan politics? Interesting there. We're getting a first look at the search warrants the federal government filed in the Fulton County election
[32:31]raid. More on what FBI [music] agents were looking for next on The Takeout. Welcome back to the takeout. The
[32:43]government has unsealed records connected to the recent FBI raid that sees 2020 election ballots from Fulton County, Georgia. Move comes after the county, which encompasses Atlanta and some of its suburbs, filed a motion
[32:54]requesting the return of the records taken during a recent FBI raid and for officials to explain what exactly they were looking for. We're joined now by CBS News election law contributor David Becker, who is also the executive
[33:05]director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. This is the guy you call when there are questions about ballots and irregularities and whatnot. And thank goodness we're starting at another election cycle with you. Um, but
[33:15]as you were saying during the break, a lot earlier than we normally would because this stuff is kicked up so soon. >> It's only February, Ed. It's incredible. >> Um, give us a s This is a 22page release
[33:26]here. Uh what what does this help us sort out today regarding what the government was looking for? >> Well, I'll be honest. When I knew this was coming out, I was expecting a lot
[33:36]more in here to justify the seizure of election records from an election more than 5 years ago. And it's pretty weak. I mean, to be perfectly honest, in this
[33:46]affidavit signed by an FBI agent uh justifying that they had probable cause to believe that there was evidence that uh related to the commission of a federal crime. uh they basically
[33:56]admitted there's no intent. Their own studies that they cited in there said there was no intent to do anything wrong and intent is a necessary element of proving any federal crime.
[34:06]>> Uh they didn't have any allegations with regard to election theft at all. In fact, they admit that the ballots were counted three times once entirely by hand and confirmed the results in
[34:17]Atlanta and in Fulton County. Um they don't mention anything about foreign interference or a foreign nexus would have been which would have been necessary to invoke any jurisdiction for
[34:27]the director of national intelligence and she was of course inside that room. And lastly there were this big statute of limitations issue this 5-year statute of limitations on any of these federal crimes. They don't mention the statute
[34:37]of limitations at all. And so when we're looking at this document now, what's pretty clear is that five plus years after the election, dozens of court cases, more review than any election in
[34:49]world history, a ye over a year now of the Trump administration being in total power of the federal government, and all they could possibly allege in this affidavit, if you take it at its word,
[35:00]is that there was some human error on a long night working in election in the middle of a global pandemic, and that error didn't have any impact on the outcome. of the election. >> I mean, that's what they detail here at
[35:11]length is the idea that one handc count got one number, another got another, but as you point out, what they ultimately concluded is it didn't change the result. >> That's right. >> Biden still won, Trump still lost. >> It's not that unusual for little human
[35:22]errors to happen here or there. Two ballots get stuck in the scanner and the numbers might be off a little bit here or there, but ultimately, you know, this election was decided by 11,779 votes. We remember the call that
[35:34]President Trump made to Secretary Sarah Raffensburgger. Um, that's a pretty big margin in this world and there was absolutely no review, no recount. The multiple times these ballots have probably been counted more than any
[35:44]ballots in American history at this point. >> Real quick, with the 40 seconds we have left, this happens. We'll see what the [clears throat] judge rules as they as Fton County tries to get these ballots back. But what does this do to the
[35:55]president's arguments he'll probably make over the course of the rest of this year? Look, no matter what the facts have been, no matter how many times courts have uh found that there was no problem with the 2020 election, that
[36:05]Biden won that election, he has continued to spread disinformation. And in doing that, he's been denigrating the election officials, the public servants around the country, Republicans and Democrats who run our elections. They're
[36:16]getting tired of it, but they're still doing a great job. I expect our elections this year, despite the federal interference, despite the challenges they're going to face, I expect them to be run extremely well. They're going to be it's going to be convenient and safe
[36:28]to vote and we're going to know who wins the elections. >> And I think if anything, if you read this thing, what what you're reminded by is that it is humans who count these ballots ultimately humans responsible for them and mistakes can happen. >> That's right. And our system is designed
[36:40]to be resilient against those. >> Right. And had there been issues with the count, we probably would have heard about it. >> Long ago. Yes. >> David Becker, great to see you as always. Texas Democratic candidate for Senate, James Talerico, has faced an
[36:51]onslaught of criticism recently. Our political panel will break down how the primary in the Lone Star State's gotten so dirty and what that campaign says about the state of the party. [music]
[36:59]You're watching the Takeout. Welcome back to the Takeout. Apologies for the cliche, but as you know,
[37:09]everything's bigger in Texas, including political beef. Congressional candidate Colon Red says he wants an apology. Democratic Senate candidate James Telerico is a social media influencer
[37:20]without evidence accused Telarico of making a racially insensitive remark about Alred that Telerico denies. Alred detailed his conversation with Terarico in an interview with CBS News Texas.
[37:32]Take a listen. >> We spoke on the phone and I offered him a chance to apologize and he declined to do that. >> So he didn't apologize? >> That's right. >> Did that surprise you? >> It is surprising. I think that's the
[37:41]easiest thing to do in the situation. Uh, I see you shaking your head, Joel Payne, who is part of our uh, conversation here. Democratic strategist, CBS News contributor and CBS News political director, Finn Gomez.
[37:53]Joel Payne, why shake your head in in disgust or in in concern? >> Family business should stay inside the family. Um, I don't know what James Terico said to this influencer. It seems
[38:03]like whatever he said landed the wrong way. Um, I do think it's interesting though because this is the first time that James Tarico has run a national, it's a state campaign, but it's a national campaign >> as most campaign.
[38:14]>> And what I would say is this is his first time under the colleague likes of the national political apparatus. And I think when you have that, you have moments like this where you think you're having an off thereord conversation and
[38:25]you're not. That's not that uncommon. Um, but what I was reacting to was just the need for Democrats to understand what the what the bigger picture is here. Look, primaries are healthy. They're a good idea. Democrats need a
[38:36]good primary in Texas, but after that primary, they need the party to unite behind either Jasmine Crockett or James Terico. And to the extent that this is going to prevent that from happening, I'd imagine that there's some Democrats
[38:47]in Texas who are going to get together, try to get some folks to have some conversations and uh bring the temperature down a bit. >> Who who even who even in instigates that conversation? There's no natural leader of the party in that state.
[38:58]>> Well, there's some national leaders. I don't know. Does uh someone like Barack Obama get on the phone? does someone um you know in kind of Harris high command from 2024 get on the phone someone who
[39:08]has relationships on both sides I don't know I'm speculating but my bigger point is here I think folks need to keep their eye on the on the ball if there's any route to Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2026 it's probably going to
[39:20]run through Texas >> it has been suggested to me and we'll bring into this Finn in a second but it's been suggested to me that already is one of those Democrats who has to run in a new district because of the redraw
[39:29]of Texas he's leaving the district he's to run against Julie Johnson from another part of the Dallas area and he's not as well known there and that part of what he may be doing here is trying to
[39:39]drive up Crockett's numbers inside this district to his benefit to try to >> quite the bank shot if that's if that's the case maybe it is I I also think >> this may have more to do with him his
[39:51]chances than the taro >> I guess what I would impress upon anybody whether it's team all red team Crockett team Rico the Texas Democratic party is better when all three of those
[40:00]entities are intact act after this election season in whatever form it takes whether any of them are the nominee none of them are the nominee one of them is governor one day one of them is president one day the Texas
[40:11]Democratic party needs all three of those folks to be strong and vibrant going >> meanwhile I will say though I mean I did talk to some Republicans about this today and they were they're very happy about this outcome I mean the way it
[40:22]just looks the way that like this infighting that Joel was referring to uh it just it even like it feel it feels like from a from an outside perspective and lens it feels was a little manufactured. Frankly, the fact that
[40:33]he's like this this all of a sudden this umbrage he's taking over this that it just it just it doesn't hit right on a national level. >> Can I just say one thing really quickly? I don't want to miss the the the perceived slight here is real. Sure. Sure.
[40:45]>> If if it's actually what is being alleged here about Taler Rico. I think the evidence is a little slim on that right now. And I guess what I would say is whatever the slight is, get in a
[40:55]room, figure it out, make apologies, make amends, and let's move on to get to the work of u having strong Democrats in Texas. >> How are those Republicans feeling about Turning Point USA endorsing Ken Paxton
[41:06]in the equally delicious and controversial Republican Senate primary in Texas over the incumbent John Cornin? >> Yeah, I don't The Corn allies that I spoke today were not happy about that. Obviously, look, the T TPA USA is a big
[41:18]deal, right? man. Obviously, they're a big deal within the Republican context of of politics. They're a huge stakeholder in Trump's successful 2024 win. It's it's going to bode well for
[41:27]him, but you know, it's still pretty roughly a pretty tight race. There was a new poll that came out this week, University of Houston, that showed him within about seven points. There's about
[41:36]12% 12 points 12 percentage of of those uh who were asked about the race were still undecided. So, there still still like a little bit up for grabs. I think this though, however, has a big impact,
[41:47]too. This is the three-way race between John Cornin, the incumbent, Ken Paxton, the attorney general who wants to unseat him, and Congressman Wesler from the Houston area, uh, in what is by all accounts a messy
[41:59]>> primary. Two factors in this Texas race to watch. We just talked about one of them is how do Democrats emerge from this primary season. The second is who is the candidate that Republicans put
[42:08]up? If they put up Ken Paxton, that race automatically becomes a tier one target for Democrats in the Senate. If it's John Cornin, if because of his unpopularity, he's a conservative fire
[42:19]brand and he cuts himself off from a certain percentage of Texas voters, I think Democrats think they can go after. If it's John Cornin, that race becomes a lot less delicious for Democrats. >> But also at the same time, even with
[42:30]those polling numbers that we saw on the Democratic side, if it's Crockett, uh there are a lot of Republicans feel really good about their chances against her. And this will also be a good test of TPUSA >> whether they still got the juice post
[42:41]Charlie Kirk's assassination whether they can really deliver bodies to the polls >> and make it happen for a Republican. >> Absolutely. I think that's that's going to be a very definable metric here in this in
[42:51]>> what President Trump do also. I think I think Donald Trump might do is might weigh in with Wesley Hunt and that'll make this thing very messy. >> Yes. And then we'll just take the show to Texas. Joel Payne, Finn Gomez, pack
[43:02]your bags. We may be there soon. That does it for today. I'm Ed O'Keefe in for Major Garrett. We'll see you tomorrow, but stay tuned because the Daily Report is coming up next. >> [music]