2/9: The Takeout with Major Garrett

Because this girl deserves the truth. Because she deserves the truth. Because we all deserve the truth.

The spot was designed to deepen the well of support for transparency and justice, a long-running pursuit of the survivors that, due to a law demanding release of all Epstein files, made this message recognizable and resonant. No explanation was required. Bad Bunny dominated the halftime show without a single lyric sung in English, yet with cultural touchstones and motifs familiar to any American community, animated and enlivened by Latino culture. Puerto Rico, part of America as a Commonwealth and where Bad Bunny was born, of course, got extra love. But the Americas and the United States of America were given their reverent due. Even so, an online spat over taste and language ensued. It was led, perhaps predictably, by President Trump. He labeled it "absolutely terrible," an "affront" to American greatness, as well as being supposedly divorced from success, creativity, and excellence. Divorced? Wait, there was an actual marriage, a charming Grammy handoff to a child, and one chart-topping hit after another. Despite predictions to the contrary, cameos from a raft of A-listers yielded scant political fireworks. Bad Bunny, you see, left the fireworks to well, the fireworks. For the tens of millions who tapped their toes, no explanation was required. What Epstein and Bad Bunny represent to America now, however, is worth considering. The sick Epstein saga is a look back on an era where the powerful, the connected, the corrupt, and the creepy hid their associations and looked the other way, confident they would escape unscathed. Epstein is about the past coming to terms with a justice-seeking present. Bad Bunny represents the aspirations of a distinctly American corporate juggernaut, the National Football League, which, as you might recall, began its season in Brazil and capped it by embracing a global symbol of the burgeoning power, economically, politically, and otherwise, of Latino culture in America and throughout this hemisphere. More than any other sports league in our country, the NFL peers into the future. With Bad Bunny, that future has a different beat and a distinctly different look. We begin tonight with Nikole Killion and the work lawmakers undertook this day to try to learn more from the Epstein documents still housed at the Justice Department. Nikole, what can you tell us? Well, obviously, we know the Justice Department has released more than 3 million documents as part of the Epstein files, but that is not the full range and realm of these files, which is why many members of Congress were eager to get over to the Department of Justice today to see these unredacted files. Many of them had criticized the Justice Department for not releasing the full files, as the law mandates. So today was really their first opportunity to do so and to see these documents unredacted for themselves. Take a listen to Congressman Jared Moskowitz after he made a visit to the Department of Justice earlier today. It's disgusting. There are lots of names, lots of co-conspirators, and they're trafficking girls all across the world. I mean, it's exactly as people thought it was. It's that and more, unfortunately. We also heard from Jamie Raskin, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, who also said that he saw some documents with potential names of possible co-conspirators. So he also saw similar things to Jared Moskowitz. But it's a very delicate process, Major, because there are only about four computers in this room that lawmakers are allowed into, according to Raskin. So there is limited space for these members to be able to view these documents, although they do have access to go as often as they need to pore through these documents.

Did either Congressman Moskowitz or Raskin say, based on looking at these documents, that they saw any reason why they are not yet made public? Well, Congressman Raskin did raise some questions about some documents that he saw that seemed to potentially contradict the account of President Trump with respect to his handling of Jeffrey Epstein, in the sense that the president has said on occasion that he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club. And so Raskin saw some documents with lawyers of Jeffrey Epstein that seem to contradict that perhaps Epstein was never kicked out, if you will. So Raskin did raise some questions about that. He also raised some questions about some of the names that were redacted, not necessarily understanding why with respect to some of these potential co-conspirators.

Nikole Killion, on Capitol Hill, thank you very, very much. Jennifer Freeman joins me now. She is an attorney who represents several Epstein survivors. Jennifer, I'm glad you're with us. Evaluate, if you'd be so kind, for my audience what has happened in the last couple of weeks. What's missing, what your clients need to see from the Justice Department, or other actions they need to see on Capitol Hill? Well, what's been happening is there were 3 million pages or documents released. The redactions were sloppy when it came to the survivors, but seemed to be kind of excellent when it came to be other alleged perpetrators or co-conspirators or other men that were involved with the survivors. So there's been also release of nude photographs. I don't see how that can be done, how that wasn't redacted, removed. So these-- what the survivors are thinking and feeling is that it feels incompetent, and it feels intimidating, and it feels intentional. So this has been very frustrating for many of the survivors.

From your vantage point and the vantage point of the clients you represent, do the actions of the Justice Department live up to the letter or the spirit of the law on transparency? I'm afraid they don't, yet. I'm hoping that they will, but they do not, yet. There have been just too many problems with the redactions. And what is also missing, Major, is that there are very few names named other than Epstein and Maxwell. But even the 302s, the witness statements are very much redacted, which is OK. But what seems to be either missing or redacted are what did the government do. What did the Department of Justice-- what did law enforcement do with those names? There were allegations against others. What did the government do? What steps did the government take? Until we understand that, it's hard to simply accept that there's nothing to see here and that there's nothing to do. We need to know what the government did. Ghislaine Maxwell appeared via video deposition with the House Oversight Committee today. Took the fifth. What do you make, if anything, of that? Not surprising. This is what was expected. I certainly expected it. It would be dangerous for her to do otherwise. And to offer to-- in exchange for immunity to speak is also, it's kind of a powder puff offer that was not going to be accepted. So it really wasn't much of an offer at all.

What do your clients believe America needs to know about the role that Ghislaine Maxwell played in all of this, and her potential ability to identify that key word, co-conspirators? Well, it would be great if she would be speaking, but it doesn't surprise me that she's not. But where are the documents that-- and those would probably again be in those FD-302s, those witness statements, that would outline what happened with each victim, each survivor. And because those are heavily redacted and so many other documents that are relevant to the underlying evidence, we don't see what it is. But we certainly know, know for one of my clients, Annie Farmer, that she testified at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial and told her story there. And we know that Maria Farmer in 1996 reported Epstein and Maxwell to the law enforcement, to the FBI, and it seems like nothing was done with that, either. So it's been a very frustrating period for three decades. Three decades of inaction. Jennifer, from your vantage point or that of your clients, is what has been released so far telling us more about those in the British government and the British royal family than in our government and people of prominence in America? Because it seems to be driving so much more coverage and political blowback in the United Kingdom than here. That's exactly right, Major. It's just hard to understand that. But I have to wonder, are some of the people that are making these decisions close to people that were named or have something to do with the files? Which makes it much more difficult to have the kind of restoration of public trust, which is what we're really looking for. We're looking for transparency. We're looking for accountability and restoration of public trust so that people can believe in what the government tells you.

Very quickly, you said at the top, you think this could be incompetence. What I heard you just say there suggests it might be something else. Favoritism. It could be. It certainly seems like there was preferential treatment when it came to Ghislaine Maxwell, where she is visited by the number two in the Justice Department and spends days with him talking, not under oath, and gives him, I guess, information, but there's very little follow-up requests during those periods of time. And then soon after that, she's moved to a minimum security prison. So it doesn't add up, other than to suggest that there's some kind of preferential treatment going on, which is really disturbing. Where's the positive treatment to the survivors?

Jennifer Freeman, I appreciate the time very much. Thank you. Good to be with you. Savannah Guthrie has just released a new video. In it, she pleads for public help in finding her mother, Nancy. Now, the FBI says it is taking two emails seriously, including a ransom note with a second deadline, set for today at 5:00 PM. Savannah took to social media over the weekend, telling any potential captors that she and other members of her family are willing to pay for her mother's return. And this is the message she sent out, at least part of it, late today.

No matter where you are, even if you're far from Tucson, if you see anything, if you hear anything, if there's anything at all that seems strange to you, that you report to law enforcement. We are at an hour of desperation, and we need your help. We are joined now by Andres Gutierrez, who is following the latest development. Andres, very good to have you with us. What can you tell us? Well, Major, authorities are staying mum. They have not held a news conference since last Thursday, even though over the weekend, they reiterated on social media that there has been no suspect, no person of interest, or even a vehicle tied to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. Just yesterday, though, detectives were out here and they spent the better part of the day in her backyard focused on a septic tank. It's not sure if it's not-- we don't know why exactly they were prompted to go and look at that septic tank, and they haven't said what they found in it. We do also know that investigators were mounted up on the roof. They ended up recovering a camera from that rooftop on Friday afternoon. And then later in the evening, they hauled away her SUV that was in the garage, and presumably, at this point, are processing that vehicle looking for any data that may help fill in some of the gaps in their timeline. Detectives also returned to other key locations connected with Nancy's last-known movements, including her daughter Annie's home, where Nancy had dinner the night before she disappeared. They ended up showing up to that house on Saturday night, were out there for about three hours. Law enforcement sources close to this investigation do tell CBS News that detectives are canvassing nearby neighborhoods and reviewing surveillance videos from area gas stations. There is a $50,000 reward that the FBI is offering. And to raise awareness of that money, they are posting it on billboards, along with Nancy's face, here in Arizona and across the region. The FBI director, Kash Patel, is in town this afternoon here in Tucson for a pre-planned trip, but it's not linked to the case. We are waiting to see if he ends up showing up here at the house to essentially get a lay of the land. So that is the development that we're waiting to see if it does happen. Andres Gutierrez, thank you so very much. A new Department of Homeland Security document, obtained exclusively by CBS News, shed some light on President Trump's frequently used phrase, "worst of the worst," in terms of immigration enforcement. According to this document, detailing immigration enforcement efforts during President Trump's first year back in office, led to less than 14% of those arrested in undocumented status having violent criminal records. This is important, new information. Again, based on DHS documents. CBS News Immigration correspondent Camilo Montoya-Galvez joins me from New York. Camilo, break down the numbers and what you learned, what they tell us about the ratio of violent criminal backgrounds, as opposed to nonviolent criminal backgrounds, and what DHS is saying in response. Hi, Major. Yes, according to the document that we obtained, according to the Department of Homeland Security's own data, about 400,000 people have been arrested by ICE in the second Trump administration so far over the past year. And about 14% of those 400,000 individuals taken into custody have been convicted or charged with violent offenses like murder, homicide, sexual assault, or kidnapping, about 2% have been convicted or charged with homicide or sexual assault, and another 2% have been identified as gang members. Despite the fact, Major, that Trump administration officials and the president himself often talk about ICE enforcement efforts focusing on murderers, rapists, and gangsters, they represent a significant and also a very small fraction of the overall number of people being arrested by ICE because of allegations that they are in the country illegally. That doesn't mean that everyone else who appears in this document is innocent. Everyone is being accused, Major, of violating US immigration law, but that is typically treated as a civil offense, typically handled in immigration court, not in a criminal proceeding. And the data does illustrate that while many criminal immigrants are being arrested by ICE, the vast majority of the people being swept up by the operations do not have any criminal record. And if they do, they do not have any violent offenses on their rap sheet. So it does really undermine the administration's statements, repeated statements, that they are going after the "worst of the worst," mainly. Major.

And you raised that with DHS, and they had a response, did they not? That's right. The Department of Homeland Security says that the non-violent category includes serious crimes like child pornography, burglary, and also human smuggling, for example, and we do note that in the story. At the same time, the administration again has said repeatedly that they are mainly targeting egregious offenders, violent individuals, who pose a threat to public safety, not just anyone who is in the country illegally, even though they are deportable technically under US immigration law. And the administration has said repeatedly, Major, that even though they are targeting individuals who are criminals, anyone who is in the country illegally now is fair game to be arrested and deported. And we're seeing that unfold display across the country in places like Minneapolis. The rhetoric matters even more important than numbers and the actual crimes, alleged or convicted, matter as much, if not more. Camilo Montoya-Galvez, excellent reporting. Thank you as always. Thanks, Major.

Trial focused on the dangers of sexual exploitation on social media gets underway in New Mexico. That state's attorney general joins me next, with more on the case against Meta. Plus, we will tell you where new polling has Jasmine Crockett in her primary bid for the United States Senate in Texas, just eight days before the start of early voting. The Takeoutreturns in 90 seconds. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to The Takeout. Opening statements are now underway in New Mexico's lawsuit against Meta. The state is alleging Facebook's parent company opens up children to the dangers of sexual exploitation. CBS News's Jo Ling Kent reported on the beginnings of this suit almost two years ago. New Mexico's Justice Department back then successfully carried out sting operations, where agents used artificial intelligence tools to create images of young girls online to see if anyone would reply. Well, they did, and that led to arrests of at least four people. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez joins me now. Mr. Attorney General, I'm glad to have you with us. I read a fair amount of the lawsuit. You are explicit in your allegations that Meta knows what it's doing, does not care, has been warned internally repeatedly, and profits from this action. Major, that's exactly right. And the testimony that got underway today in our trial in Santa Fe really laid the groundwork for holding this company to account. They've established one of the largest online platforms in the world, where we know predators are going each and every day to try and target and exploit children. We know they've designed a product that is inherently dangerous for kids. And what we also know is that they've been lying to the public, to parents, to families, and to our communities for far too long about the dangers in these spaces. That's what this trial is about, and that's what this case is all about. Explain the specifics of the sting operation you undertook. So we actually created undercover accounts using some established techniques that, frankly, I used to use when I was a frontline Internet Crimes prosecutor. Decoy accounts that used artificial intelligence to transform some of our special agents into what appeared to be underage girls on the platforms, because we were trying to test and see exactly what would happen when someone who presented like that on the platform was there in a space that we thought was going to be inherently dangerous. And what they found was truly shocking. They were inundated with images of a graphic nature. They were solicited for sex. And the response from the company, rather than trying to pull down some of the followers or detract some of the followers, what they did instead is to feed that account information about how they could grow the user base. And that's exactly the kind of behavior that I think really draws attention to the fact that Meta is placing profit over safety in the way it designed its products.

You have heard, Mr. Attorney General, in other contexts, firms like Meta say, well, we are protected by Section 230. We are immune from what others anyone on our platforms post. Therefore, we are untouchable. Well, the problem with Meta's position is that argument was presented to the judge as they tried to have this case tossed out. The judge rejected it, in part, because we're not going after the content that's posted by third-party participants on the platform. We're instead holding them to account for the design features of the product and the misrepresentations that they've made about the safety of those products. Section 230 does not immunize them or shield them from liability for lying to the public, for lying to parents, and young people. And it also doesn't shield them from liability for the product choices and design choices that they made in developing these platforms and allowing them to create these manifest dangers.

Imagine a world in which this lawsuit is successful. From your point of view, Mr. Attorney General, what does the remedy look like and how soon would users notice it? Well, this potentially could lead to civil penalties in the billions of dollars. Although, our focus has been throughout in changing the way that Meta does business. We want a fundamental reevaluation of their business model. We want changes to the algorithm, real and meaningful age verification, and design changes that are really impacting mental health right now. We need to see a lot of elemental redesign in what the products are doing. And more than anything else, they need to stop lying to the American public about the dangers that they know that they have created. And they need to be held to account for those things. I think if we're successful, we'll build a blueprint and a roadmap for policymakers and others who are concerned about this behavior, not only in the United States, but around the world. And hopefully, we'll bring a new era of accountability for big tech. Very quickly, Mr. Attorney General. As I read the lawsuit, there was an emphasis on the data of teens, meta knowing its value, and designing things to exploit it for profit. That's exactly right. And it's part of the presentation that was made today in the opening statement was a revelation and just really a sneak peek at some of the internal communications that we have now from Meta about the price, the value that they've placed on getting these young people hooked on their platforms, keeping them engaged on the platforms, growing that engagement, and the disparity in terms of the investment that they've failed to make in making these spaces safe for teens. And I think there's going to be a real shock for most Americans and frankly, users all over the world when they start to understand that this company has placed a value on getting these young, vulnerable people onto these platforms, knowing full well how dangerous it is.

Very tough allegations. They will be tested in court. Mr. Attorney General, Raúl Torrez, New Mexico, thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Well, lawmakers here in the United States get a look at unredacted Epstein files. Well, across the pond, the British Prime Minister comes under pressure to resign. Really. That's going on. That conversation is happening. Our political panel weighs in on that and a whole lot more, when we come back. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to The Takeout. Thanks for hanging out with us. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he will, quote, "not walk away," unquote, from 10 Downing Street. He faces some calls, even within his own labor coalition, to resign over links between those around Keir Starmer, including the one-tome US ambassador and Jeffrey Epstein. Democratic strategist Mally Smith, first time here, and Republican strategist Rina Shah, a regular, are here with me now for the Political Panel. So I talked to Jennifer Freeman about this earlier in the show, represents many Epstein survivors, about how this is such a bigger deal in the United Kingdom politically than it is here. How do you assess that, Mally? Well, I think in our country, we are so incredibly polarized that once something becomes a partisan issue, it makes folks just go into their separate camps and everything becomes a bit of a 50/50 issue. With that being said, though, this is an issue that is affecting the Trump administration. We other than Trump's gambit to try to invade Greenland, this is the most unpopular political issue he has. I wish the US would embrace the same level of accountability that the UK is embarking on, with holding Keir Starmer and his government accountable for appointing Mandelson. But I think it's just harder in the US because we are so entrenched politically in our own tribes. So, Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, is no weathervane of the House Republican conference. He's out on his own. He always is. He's constantly attacked by President Trump. And he said this over the weekend about Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose name appears more than once in these newly-released files. Let's listen.

Should he come before Congress and testify? No, he should just resign. I mean, there are three people in Great Britain that have resigned in politics. t ambassador from Great Britain to the United States. The Prince lost his title for less than what we've seen Howard Lutnick lie about.

The White House was asked about this, said he's a great member of the cabinet, and we're focused on the future. Nothing appears to be happening there. There's not much quaking around the Trump inner circle, even though the Epstein file story continues. Yeah, it's not particularly surprising, though, because this is the story that they have learned to live with, and I hate to put it that way. At this point, we know that these unredacted files are revealing a bipartisan web of silence. And that, to me, has been the most shocking. It's not like one side or the other. Elites from both sides, they protected their own. And what it proved is that Washington's real divide isn't us versus them, or red versus blue. I think here is a moment in which Trump could step out, but how can, when he's also named, when this was a longtime friend of his? So I think, to me, the wildest part here and the part that I'm always concerned about is Congress.

And the interesting geography of it is, it's Washington, it's New York, it's Palm Beach, it's a little bit of Hollywood, it's a little bit of London, it's a little bit of the Middle East. And, well, that's Congress, too. It represents all of the country, right? A body made up of all these people, and they're sitting on dynamite right now. This is not just about-- this is not about justice anymore, I think. That's the problem. That's got lost here.

Well, the victims and their attorneys say it is, but the politics around it continue to reverberate. And that's what's showing, that this is a slow-drip strategy to weaponize scandals for midterms. And that keeps voters hooked like a bad reality show. Speaking of the midterms, Jon Ossoff running for reelection in Georgia. It was thought to be a really competitive race. It doesn't feel that much anymore. Here's a new ad he cut, which talks about the very thing you mentioned, Rina. Let's listen. This is a government of, by, for the ultra-rich. It is the wealthiest cabinet ever. This is the Epstein class ruling our country. That's quite evidently not an ad. It's just a speech. But nevertheless, the message is the same. The message is the same. And Epstein, even though so much of what we focus on is the abhorrent sex crimes, he also was trading in favors and financial information. That's what brought down Mandelson. Mandelson himself is gay. It wasn't the fact that it was the girls. It was that-- He lied. Yeah, he lied, and that Epstein gave him or that he gave Epstein privileged information. And you see insiders trading with each other on information. Essentially, you had Epstein as Satan's concierge, just providing anything to these rich elites that they wanted, whether it was access, information, the ability to feel special and powerful. And I think Ossoff has really been able to connect two things that Americans care about, corruption and the economy. And being able to connect those two messages together, that these folks are trading on their privilege, while also hurting you economically, is a powerful message. Let's go to Texas really quick. A new poll, University of Houston-- let's go to the Republicans first, control room. It shows, according to their most recent data, margin of error about 4%, Ken Paxton leading 38%, incumbent Senator John Cornyn, 31%, Wesley Hunt, 17%. That means, Paxton is in the lead if this poll is correct, but not at 50%, which means there's a runoff.

Sure.

How do you evaluate that? Because Senate Republicans keep urging Trump to back Senator Cornyn, keep it in the Senate the way they expected. It doesn't look like that that's trending that way. And Turning Point USA this afternoon endorsed Paxton. Right. So I don't know what's going to shake out there because I think there's just so much bad blood between Cornyn and Trump that we don't really hear about. I can tell-- I don't know how much more I can say other than I don't think he's going to come to his aid. But--

The president to Cornyn. The president won't come to Cornyn's aid. But I will say, the president needs to pay attention to what's going on here. This is-- and no one is really admitting this-- this could preview a Dem playbook for the South, blending progressive fire with real local flavor. I think that's what I'm sensing here. Whether you're talking about Talarico or Crockett or anyone, I'm seeing it all kind of-- there's a sense here that you can turn red districts purple without selling out. I want to ask you about this. We have about 30 or 40. Jasmine Crockett in the same University of Houston poll, again 4% margin of error, 47%, James Talarico, 39%. How do you assess Democrats? If Paxton is the nominee, is that a better campaign option than against Cornyn, the sitting incumbent? Absolutely. Ken Paxton-- first off, incumbents-- it's useful to be an incumbent. You have higher name ID. It helps you win elections. But Paxton is seen as much further to the right and much more extreme. On the Democratic side, I believe both Talarico and Jasmine Crockett are interesting candidates. But I think our best bet is with Talarico because he is less polarizing, and he is less defined by the electorate, and it gives him a better opening to hopefully win. Mally, Well done. Rina Shah, great to have you back. Mally, come back. Hope you had fun. I sure did. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back. Is there any place I'd rather be than in this studio and with you? Yes, Milano or Cortina, covering the Winter Olympics. But I didn't get that plum assignment. Kelly O'Grady got that plum assignment. She joins me now. You went to see Team USA Women's Hockey today. What happened? Well, Major, this is the assignment of the century. But there's two more weeks. Come over. We'll have pasta, pizza. It'll be good. Team USA, we were just in the arena, Major, and we booked it over here to do your show. And I can happily say that the women's hockey team beat-- nay, trounced, Switzerland 5 to 0. Every time they score a goal, Major, they play "Free Bird" in the arena. And that is something that they chose themselves. And you heard "Free Bird" a lot. Now, the really big match, though, is going to be tomorrow against Canada. Canada and the US Women's Hockey, they have this long, deep rivalry going back to Nagano 1998, when the first women's hockey match was played. And it's just been trading back and forth goals. And so this is going to be a big one. We talked to fans outside the stadium, and they said, hey, Team USA looks good. They're gelling, and they expect them to trounce Canada tomorrow, as well. So we'll see, but they did look really good, Major. That could be a prelude to a potential gold medal match between the United States and Canada. Talk to us about Lindsey Vonn. A very tough weekend for Lindsey Vonn. Courageous, trying so hard at age 41 with a torn ACL to get down the mountain. She made it 13 seconds in. This was so hard to watch, Major. I mean, I'm in Milan and so I was watching it on my phone, because she was competing in Cortina, where Seth Doane, our colleague, was covering this for us. I screamed the second I saw her just wipe out. Seth shared what it was like to be there. You could hear a pin drop. Americans, of course, they came to see this incredible comeback that became even more incredible with the fact that she was going to ski on an ACL. Now, we did just get an update within the last hour that I want to share with you. She said, this is not how she wanted her Olympic dream to end. And in a sport as dangerous as downhill skiing, 5 inches can make the difference between finishing strong and hitting those gates that she was going by. That's what happened there. Now, she shared that she has a complex tibia fracture. It is stable, but it's going to require multiple surgeries. But, Major, I mean, this was an inspiring story, and you can really feel it here on the ground. I just want to read you one line that stood out to me and really resonated. She said, "Standing in the starting gate yesterday was an incredible feeling that I will never forget. Knowing I stood there having a chance to win was a victory in and of itself." And we have spoken to so many people that just share what an inspiration she is doing this at her age. And so it wasn't the Olympics, of course, that any of us wanted to see for her, but my God, this is what sport is about. Someone like her committing it all even in the face of such adversity.

Kelly, we've got about 30 seconds, and I don't want to force you to try to answer a question on the Winter Olympics in 20 seconds, so I won't do that. I'm just going to pad a little bit here. But, Lindsey Vonn, at age 41, had two training runs. She was on the cusp of doing something that would have propelled her into even greater heights of Olympic immortality. It didn't work out, but we appreciate in America and I think across the world, the courage behind that effort. Kelly O'Grady, we'll talk to you more as the Winter Olympics progress. Happy Monday, everyone. This is The Takeout. Relentlessly curious, reliably civil, just occasionally clever. The Daily Report coming your way next. [THEME MUSIC]