Análisis por Stephen Collinson, CNN

Cuando el expresidente Bill Clinton testifique este viernes ante una comisión del Congreso sobre el escándalo de Jeffrey Epstein, quedará sentado un precedente del que el presidente Donald Trump podría llegar a arrepentirse.

La declaración del exmandatario de 79 años sigue al testimonio a puerta cerrada de su esposa, la exsecretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton, quien el jueves criticó la investigación de supervisión de la Cámara dirigida por los republicanos como un encubrimiento para proteger a Trump.

Ni los Clinton ni Trump han sido acusados ​​por las autoridades de ningún delito relacionado con Epstein. Sin embargo, tanto el expresidente Clinton como Trump lo conocían y ambos aparecen mencionados en múltiples ocasiones en los archivos del Departamento de Justicia sobre Epstein.

La batalla de los aliados de Trump para involucrar a los Clinton en su investigación siempre estuvo destinada a crear un amargo teatro político, dados sus altísimos perfiles y sus décadas de historias de feroces duelos con los republicanos.

Pero la comparecencia de la pareja ante la comisión también podría ser contraproducente para el Partido Republicano. En primer lugar, su participación está echando más leña al fuego de la saga Epstein, que la Casa Blanca lleva meses intentando acallar sin éxito.

Y el testimonio de los Clinton plantea paralelos incómodos que desagradarán a Trump y a su círculo íntimo.

Por ejemplo, si el estándar requerido para prestar testimonio es ser mencionado en los archivos de Epstein, ¿por qué no se presentan también ante la comisión republicanos prominentes que aparecen en los archivos?

Las descripciones del secretario de Comercio, Howard Lutnick, sobre sus interacciones pasadas con Epstein fueron socavadas por los archivos publicados por el Departamento de Justicia, pero hasta la fecha no ha recibido una citación como las enviadas a los Clinton.

No existe acusación de delito penal contra Lutnick.

El contacto previo de Bill Clinton con Epstein seguramente interesará a la comisión. Pero, ¿no hay un doble rasero si Trump, mencionado en los archivos en numerosas ocasiones, no es también puesto bajo juramento?

Y la comparecencia de la exsecretaria Clinton —aunque, según su versión, desconocía la conducta de Epstein— crea el modelo de una esposa a la que se le pregunta sobre los vínculos de su esposo con el presunto traficante sexual.

Algunos observadores podrían preguntarse si la primera dama Melania Trump podría tener una visión similar sobre las ocasiones en que su esposo y Epstein se movieron en órbitas similares antes y después de su matrimonio en 2005.

Si bien seguramente habría una gran disputa constitucional por un intento de obligar a declarar a un presidente en funciones, la primera dama no tiene una función constitucional formal, y no parece haber obstáculos legales para tal citación.

No es extraño que un expresidente testifique ante el Congreso.

El presidente del siglo XIX, John Tyler, fue citado a comparecer en una investigación sobre el uso indebido de fondos públicos por parte de su exsecretario de Estado, Daniel Webster.

Theodore Roosevelt testificó ante una comisión del Congreso que investigaba cuestiones antimonopolio en la industria siderúrgica en 1911, uno de los varios expresidentes que comparecieron como testigos, según un artículo de 1983 de Stephen Stathis,

By Sophia Saifi, Masoud Popalzai and Rhea Mogul, CNN

Islamabad (CNN) — Afghanistan and Pakistan are fighting again, trading deadly shelling and mortar fire across their rugged border, with Islamabad’s defense minister saying his country’s patience had “run out” and declaring “open war” on its Taliban-run neighbor.

It’s the latest flare-up in an on-off conflict that pitches Pakistan’s well-funded, powerful and nuclear-armed military against hardened Afghan Taliban fighters with decades of battle experience – including victory over US and NATO forces in 2021 after years of insurgency.

Here’s what we know about the latest violence, which threatens to exacerbate instability in the region.

How did it start?

Late Thursday night the Taliban’s military launched attacks on Pakistani positions along some sections of their porous and disputed border that wends 1,600 miles through rugged mountains and desert.

Kabul said those attacks were in retaliation for Pakistan’s bombing of what it said were militant camps in Afghanistan over the weekend that left at least 18 people dead.

In response, early on Friday, Pakistan launched Ghazab Lil Haqq – or “Operation Righteous Fury.”

Pakistani airstrikes had hit Kabul, the southeastern province of Paktia, and Kandahar, considered the spiritual birthplace of the Taliban where the group’s secretive leader Hibatullah Akhundzada is believed to be based.

Pakistan said its strikes early Friday targeted Afghan Taliban defense facilities, a significant escalation in the country’s retaliation strategy.

A Kabul resident described the moment her family was woken by a loud explosion on Friday.

“I was terrified,” the woman, who CNN is not naming for safety reasons, said.

“Then we heard gunfire. When we looked out of our apartment window, we saw bullet-like flames going up in the sky,” she said, adding she could not sleep and was still awake at 5 a.m., fearing what could happen next.

“Since the first explosion, the lights of most of the houses and apartments around us have been on,” the woman said. “I’m sure every Kabul resident is sitting in fear of being hit by a bomb.”

The two sides have reported differing casualty figures for Friday’s attack. Pakistan claimed that its military had killed 133 Afghan Taliban fighters, while Afghanistan said eight of its soldiers had been killed. CNN isn’t able to verify reports from the remote region where the fighting is taking place.

In Pakistan’s northwestern Bajaur district, a mortar shell fired by the Afghan Taliban landed on a house, injuring five people, including two children and a woman, according to police officer, Fazal Akbar.

Haven’t we been here before?

Yes. Despite sharing close economic and cultural ties, the two countries have a complicated history.

Last October, they fought their deadliest conflict in years, with a fragile ceasefire in place since.

After the Afghan Taliban was ousted from power by NATO forces in 2001 for sheltering the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, Pakistan became one of its main backers.

Its fighters found shelter over the border in Pakistan, and support for their subsequent insurgency against the US-backed Afghan government, in what became the US’ longest-ever war.

But since the Taliban’s ultimate victory in that war following the chaotic US withdrawal and their return to power in Kabul, Pakistan has faced a surge in Islamist violence.

Islamabad blames Pakistani Taliban militants for much of that violence – and accuses Kabul of giving them shelter on its territory.

Many of those attacks are carrie

By Hadas Gold, CNN

(CNN) — American AI company Anthropic has until 5:01 pm ET to give in to the Pentagon’s demands or face being labeled a “supply chain risk,” a type of designation usually reserved for companies thought to be extensions of foreign adversaries.

The Pentagon, which uses Anthropic’s Claude AI system on its classified networks, wants to be able to use it for “all lawful purposes.” But Anthropic has two redlines for the Pentagon: that Claude will not be used in autonomous weapons, and that it will not be used in the mass surveillance of US citizens.

Anthropic on Thursday announced it has no intention of acquiescing.

“Threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request,” the company’s CEO said in a statement.

The Pentagon claims that it has no interest in using AI for either purpose and that it needs the freedom to use the technology it is licensing.

“This is a simple, common-sense request that will prevent Anthropic from jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote on X. “We will not let ANY company dictate the terms regarding how we make operational decisions.”

It all came to a head on Tuesday at a high stakes meeting at the Pentagon between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.

While a source familiar with the situation said the meeting was cordial, Pentagon officials did not just threaten to cancel Anthropic’s $200 million contract with them, but also a designation that could threaten their bottom line.

What work did Anthropic do with the Pentagon?

Anthropic’s Claude was the first AI model to work on the military’s classified networks. The company struck a contract worth up to $200 million with the Pentagon last summer. Other major AI companies like OpenAI have only struck deals with the Pentagon on their unclassified networks.

Within Anthropic’s “acceptable use policy” in the contract are prohibitions against the use of Claude in mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.

“This dispute comes at an awkward time because on the one hand, the user base within the Department of Defense loves Anthropic, loves Claude, and says that their restrictions on usage, at least from the conversations that I have been having, have never been triggered,” Gregory Allen, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said on Bloomberg Radio.

But the Pentagon doesn’t want to be constrained by a company’s policies. A Pentagon official told CNN: “You can’t lead tactical (operations) by exception,” and “legality is the Pentagon’s responsibility as the end user.”

In the Pentagon’s view, it doesn’t want to be in the middle of a national security situation, needing to ask a company for permission and guardrails to be dropped.

Cutting ties with Anthropic could be a headache for the Pentagon as well, considering they would need to replace any internal systems that use Claude. Though a Pentagon official said Elon Musk’s Grok AI system is “on board with being used in a classified setting,” Grok is not viewed as being as advanced as Claude.

How does this affect Anthropic’s business?

Losing a $200 million contract would not pose an existential threat for Anthropic, which was recently valued at around $380 billion. The bigger risk is that it gets labeled a supply chain risk, which means any company works with the US military would have to prove that they don’t touch anything related to Anthropic in their work with the Pentagon. Much of Anthropic’s success stems from its enterprise contracts with big companies – many of which may have contracts with the Pentagon.

“It means that An

By David Goldman, CNN

(CNN) — Less than a year ago, David Ellison was the head of a small production company. Now, he’s on the verge of becoming the king of Hollywood.

The Paramount Skydance CEO emerged victorious Thursday night in a bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery. It was a prize Paramount desperately needed to survive, and winning was not assured. It still isn’t.

The battle pitted Ellison against Netflix, the industry’s biggest and most important player. President Donald Trump injected himself into the sweepstakes. So did the Saudis. And at one point, the bidding war involved a hostile takeover threat.

But Ellison won. And if the deal is completed – pending shareholder approval and a potentially difficult regulatory review – he will run one of the media industry’s largest movie studios, streaming platforms and television networks.

How we got here

Ellison, the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, has been a Hollywood producer for two decades, forming Skydance with his billionaire father in 2006 and financing some major franchises, including Star Trek, Mission Impossible and Top Gun. When Paramount – a company in disarray and deep financial distress – started courting potential buyers in 2024, Ellison emerged as the white knight. Skydance completed its Paramount purchase in August 2025.

But the company needs more help than Ellison alone can provide. Paramount+ is an also-ran streaming platform with a few fan-favorite franchises, NFL broadcast rights and a bunch of question marks. The movie studio didn’t land a single film in the top 10 grossing box office releases of 2025. Its cable networks barely make any original content anymore, beyond Comedy Central’s South Park and the Daily Show. CBS’ ratings tumbled 12% in 2025, according to Nielsen.

To battle against legacy media companies like Disney and Netflix – and social media companies like TikTok and YouTube – Paramount needed scale. So Ellison almost immediately started courting Warner Bros. Discovery.

Two months after Skydance bought Paramount, WBD put itself up for sale. But Netflix emerged with WBD’s favored bid.

Netflix appeared to have the upper hand for months: It had plenty of cash to complete the transaction, and Netflix planned to offload CNN and the rest of WBD’s cable assets in a tax-free spinoff before it acquired HBO Max and Warner Bros. WBD continued to insist that Paramount’s offer – even though it was for the entire WBD company – undervalued the assets.

WBD also questioned whether Paramount was truly good for the money, raising questions about the Saudi financing backing part of the deal and whether Larry Ellison would really guarantee that he’d bankroll the acquisition. Even after Paramount alleviated those concerns by letting WBD peer into Ellison’s books and making the Saudis nonvoting, non-board members, WBD still favorited Netflix.

So Paramount threatened a hostile takeover bid, pledging to take the deal directly to shareholders. The tide turned last week, when Paramount said it would revise its offer. Raising its bid by $1 – to $31 a share – Paramount won over WBD’s skeptical board Thursday. Hours later, after Netflix’s CEO left a meeting at the White House, Netflix said – shockingly – it was dropping out of the bidding.

It’s not clear why Netflix dropped out so quickly. It knew Paramount was going to up its bid.

Trump was and remains a major X factor in

CNN

By Hadas Gold, CNN

(CNN) — Anthropic is rejecting the Pentagon’s latest offer to change their contract, saying the changes do not satisfy the company’s concerns that AI could be used for mass surveillance or in fully autonomous weapons.

The Pentagon and Anthropic are at odds over restrictions the company places on the use of Claude, the first AI system to be used in the military’s classified network.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Tuesday that if Anthropic does not allow its AI model to be used “for all lawful purposes,” the Pentagon would cancel Anthropic’s $200 million contract. In addition to the contract cancellation, Anthropic would be deemed a “supply chain risk,” a classification normally reserved for companies connected to foreign adversaries, Pentagon officials said.

Anthropic said in a statement that the Pentagon’s new language was framed as a compromise but “was paired with legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will.”

In a lengthy blog post on Thursday, Amodei wrote: “I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries.”

Amodei said Anthropic understands that the Pentagon, “not private companies, makes military decisions.” But “in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.” He also said use cases like mass surveillance and autonomous weapons are “outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do.”

Anthropic’s two exceptions have not slowed “adoption and use of our models within our armed forces to date,” Amodei added.

Amodei said the Pentagon’s “threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

In response, Emil Michael, the Pentagon’s Undersecretary for Research and Engineering who had been part of the negotiations, wrote on X: “It’s a shame that @DarioAmodei is a liar and has a God-complex. He wants nothing more than to try to personally control the US Military and is ok putting our nation’s safety at risk. The @DeptofWar will ALWAYS adhere to the law but not bend to whims of any one for-profit tech company.”

After Amodei’s post published, Anthropic staffers began publicly expressing support for their employer.

“Time and time again over my three year tenure at Anthropic I’ve seen us stand to our values in ways that are often invisible from the outside. This is a clear instance where it is visible,” Trenton Bricken, a member of Anthropic’s technical team for alignment, wrote on X.

“[H]istory is unfolding in front of us it’s now obvious and evident to everyone with eyes to see why anthropic founding was a crucial fork in the timeline, and how catastrophic the counterfactual would’ve been otherwise,” wrote Gian Segato, a data science manager at Anthropic.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc.,