Arrest Warrant Issued for Former FBI Director James Comey

27:33And also, will there be restitution for victims? The administration has been very slow to acknowledge the human toll that this mistake has taken on the residents and families in Manab. And so that should be part of the investigation, too. Margaret, as I said, Secretary Hegseth has had a lot to say about a lot of things. They have not had a lot to say about this horrific incident with all these innocent girls killed, apparently by the United States. You're a former JAG officer. The Pentagon has promised answers. If CNN's investigation, if Maliki's investigation are correct and this was the fault of the U.S., accidental, though, it may have been, is there any legal risk for any members of the military?

28:21There could be, but I think that it might be helpful or instructive here to look at two other examples where something similarly horrific has happened at the hands of the U.S. military. The first one that comes to mind is the Kunduz strike in Afghanistan. That was a strike in October of 2015 where the U.S. accidentally fired on the Doctors Without Borders hospital. There was over 40 civilians killed. And to your point and to Maliki's point just now, days after that, General Campbell, who was in charge of forces in Afghanistan at the time, was testifying in front of Congress. Within two months, we had a 120-page report that was authored, if not published a few months later, detailing every last piece of data of what happened in that strike.

29:04And the result of that was finding that soldiers may have deviated from the rules of engagement, they may have deviated from procedures, but they ultimately were not criminally charged. The second example happened that I can think of happened in Mosul. This is in March of 2017. There was a strike by U.S. forces on an apartment building, and there were secondary explosions that caused upwards of 100 civilian casualties. Again, the U.S. military issued a fulsome report within a month. You had comments from the Secretary of Defense and from commanders in the field within the weeks following. We had a lot of transparency following those strikes.

29:39However, again, there was no criminal charges that resulted from that. Basically, in both of those instances, the investigators found that this was not intentional. And if it was not intentional, then legal accountability is not going to follow. Now, there are crimes under the UCMJ, for example, manslaughter, dereliction of duty. Those could all be possible outcomes for soldiers that are involved here. But again, it's going to take a thorough investigation by the Department of Defense itself. So somebody who can talk to these people, who can have firsthand witness interviews with the people involved in the strike in order to make those determinations.

30:14We're running out of time, but I just want to ask you shortly if you could. Do you have confidence in this Pentagon that they're capable of an actual thorough investigation into what went wrong? They certainly are not creating any confidence with their actions immediately following the strike. All right. Thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it. We are going to check in back with our breaking news story. The former FBI director, James Comey, he just issued a video response to the new indictment against him for that photograph of seashells that he took. We'll have that story next.

30:57Very newsy afternoon today. This just in to our politics lead. The former FBI director, James Comey, just reacted after he was indicted again today. This one was over a photograph of seashells in the shape of 8647 that officials are claiming constituted a threat to the life of President Trump. Well, they're back. This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country.

31:45This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith. Let's bring in Scott McFarland of Midas Touch, CNN's Jamie Gengel and Peter Hamby, who's one of the founding partners of Puck News. Jamie, what are your sources telling you about this case against James Comey? I just have to say, you can find lots of examples of Republicans saying 86-46 about Biden. What makes this more egregious than that? So I've spoken to a number of legal experts, also former high-ranking law enforcement officials. And what they tell me is the word nonsense.

32:28They do not see this as a serious case. I spoke to one who said, the Comey indictment is crazy. We've had more solid cases with actual intent that have never been considered for indictment. It is very hard to bring a case like this, even when there is a serious threat. The official said to me, you need means, method and intent. It's always very hard to make intent. And they just think this is Donald Trump's retribution. And one person said to me, Todd Blanche is auditioning to be the next attorney general. Right. He's the acting attorney general now. Scott, what do you think? A world of difference, like a world of difference between a grand jury and a trial jury.

33:15A grand jury, you don't have to convince everybody, just a certain number. You don't have a defense in there arguing that case. It's just a prosecutor's presentation. They have found this worthy of indictment. Bring this to a trial jury and see how all of this flies when you need unanimity beyond a reasonable doubt. And oh, by the way, there's a defense that clearly James Comey is keen on making. There's a long trajectory ahead here and there is a grave risk to Todd Blanche. This thing blows up in his face in court. Peter, you have a very interesting column in Puck today about how the left does have a problem when it comes to violence.

33:56But before I get to that, I want to know what you think about this and if this counts as part of what you were talking about. No, this does not. We live in a country with the First Amendment. And as I point out in the article that I wrote that you mentioned, Jake, you know, it is very common in politics and sports on Wall Street for people to use, you know, language about that that that is militaristic. there. People are battling. They're in the crosshairs. In a campaign, you could 86 whichever presidential candidate you want. It is language. People are allowed to say things in this country, and these things have gone to court before and been tossed, as Scott mentioned, by actual jury trials who understand that this is not an actual call to violence.

34:47But we can get into this, Jake. I'm happy to answer your question. Yeah, let me bring in your column from Puck News, because it was very provocative, very interesting. I retweeted it if people want to read it. You wrote, quote, The American left has a problem. Political violence, conspiracy theories, and crazy talk are increasingly coming from inside the House. Left-wing violence is rising, and voters increasingly blame liberals for our toxic politics. Tell us more, and do you think Democrats are in denial about this? Democratic officials, I mean. Not totally. Mark Kelly, Senator Mark Kelly today, wrote a substack saying that we should condemn political violence, whether it's against Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, and the six people that also died in Tucson back then.

35:28Look, the two things need to be said before saying this, because my mentions are on fire with people saying, remember January 6th, remember the assassination of Melissa Hortman, which, by the way, are in this piece. Donald Trump ushered in a totally different era that tolerates, he made the Republican Party a home for people who are more tolerant of violence, hate speech, lying, etc. That being said, in the first years of the Trump administration, most people blamed Republicans and Donald Trump specifically for the incivil, toxic tone in our politics. Polls say that. Today, after three Trump assassinations, Luigi, Mangione, the riots of BLM, there are plenty of examples.

36:1153 % of Americans now, Jake, according to Pew, see left-wing extremism as a major problem in this country. 52 % say the same about right wing Violence and extremism And Morning Consult, another important poll In September said, who commits more violence? Left Left wing people or right wing people? More Americans, 29 % said left wing Than right wing, 27 % Again, about the same But a sea change from the early years of Trump And I just think that the language on the internet In the second Trump term Is looser, it's dehumanizing There's more tolerance for conspiracy theories and name calling. Yes, there's been a rejection of that Michelle Obama, you know, when they go low, we go high thing.

36:52I get it. But now people on the left, it's not hard to find YouTubers and podcasters screaming about Donald Trump. So it's not a surprise that there has been an uptick in left-wing attacks this year in the Center for Strategic and International Studies found for the first time that left-wing violence in 2025 surpassed right-wing violence. Yeah, actual violence. Over time, more people have been killed by right-wing violence. That is true. But there is people need to admit that it is ticking up inside the liberal coalition. Yeah. And Scott, what do you make of the argument? There are too many people in the Democratic Party and too many Democratic pundits that are allowing this to happen.

37:28I think it's clear across the board there is a meanness in our dialogue that transcends what we saw even before 2025. I think it's clear there are there are elected leaders who think they can go viral or raise more money if they use more heat in what they say. More name-calling, more vulgarity. You could see how that stuff gets viral real quick. And you can see terms like Gestapo used to describe ICE agents. I heard Gestapo used to describe the D.C. police on January 6th. How about we just get rid of Gestapo from our rhetoric and our dialogue altogether? But the debate over whether one side is more than the other, it's an important debate.

38:06But how about we all just pursue our better angels? And that has to come from the top, Jake. It's got to be leadership that does that. And that's one of the issues here also. And like, look, we can contain in our brains to competing thoughts. But like, this is horrible on the left. It's horrible on the right. And as Peter said, like, President Trump might be condemning these calls for violence, but he's also making them. Right. So a pox on both their houses. Everybody, you know, stop. You know, the president, though, is in an interesting position right now because there have been and I wonder if this goes into Peter's polling that he's there have been multiple attempts on his life.

38:49Also, the White House is a unique platform. When they speak out and blame Democrats, they get a lot of attention, even though sometimes they take words out of context. So I think we need to say all the inflammatory rhetoric is going to go away. But let's have a reality check. These politicians raise money off. Yeah. How many times have we seen someone say something and then we pick up our phone and they've sent out a fundraiser? Well, that's the thing. And also, it's not just politicians. Right, Peter? Because we have a lot of people getting a lot of heat and the algorithms are built to reward this.

39:30They reward conflict, which they call engagement. If you put something out there and it outrages people, that's engagement, even if it's horrific. And you tweeted earlier today about one of the biggest podcasts on the left and how it was pushing conspiracy theories in your view. Tell us about that. Yeah, look, most actual Democratic elected officials are not peddling conspiracy theories or advocating violence, although Jasmine Crockett of Texas did on threads yesterday suggesting it was a false flag operation. Jennifer Welch is a great example of this. podcaster on the left, one of the most ascendant voices online in the second Trump term, who is just all about savaging Trumpism and MAGA.

40:15And today she was talking about the dinner. And while saying, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, she also said, let's play Candace Owens for a second and talk about some of these conspiracy theories. And should we believe them? Trump lies all the time. Wink, wink. I mean, and so it's at least opening the door with someone with a huge microphone on the left for people to think that maybe this was a secret conspiracy. And that's pretty dangerous. And again, I think a departure from the first Trump term and the rhetoric on the left. All right, Peter, thank you so much. Scott, Jamie, thanks to you as well.

40:49We're going to go live to the White House in a little more than an hour. Guests are going to start filing in for tonight's state dinner. It could be a little awkward giving King's address to Congress just hours ago. With British understatement, he still brought up a number of topics at odds with President Trump's views. What this might mean for the king's diplomatic mission here in the U.S. to repair relations between the two superpowers. Let's talk about that next.

41:17Welcome to Lead on Jake Tapper. This hour, a formal state dinner set to begin at the White House in just minutes in honor of King Charles and Queen Camilla. how will President Trump respond to the pointed references King Charles made in his speech to Congress, however shrouded they were in British understatement? We're going to cover all angles of this high-stakes diplomatic mission. Plus, former FBI Director James Comey indicted today for the second time in less than a year. At the center of this case is a photo that Comey posted on Instagram of seashells on the beach. They were arranged in the numbers 8647.

41:53Comey says the The message was political. Get rid of President Trump, the 47th president, in an innocent way. Critics said he was calling for Trump's assassination. We're gonna dig into the new charges Comey's facing. Also, Elon Musk taking the stand today in a trial that could derail one of the world's largest AI companies. Musk is suing OpenAI, claiming that the company betrayed him and its original mission. What all of this could mean for the future of AI, especially as companies are laying off thousands of employees because of this evolving technology.

42:28The lead tonight, King Charles, continuing his high-stakes diplomatic mission in the United States, wrapping up a speech to Congress a short time ago, centered on shared democratic values with several pointed lines directed at America's leaders. America's words carry weight and meaning as they have since independence. the actions of this great nation matter even more. Let our two countries rededicate ourselves to each other in the selfless service of our peoples and of all the peoples of the world. It will be interesting to see how or if President Trump reacts to the King's speech tonight when he hosts the royal couple for a state dinner, especially the parts not in that clip where the king talked about several items that Trump is not a fan of, say, climate change or NATO or the UN or supporting Ukraine.

43:26We're going to talk about that in a second. Earlier today, the king and president Trump met privately inside the Oval Office in the wake of growing tensions between these two countries, seen as Max Foster and Caitlin Collins are at the White House. And, Max, what did you make of the number of political references in the King's speech, considering the fact that we spent yesterday talking about how the King transcends politics, is above politics. Transcends British politics, perhaps Australian and Canadian politics, but not constitutionally American politics. I think you're right to note that. He was talking about current political American issues, so checks on executive power, the importance of NATO, the importance of the transatlantic alliance, importance of supporting Ukraine and making sure they win that war.

44:14These are generally accepted views in Europe, but in America they are political issues. So I think it's interesting that you saw that, Jake, and I think that that is something completely different from previous monarchies. Actually, in modern times, we could only compare him to Queen Elizabeth II, but she would never go near any vaguely political issues, but he really leant into that. And I do think it was interesting because he was quite taken aback by the response to Congress, all those standing ovations, he did achieve what appeared to be bipartisan support in a very divided Congress. And I think he felt that.

44:50And so he would have, at the beginning of the speech, he talked about the weight of history on his shoulders. Actually, coming out of it, he would have felt it went well because he got that response and it could have redefined his reign if he got it wrong. And actually, I think, you know, the response I got from a palace spokesperson was the king was deeply honored to have been invited. and was very touched by the warmth and generosity and response that he received, Jake. Kaylin, what are you learning about which of these issues, if any, came up during the private overall office meeting between Trump and Charles?

45:21Well, Jake, I mean, you covered the White House. You know how it is when foreign leaders are typically visiting heads of state. This event has been so carefully choreographed and scripted as to where there are not a lot of opportunities for reporters who were in the press pool to shout questions, to ask exactly what happened behind closed doors when these two leaders met. And yes, there were photographers in the room, but obviously not our TV cameras in order where the president, you know, often takes those questions. And so all of those questions in terms of how the president is responding to this speech, what he thought of it, given we know that he did plan to watch the king deliver his speech to that joint meeting of Congress earlier today, have still gone unanswered.

46:00And obviously looming in the background of all of this, Jake, is the extreme tension between President Trump and the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer and Trump's fury that the UK has not joined his war effort in Iran, something that the British Prime Minister has obviously stood by but has faced intense criticism from this president that has led him to question NATO and the purpose of those alliances and the president saying that they've never been there for the United States, that it's just the United States that isn't pulling all the weight there. And that is why those comments that Max was just referencing that the King made in his carefully delivered speech stood out all the more, where he was emphasizing the importance of NATO, where he quoted and referenced the British Prime Minister, but not the tension between he and President Trump.

46:42All of those moments stood out so much more, given, of course, what President Trump has been saying and very clearly still feels in the last several days and weeks. And so obviously they had that private Oval Office meeting. They also reviewed the troops, which is an extremely high honor, the highest honor that can be given to a visiting head of state. And you can maybe hear the music behind me. They are preparing for tonight's state dinner. It is going to be white tie and tails inside that room that just speaks to, obviously, the level of formality that the president wants to give the king, given his own state visit at Windsor Castle last fall.

47:16All right. Kaitlin Collins, Max Foster, thanks to both you. Kaitlin's going to have much more coverage of the state visit on our show, The Source with Kaitlin Collins. She's going to be joined by Democratic Senator Cory Booker of the Garden State of New Jersey. That's tonight at 9 Eastern on CNN. Let's bring in journalist Tina Brown. Tina, what stood out to you from King Charles's speech this afternoon? Well, it was very, it was a rather sort of twinkly, um, far more sort of theatrical, really, performance in terms of his facial expressions that I've ever seen. I think that actually the King was very sort of, uh, roused by the reception that he got.

47:53He doesn't get that kind of reception in the very restrained UK. I mean, everyone was clapping and all the rest of it. So I think he felt it was a wild success, which might have made him play to the gallery a little bit. But there was also, I think, quite a few sort of veiled rebukes in there. I mean, he I mean, you know, his reference to, you know, Ukraine about the unyielding resolve that was required in Ukraine was quite obviously a message to Trump. He was never going to not do a speech in which he did get to talk about his real passion, which is the environment. It's quite interesting. He didn't use the word the environment.

48:27He talked about preserving nature. I mean, who could be against nature, you would think. So I thought that was rather sort of sly of him in the sense that, you know, he talked about the need, you know, to nurture and replenish nature. But, you know, nature is not the deadly word, the environment, which we know that Trump really hates. And of course, you know, he also stressed sort of interfaith and being tolerant and all the things that, you know, we know are not exactly music to Trump's ears. So he was stating his values and they are his values and they've always been his values. And I think that at the end, when he talked about rededicating and he rolled that R, which was quite unlike him, really, you know, rededicating ourselves to this, you know,

49:18this has been so frayed. And I think he did it very gracefully, actually, without letting go of his own values, which I think, you know, stood out pretty clearly. He also, he talked about how the only time NATO had ever invoked Article 5, an attack on one, an attack on all, was after 9-11, which kind of was a pointed reminder, perhaps, to President Trump, who keeps saying NATO has never done anything for the U.S. He defended the British Navy, even though Trump said the British Navy basically consists of toys. It was very interesting. The Epstein scandal is just one of the - And of course, Charles was in the Navy.

49:55So I mean, he spoke with conviction about the Navy because he was in it. And of course, his own son, Prince Harry, fought twice. I mean, he went to the front line twice in Afghanistan. So his comments about the solidarity of the troops, he means that very much. And that was obviously a desire to slightly run that home because Trump had really insulted the British military when he made those comments about NATO not stepping up and so forth, which actually enraged a great many people in the UK. Yeah, when he suggested that there weren't any sacrifices made by NATO countries in Afghanistan or Iraq, just factually incorrect.

50:32And I read enough of the UK media afterwards to know that there were a lot of really, really hurting gold star mothers. Let's talk about the Epstein scandal, because obviously that's just one of the many topics kind of lingering in the background of the King's visit. Earlier today, a number of the survivors, families, advocates who were on Capitol Hill for the speech, that includes Skye Roberts, the brother of the late Virginia Giuffre, who allegedly was, well, there was a criminal act allegedly committed against her by Prince Andrew, former Prince Andrew. The brother of Virginia Giuffre said this.

51:12You would expect this to be a moment for the king to give a message to the world that he stands with survivors. We still can't get that from our own president of the United States. He continues to say hoax, victims or whatever. So the king mentioned kind of like vaguely, obliquely, supporting victims. He talked about supporting victims of some of the ills that exist in both the U.S. and U.K. Do you think he was referring to Epstein? Is that enough, do you think? Well, I mean, that line was so opaque that actually I was astonished to hear that, in fact, it was supposed to be about Epstein because, I mean, it was a big fail.

51:50It was supposed to be an Epstein line. Look, there's no reason in the world, actually, that the king would have ever seen the Epstein victims, the survivors, on this occasion because his brother, you know, he's facing, has been arrested. You know, he's on, you know, criminally for acts, you know, which are associated with Epstein. And he would not in any way be able to sort of interfere with the course of justice. And for him to meet with the survivors would be a real act of sort of intervention in that case. So there was no way that he was ever going to do that. And frankly, it's, I think, a bit unfair, really, because, I mean, you know, as Skye Roberts said, you know, we don't get anything but oops from the president.

52:33Well, exactly. I mean, get the president there testifying, not, you know, the king of England. He's got absolutely zip to do with this, except that he happens to be the brother of the dreaded Andrew Mountbatten Winslow. Right. And also the head as the king, the head of the legal system in the UK. And therefore, it's been pointed out to us would be considered inappropriate for him to get involved on his brother's side or on the other side. Either Tina Brown, always great to have you. Thank you so much. Former FBI Director James Comey Indicted for a second time today Just went over a photo of seashells That he posted on Instagram Critics claimed since it said 86-47 That was Comey calling for Trump's assassination Comey said he was just calling for People to oppose Trump Get rid of him I'll ask a former federal prosecutor What she thinks about the Justice Department's case Stay with us

53:33In our Law and Justice lead, former FBI Director James Comey is now responding after he was indicted again by the Trump Justice Department. This is the second time in less than a year. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith. Comey was charged with making a threat against the president's life and transmitting that threat in interstate commerce.

54:18That's according to court documents. This is over a photograph that Comey posted on Instagram last year. It's of seashells he saw on the beach that spelled out 8647. 86 is slang to remove or reject somebody. For example, when it comes to using the term 86, here's then Republican Congressman Matt Gates bragging about how Republicans 86ed, the House Speaker, the head of the Republican National Committee, and the Senate Majority Leader, McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell, all of them not dead, all of them still alive, even though they were 86ed. The 47 in 86-47, that refers to Trump being the 47th president.

54:58Now, Comey claimed he thought the message was political. He didn't realize some people associated 86 with violence. Joining us now, former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocha. Mimi, we know the charge is now making a threat against the president, transmitting that threat in interstate commerce. What kind of a case do you think the Justice Department has here? Is it strong? Is it weak? What's your take? Jake, this charge does not even remotely pass the laugh test. I thought the first indictment against Comey for a completely different conduct was thin. This is so thin, it doesn't even float. It is embarrassing that a Department of Justice brought this.

55:45And Comey is exactly right. This is not how it's supposed to work. I believe deeply in the grand jury system, in our adversarial system, but a grand jury is only as good and honest and lawful as the prosecutor that stands before it. And I think step one, as it was in the prior case, is going to be seeing what was said to the grand jury because I just don't believe if they were properly instructed on the law that this indictment could have been voted the way that it was. There are different elements for each count, but the bottom line is you have to, prosecutor has to show beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury now that Comey intended this essentially as a threat against Trump or intended others to take it as an incitement to commit violence.

56:48And it can't just be that some people, you know, associate it with violence. That is not the legal standard. And it is also First Amendment protected speech and courts have been very clear about that. So there are so many legal hurdles to this. If you are working for the DOJ, well, let me take you out of it because you wouldn't prosecute this case. How could a prosecutor try to convince a jury that 8647 from a political opponent of Donald Trump, in at least Trump's view, constitutes a threat on the president's life? Well, I mean, I guess what they would say, and again, it's really hard for me to make arguments like this that I don't believe in and don't think are right, but they would argue that Trump perceived it as a threat and other people perceive the 8-6 as a call to violence.

57:51Again, that's just not the law, though. You can look at the pattern jury instructions from the Fourth Circuit where this case was brought. You can read Supreme Court case law. As a district attorney and as a federal prosecutor, I can't tell you how many times I had fact patterns, egregious fact patterns where really disturbing things were said online about schools or police officers or places where people in places where I really wanted to bring a case if it was able to be brought under the law. And we couldn't because the law is not, it's very protective, again, of First Amendment. And it is not just somebody says something disturbing.

58:36That's a federal crime. And that is what they've done here. They've taken something that, you know, arguably, I mean, I don't even see this as, it doesn't matter whether it's disturbing. It is not threatening. And they are trying to turn it into a federal crime. And it is so obviously vindictive when you take it on top of the prior charges as well. Mimi Rocha, thanks so much. Good to see you. Iran is expected to submit a new peace proposal to the U.S. soon. Will President Trump accept it? That's next.

59:17And we're back with the world lead. Sources say the government of Iran is now revising its proposal to end the war. This is after President Trump signaled that he would reject the Iranian offer from the past weekend. The president posted today, quote, quote, Iran has just informed us that they are in a, quote, state of collapse and want the U.S. to open the Hormuz Strait as soon as possible. Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Adam Smith from Washington. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. First of all, Congressman, is that accurate, what the president said? There's almost zero chance that that's true.

59:51I mean, the president has been lying about what Iran is saying for a long time. I mean, what was it, a week ago Friday when the president said that Iran had completely capitulated that J.D. Vance and Whitcoff and Kushner were flying over to Iran. Iran had agreed to give up their nuclear material, give up their ballistic missiles, stop supporting terrorist groups, and open the Strait of Hormuz. None of that was true. In fact, Iran hadn't even agreed to meet, as became obvious as they kept sending J.D. Vance back and forth to the airport, and ultimately he, nor Kushner, nor Whitcoff ever left. So we cannot believe a single thing that the president says about where this is at, which leaves us sort of up in the air about where it's really at.

1:00:29What is Iran's position and where are any sort of negotiations that exist in reality actually headed? The president did not want to accept Iran's proposal that would reopen the strait without a resolution for its nuclear program. Is there any world in which you think Trump made the right decision here to wait for a better deal? Well, the wrong decision was starting this war in the first place. Now we're in a very stuck position. I mean, look, after everything and the cost that we have inflicted on the Middle East and the world, not to mention our own country with gas prices and soon to be food shortages because of the cost of fertilizer, to come to the end of that and just be basically negotiating to get Iran to get us back to status quo and open up the Strait of Hormuz, that is a very bad outcome.

1:01:21So the war shouldn't have been started in the first place, but the question I would have is what are we going to do that is going to change that outcome, and what would be the cost of it? How do we get Iran to move off of this position? Clearly simply hitting more missile sites and drone factories and bombing the country more aggressively isn't going to do it. So what is the plan to force Iran to give us a better deal? I guess it's the blockade, the hope that the blockade will make Iran shift, but that does not seem to be happening. There's a major development for the oil industry and therefore for the world economy today.

1:01:57The United Arab Emirates, the UAE is leaving OPEC, which is the Gulf state oil organization, effective May 1st. It was a rumor for some time now amid tensions with Saudi Arabia. That does mean the UAE would no longer be beholden to OPEC production quotas. They could sell more oil in theory. What do you make of this development? Well, it's better for the global oil market, no question about it. It breaks up the cartel. It gives us a better chance that production will better reflect demand and can keep the prices down. I mean, it does reflect more than anything, I think, the growing tension between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

1:02:36And that could create more, what's the word I'm looking for here, tumult within the Middle East. But yes, it's good that OPEC seems to be weakening because of the UAE's decision. I'm glad the UAE made that decision. I think it's a positive for the U.S. and a positive for the global oil market. But it doesn't do anything to deal with the problems that the Iran war has created and the problems we have in the Strait of Hormuz right now. I want to get your perspective and opinion on what's going on right now. We've heard two assignments or two announcements today. One, the FCC putting pressure on Disney and ABC stations.

1:03:14This is in the wake of President Trump and First Lady Trump calling on ABC and Disney to fire Jimmy Kimmel for a joke he made two days before the assassination attempt. And the other is the indictment of James Comey for putting the Instagram photo image of shells in the shape of 8647. What are your takes on these two developments? Look, Trump is running this country like an authoritarian dictator, not like a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic. He's been doing that almost since the day he came into office, I guess sort of in his defense, it's what he said he was going to do when he was campaigning for office.

1:03:51So look, this is a fundamental threat to our Constitution. The charges against James Comey, I heard your previous guest, I completely agree with her, absolutely ridiculous. This is the president using our government, our power, to attempt to take vengeance on his political foes. You know, it is an attack on the First Amendment, it's an attack on our Constitution, and I I hope that we will get some Republicans in Congress to finally rise up and recognize this. This isn't about conservative or liberal Republican or Democrat. This is about are we living in a constitutional republic or an authoritarian dictatorship?

1:04:27This is, once again, an abuse of power by President Trump that people ought to be speaking out loudly against. Democratic Congressman Adam Smith from Washington State, thank you so much, sir. Appreciate your time. A Republican member of Congress is joining us next. his take on the ongoing fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security and the move that could transform the U.S. Senate. Stick with us.

1:04:53In our politics lead after Saturday's alleged assassination attempt against President Trump, calls are growing for Congress to finally pass funding for all of the Department of Homeland Security, including the Secret Service. DHS has been shut down for 73 days now. Several Senate Republicans are pushing the House to pass its package, which the Senate package, which funds the department, but excludes ICE and Border Patrol, which have sufficient funding for most of their salaries for the next couple of years. House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, says the bill is haphazardly drafted, the Senate bill, indicating that House Republicans want technical changes to be made to the Senate bill.

1:05:30Let's bring in Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. So, Senator, you want the Senate. Well, tell me what your position is. My impression is you want to get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats are not willing to fund DHS. But I might be mischaracterizing. Tell us what your position is. Well, first of all, if I had any feeling the Democrats would preserve the filibuster, that's what Republicans would prefer to. But, you know, I'm part of the conference who believes absolutely when they get power, they will end the filibuster. So we ought to act first at a moment of this kind of dysfunction where our nation's at risk and we're not funding the very agency that we depend on to try and keep us safe.

1:06:08So I guess my next ask is get seven Democrats, you know, a lot of them run as moderates and then they govern as radical leftists. Get seven Democrats to join us to fund the entire department. I would think after the White House Correspondents' Dinner, when even reporters are at risk, reporters would start putting a little more pressure on Democrats. Jake, turn the tables. If Republicans had shut down the government for 42 days, followed that up with shutting down DHS for 71, we would be excoriated by the corporate media. First of all, we wouldn't do it because of that kind of accountability. The problem is the Democrats can do this with impunity.

1:06:43So the best result here, just have the Democrats vote for the House full funding of DHS. If that's not possible, and that's what we evaluated a couple weeks ago, you know, in the Senate, we said, okay, let's fund what we can, which is about 90 % of DHS, and then quickly move to a skinny reconciliation bill to fund the rest. The problem we have right now is for whatever reason, the House is not willing to accept 90 % because they're not getting 10 % funded. Fine, I understand their point, but they need to understand that the money for ICE and CBP is rapidly running out because President Trump is using the flexibility of the one big beautiful bill and paying other salaries of other people in DHS.

1:07:27So it's not going to fund them for a couple of years. It's not going to fund them to the end of the fiscal year. We're hearing that funding for ICE and CBP personnel will start running out yet this month. Really? Okay. Again, because Democrats are so obnoxiously obstructionist, you know, Republicans are going to have to do this on our own. So right now, I hope the House will pass the partial funding bill, the 90 % funding bill, and then take up the Senate skinny reconciliation bill, and then immediately move to a larger reconciliation bill. There's all kinds of things I want to do through reconciliation.

1:08:00But again, if none of that works, I have been proposing ending the filibuster. You know, we have already ended it for, first Harry Reid ended it for judges. Then we had to end it for Supreme Court justice because they were obstructing our nominee. Now we've ended it for all nominees because they were so obnoxiously obstructionist they weren't going to allow President Trump to staff his administration. We're already pushing the bounds of reconciliation. I mean, what's left? I mean, we're so far down that slippery slope. We're almost at the bottom of the hill. Rip the band-aid off. Get rid of the filibuster.

1:08:35Let's move on trying to save this country. But to be clear, your first hope is that Speaker Johnson will bring it up for a vote. That's your first hope when it comes to this funding bill. My first hope is have Democrats join us and pass the House bill. I mean, that's what they should do. Okay. But what about the House passing the Senate bill? Yeah. Again, recognize, okay, take 90 % and then take the other 10 % through a skinny reconciliation bill. We've already passed a resolution. If they would do that in the House, We could then pass the bill that could be funded within a couple of weeks. OK, I'm going to move to a more fulsome reconciliation bill.

1:09:13So let me turn to this other topic I know you want to discuss because the Justice Department today announced the indictment of a former senior advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. David Morens. He's accused of hiding federal records and emails related to covid research during the pandemic. Morens attorney didn't give us a comment about the indictment. I know you support it. Why do you support it? What do you hope this indictment accomplishes? well first of all big shout out to my staff and the permanent subcommittee investigation we got these documents not through hhs under the biden administration this was from a university that was dealing with the hhs my staff pulled this needle out of the haystack out of 150 15 000 page uh dump you know that data yeah load of documents response to our oversight and and they found that email where dr dave moran's is bragging about the fact he has his FOIA lady who showed him how to basically destroy FOIA documents, you know, how to make them disappear, and then also told people, please send any censored material to my Gmail account.

1:10:15So we've got federal records laws. You can't destroy federal documents. You have to use your official email accounts for official business. He didn't do that. But again, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What we're going to be releasing tomorrow in our report shows other instances of HHS employees during the Biden administration pushing the COVID injections, doing the exact same thing, saying, well, let's not talk about this in email. Let's do this offline. Hiding 25 serious safety signals on adverse events. Again, it should be a bombshell, our hearing and our report released tomorrow. All right, Republican Senator Ron Johnson of the great state of Wisconsin.

1:10:52Thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. So you've got Trump Rx, Trump gold cards for immigration, Trump accounts for kids, the Trump Kennedy Center. And now the president's face will be on a special passport. That's next on our political panel. Stay with us.

1:11:18Our politics lead, the State Department announced today it's going to begin issuing special passports in honor of the 250th birthday of America. Featuring, there you see on the right, oh look, our founding fathers. That's a beautiful, appropriate image. And then on our left, it's the face of President Trump in honor of America's 250th anniversary. Remember, just last month, the Commission of Fine Arts approved a commemorative coin. I think it's a dollar featuring President Trump. Last year, his name was affixed to the Kennedy Center. Now the Trump Kennedy Center. There's a lot more, honestly, but we only have 15 more minutes in the show.

1:11:51But he has done a lot of branding. Sure, Michael. So, I mean, I get it. He's a brander. This is his thing before. Trump Steaks, Trump Hotel and Casino, Trump's Magazine, Trump Air. I get it. But usually, this is done for you by other people after you leave office. Sure, but President Trump is obviously saying, why wait? I mean, this is part of the course. You will not forget him, that's for sure. And it reminds me of the COVID checks. Remember, he had his signature. And so everybody was saying. It was very effective. No, it was. It was like people said, oh, Trump gave me a check during the COVID pandemic.

1:12:22So I get the marketing of it. Would I do it? No, that's just not my style. But that's part of the course for Trump. Ashley? I mean, my point is, could he have at least smiled and not look like a supervillain? You know, it's like. No, that's his badass look. That's blue steel, baby. I mean, I don't know that I would call him Blue's Tale, but nevertheless, I mean, the problem is that we're celebrating 250 years of America. Yeah. The founding of our nation. Yeah. Not honoring Donald Trump. And so he's taking this opportunity to celebrate and honor himself. And I think that's the part I find most disgusting about all of this is that it's all about Donald Trump.

1:12:58It's not about the American people. You know what they say. When your haters want to celebrate, you celebrate yourself. There you go. Well, I mean, the American people need to celebrate. I mean, I'm just saying, Ashley. That's the focus of the president. That's his job. You don't have to do it. I will celebrate both of you. Thank you, Jay. If you ever need to, just whisper it to me, and then I'll come up with an Ashley Etienne coin or some cheese named after a ship. Make it high in my mind. Whatever it is. Let's turn to Florida, where, by the way, an airport has been renamed. The Palm Beach Airport is now named after Donald Trump.

1:13:23But he didn't do that. He didn't do that. Governor DeSantis did that. Governor DeSantis did that. But also, DeSantis, the special legislative session kicked off today to consider Governor DeSantis' new congressional maps. This is part of the redistricting wars. It could give Republicans four additional House seats after the midterms. Actually, these maps could hit Florida, House and Senate floor, rather, as early as tomorrow. The latest in this, I mean, Virginia did it. Now Florida's doing it. How do you see it? I mean, you know, sort of, you know, the Republicans started this fight and, you know, Democrats are hellbent on finishing it.

1:13:58Now DeSantis is jumping in. You know, and the question here is whether or not what he's doing actually violates the state constitution. In 2010, they passed a bill that said you cannot draw maps that would benefit any political party, any one political party, nor can you draw one that would disenfranchise people based on race and language. And that's the arguments that Democrats across the state of Florida are making, is that this particular map actually violates the state's constitution. There's a lot of irony in everything you just said. Because Virginia is a future. Virginia, where I live, that's exactly what's going on there.

1:14:29Republicans have argued you're disenfranchising Republican voters, 48 percent, 47 percent voted for the president in the most recent presidential election. And the Supreme Court, at least for now, they're saying Virginia Supreme Court, I should say, they're saying you cannot move forward with counting the votes or moving forward with the redistricting plans. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out over the next two weeks. But what it goes to show you is that there are some states that are saying, wait a minute here. We get the politics of this, but there are there are laws, there are constitutions in place.

1:14:56Some of them are red states, too, in the NN in particular. Right, and you can't violate the state constitution. And I like that. Like, I get what Texas is doing. I get what California is doing. But Jesus Christ, Jake, we need some semblance of normalcy here. And so I'm happy to see what the Virginia Supreme Court has done, and we'll see what happens in Florida. Would you two, as a Republican and Democrat in the world governed by me, agree to every state has to have a nonpartisan redistricting commission? Oh, yeah, I would agree with that. that tries to do it as fairly as possible. For example, Republicans will always bring up, I mean, this is abnormal because it's being done mid-decade as opposed to the end of the decade.

1:15:34But all sorts of tomfoolery goes on at the end of the decade, right? I mean, that's when the redistricting and the gerrymandering really happens. People say, well, look at Massachusetts. It's, okay, they 40 % vote for the Republican for president, but they have 0 % of the congressional districts. Like, what about some sort of equity that way? Would you, you would be willing to do that? No, I'm actually for that. I mean, if the voters of the state agree with it, absolutely. I think it's a fair way to do it. I think representation matters. And if a third of the state votes one way, you cannot ignore that representation.

1:16:03Even if I, as a Republican, lived in a place where most of the state voted to the other side, I wouldn't say, well, I don't care. I'm going to disregard it and give most of my side the representation. That's just not fair. It's not equitable. The problem, though, is you have a president who is... I know you were going to go back, but go ahead. Just go ahead. It cannot win legitimately. We're on the same page for a moment. I mean, you're right, because he's rigging the system. You mean you're referring to the midterms in terms of not winning legitimately? Absolutely. I just want to make sure people understand you're not saying you didn't win legitimately.

1:16:32No, no, no. Yeah, he's afraid that they're not going to win. In the midterms, right. So, yeah, so he's trying to rig the system. That's the problem we have right now. I mean, look at history. History tells us what happens with the party of the president. You know this as well as I do. Yeah, but win it legitimately. You typically lose seats. So the history is not on our side, unfortunately. So let's turn to an issue I don't know. So you rig it? You might be scrapping about this also, but I want to turn to the James Comey indictment. So he's on charges related to a photo of seashells that spelled out 86-47, 86-get-rid-of-47-Trump.

1:17:03He says he didn't, he just meant it like in a political way, get rid of Trump. He didn't mean it in terms of violence. And when he found out that people said, oh, that's violence, he took it down. But the Trump administration, they indicted him today for the saying it was a call to assassinate Trump. What do you think? The first time this was dismissed on a procedural account because of the attorney, I think the judge said wasn't appropriately appointed, something to that effect. This is serious. I know acting attorney General Todd Blanche, I personally think he's a really, really good guy. And the way he articulated this, I thought, was as fair as one could get.

1:17:38We have to articulate the facts to a jury and to a judge. Mr. Comey has a presumption of innocence and he should have his due day in court. And I got to tell you something, Jake, if this is ultimately dismissed by a jury, this will finally be put to rest. Now, there's an ethical, moral implication on should the president be calling for this? And there are going to be a lot of people saying, absolutely not. This is a bridge too far. But at some point, I think you have to allow these things to move forward so that a jury of Mr. Comey's peers and anybody else can say, look, this is nonsense. We're dismissing this so we can all finally move forward.

1:18:07There was a there's a major Trump influencer who I think a year ago or two years ago wrote 8646 about Biden. There wasn't any anything brought against him, any charges brought against him. No, you're absolutely right, because that's not what this is about. This is about retribution. This is, you know, Donald Trump's continuation to misuse the department, weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his perceived enemies. and Comey has it right. This will not end here. He's going to continue to go after Comey and James and others until something happens. But here's my other thing. It's like to be such a tough guy, he's so sensitive.

1:18:48And if this is some sort of a violation that you can be indicted on, I mean, imagine the millions of people who've said something similar or if not more extreme about the president. Well, it's not difficult to indict anybody. We all know that. No, but I'm saying you have to indict millions of people. Like, you know, he's not the only person that's ever said, you know, You're going to have to continue this in the green room. All right, guys. Thanks, both of you. So great to have you guys here. I love having you here. Elon Musk took the stand today in his legal battle against Sam Altman, the maker of ChatGPT.

1:19:15What did the former first buddy have to say about the man he calls Scam Altman? That's next.

1:19:28In our tech lead, the trial that many call a tech soap opera. Elon Musk testifying in his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman. Musk co-founded OpenAI and initially helped fund it. But now he's alleging that the company betrayed him and its original non-profit mission by shifting to a for-profit model. Musk claims the shift was a breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. OpenAI says that Musk had pushed for a for-profit structure himself. The company says Musk left because he could not assume total control and that the lawsuit is motivated by a desire to derail a competing AI company.

1:20:06After leaving OpenAI, Musk founded his own AI company, XAI. CNN's Hadas Gold is in Oakland, California. She's following this trial for CNN. Hadas, what did Musk say to the court? Yeah, this is just the first hour or so of Musk's testimony. It will continue for several more hours tomorrow. And he told the jury that he thought AI could kill us all. And that part of the reason he wanted to found an AI research foundation was because he wanted to avoid a Terminator-style outcome. He walked the jury through his version of OpenAI's founding, saying it started partly as a counterbalance, an open-source counterbalance to Google, after Google Go founder Larry Page called him a speciest for being pro-human.

1:20:44He also warned that if he loses, he says it will give license to looting every charity in America. We will continue to hear more from Elon Musk tomorrow. Interestingly, though, today, The judge in this case actually reprimanded Elon Musk for his posts on X. He's been posting a lot about the trial. As you noted, he called Sam Altman scam Altman. She said today to him to stop posting about the trial. She said, try to control your propensity to use social media to make things worse outside the courtroom. Perhaps you've never done that before. Tomorrow, the defense is going to get a chance to question Musk.

1:21:17What do we anticipate in that line of questioning? Yeah, Jake, they will probably bring up what they say is reams of evidence, emails and call logs and conversations where they say Musk was well aware of OpenAI's plan to have a for-profit subsidiary. They're arguing that Musk was even pushing for that, saying that's the only way they'd be able to compete against the likes of Google. And they're going to bring up the fact that Musk has his own AI company, XAI. They're saying that he is bringing this trial way too late, years after the fact that he knew all of this stuff was happening at OpenAI.

1:21:47They're saying he's bringing this up only because he wants to bring a competitor, OpenAI, down a few notches, especially ahead of OpenAI's likely planned IPO later this year. Because if Musk gets what he wants in this trial, OpenAI would have to revert back to a nonprofit. Sam Altman and Greg Brockman will lose their positions on the board, and something like$130 billion would have to go back into OpenAI's nonprofit. That would obviously very much scramble OpenAI's plans and could completely change the landscape for AI. All right. Hadass Gold in Oakland, California, covering the Battle of Tech Titans.

1:22:19Thanks so much. And you can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, ThreadsX, Blue Sky and on the TikTok at Jiktap. Or you can follow the show on X and Instagram at EliteCNN. If you ever miss an episode of Elite, you can watch the show on the CNN app. Aaron Burnett out front starts now. We're going to leave you live pictures from outside the state to dinner about to begin at the White House.

1:22:42I'm Daniel Dae Kim. I'm going to South Korea to figure out how this small nation conquered the world with its culture. Join me and meet the artists and creators behind the phenomenon. K-Everything, streaming May 9th on the CNN app. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. What is autism? How has our understanding of it changed? And why does it seem to be rising in terms of overall numbers? I'm going to be talking with Dr. Matthew Lerner, who's a leading autism researcher at Drexel University, and we're going to be getting into the facts. Where does autism come from? When does autism start?

1:23:20We can now say with confidence that autism represents a unique developmental trajectory of the brain. Literally, it's considered a neurodevelopmental condition. The best evidence suggests that that different developmental trajectory begins in utero. Listen to Chasing Life, streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.