Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Trump On Comey Indictment: "There will be others." Interview With Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD); Comey Indictment Related To Hillary Clinton Investigation; Source: Comey Indictment Related To Hillary Clinton Investigation; Comey Case: Prosecutor Is Trump's Former Personal Lawyer; Defense Attorney Is A Career Litigator; ICE Officer Who Shoves Woman To Floor At Courthouse Relieved Of His Duties; Nexstar And Sinclair End Jimmy Kimmel Blackout; Trump Administration's Proposed Gaza Peace Plan Calls For All Hostages To Be Released Within 48 Hours; Dozens Of Delegates Walk Out As Netanyahu Addresses. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired September 26, 2025 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ALEXANDER STUBB, PRESIDENT OF FINLAND: And second, we make sure that we attribute when necessary and build up defenses so that it doesn't happen again. But the key here is not to overreact and I think that's the most important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Well, that was President Alexander Stubb of Finland and that was actually part of a really fascinating conversation about a lot of things with Putin and Trump and you can watch the entire interview on X. Go to OutFront CNN to see President Stubb. Thanks so much for joining us on this Friday, AC360 starts now.

[20:00:31]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, as new video tapes, Comey surfaces the new details surrounding his indictment emerge the President asked who's next? His answer and more with best-selling "New York Times'," Trump biographer Maggie Haberman.

Tense moments in a New York City courthouse caught on tape. An ICE officer seen shoving a mother into a wall and then pushing her to the floor all in front of her young daughter. What happened to that officer now?

And later, Jimmy Kimmel's late night return is now complete as both affiliate groups that were preempting him agree to carry him again.

Good evening, thanks for joining us tonight. As we are beginning to learn more about the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, we've also heard straight from the President of the United States who has pushed for this indictment very loudly for a very long time. And we learned today, and we heard from him today that this will not be the last criminal defendant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Mr. President, on James Comey, now that James Comey has been indicted, who is the next person on your list in this retribution?

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's not a list, but I think there will be others. I mean, they're corrupt. These were corrupt, radical left Democrats because Comey essentially was -- he was worse than a Democrat. I would say the Democrats are better than Comey. But no, they'll be others. Look, it was -- that's my opinion. They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they've done is terrible. And so, I would, I hope, frankly, I hope there are others because you can't let this happen to a country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, another indictment, we're told could come any moment with sources telling CNN that senior officials at the Department of Justice are pushing to quickly bring charges against Trump's former national security advisor and former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. The administration claims that it found classified documents after searching Bolton's home. You remember that raid on his house last month.

Now, his attorney tells CNN that the records kept were typical of a longtime government employee and that there was nothing, in their words, inappropriate was stored or kept by ambassador Bolton.

That may be for the court to decide but the President has made it his antipathy for former Ambassador Bolton clear again and again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Look I'm not a fan of John Bolton. I thought he was a sleazebag.

A lowlife.

That idiot John Bolton, who was so stupid.

He was a maniac.

He wants to always kill people.

Bolton, a real dope. He was a nut job and everybody -- I could see his face get red, red, red with that stupid white mustache, and he'd be ready to explode.

He released massive amounts of classified and confidential, but classified information. That's illegal and you go to jail for that.

He's a criminal, and I believe, frankly, he should go to jail for that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, also this evening on his social network, the President went after former Biden deputy attorney general, who's currently at Microsoft, or, as he put it in his post, corrupt and totally Trump deranged Lisa Monaco, a purported pawn of legal lightweight Andrew Weissmann.

Now, Weissmann, you may recall, was the lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation. The President went on saying "She's a menace to U.S. National Security." Although he did not mention charges, he ended with, "It is my opinion that Microsoft should immediately terminate the employment of Lisa Monaco. Thank you for your attention in this matter."

Again, the President did not mention seeking charges, but he does seem to be linking her to investigations of himself, which puts her, of course, in the same category as others who have either probed or prosecuted him. Most recently, Adam Schiff and also New York's attorney general, Letitia James, both of whom he demanded be prosecuted along with James Comey.

Now, back to Comey, there's new video of him speaking to CNN in May about his status as a Trump target.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I'm still considered a villain in MAGA world, but I hope I said that correctly. Although, I've offended enough people in MAGA world, that doesn't matter at this point. I'm not sure exactly why that is I often joke I'm the relationship that Trump can't get over wakes up in the middle of the night thinking about me and how I'm living my best life.

I think it has some combination of I really have had a happy productive life since then and that I spoke out about him and that despite their absolute best efforts, they're never able to get me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:05:00]

COOPER: Well, now, with the help of a U.S. attorney who also happens to be the President's former personal lawyer, handpicked specifically to seek an indictment the President has. CNN has new insight into that less than two-page indictment, two charges, obstruction of a congressional proceeding and false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, accusing Comey of, and I quote, "... falsely stating to a U.S. senator during a Senate judiciary committee hearing that he, James B. Comey, Jr., had not authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning person one."

Now, officials and people briefed on the matter tell us that person one is Hillary Clinton, that the indictment continues. "That statement was false because as James B. Comey, Jr. then and there knew, he in fact, had authorized person three to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning person one."

Now, a source familiar with the indictment tells CNN's Jake Tapper, that person three, whom Comey allegedly authorized to leak information on his behalf, is his longtime friend. And Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, now Professor Richman was for a period a special government employee at the FBI, though we don't yet know the time frame. This is some of the testimony in question from September 2020.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, "Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation of the Clinton investigation?" You responded under oath, "Never." He then asked you, "Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?" You responded again under oath, "No."

Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to "The Wall Street Journal" and that you were a directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?

COMEY: I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

CRUZ: So, your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak and Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?

COMEY: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, we should be clear that we know very little about the details of the case that prosecutors intend to make. As for Comey himself, he proclaimed his innocence last night on Instagram along with this show of defiance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees and you shouldn't either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: As for the President, he told Fox today that Comey, "... placed a cloud over the entire nation, adding, this makes Watergate look like peanuts." In point of fact, according to the Watergate collection at the University of California, Berkeley Library, 41 people were convicted of crimes connected to the Watergate scandal and just before airtime, the President posted this online.

"I'd like to thank Kash Patel and the outstanding members of the FBI for their brilliant work on the recent indictment of the worst FBI director in the history of our country, James 'Dirty Cop' Comey. The level of enthusiasm by the FBI was incredible, but only caused by the fact that they knew Comey for what he is and was a total slimeball. Again, thank you to the FBI and especially specifically those that worked on this case with U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan and the DOJ. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Make America Great Again, President DJT."

A lot to cover tonight and guarding the Comey indictment. We begin with Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin. He is the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman, you said there's little chance you think Comey could ever be convicted. What makes you so sure of that in this process?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): So, you had a U.S. attorney who President Trump appointed to the job, who is a well-respected Republican Erik Siebert and he was assigned to the case and went through everything and determined there was simply not enough evidence to bring a prosecution under the Constitution and under the rules of the court. And it was very clear that Donald Trump at that point exploded and said he wanted that guy gone. He wanted to get rid of him. They fired him and he replaced him with a new U.S. attorney who had never Prosecuted a day in her life simply with the mission of going in to dust off the indictment that Mr. Siebert had rejected and to put it in.

So, just on the threshold grounds of the process that led up to this, it's very dubious that a court will allow this to go through. And certainly if that evidence got to a jury, it would make it extremely suspect. Presumably there's a reason why Mr. Siebert determined that there wasn't enough evidence. There wasn't probable cause to believe that an offense took place. And remember, the prosecutor plays a critical role in our criminal justice process. It's not like any time there's an accusation, they bring an indictment to court. They bring a prosecution to court. The prosecutor's job is to determine whether, in fact, there is sufficient evidence to bring a case in the first place.

[20:10:47]

COOPER: I mean, it's interesting that the President Trump, invoked the specter of Watergate. I don't think he invoked it in the way that it could be interpreted in regards to this. Do you think the DOJ is going to stop with Comey? I mean, do you think he's just the first on the list?

RASKIN: I mean, this prosecution moves us from the rule of law as it has evolved over centuries in the United States back to a regime of vengeance and retribution and, of course, the rule of law is all about replacing a regime of revenge and retribution with objective and neutral law enforcement and prosecutors. The best that we can make it, given human nature. But this is just a radical breach of everything we've understood about how our system of justice is supposed to operate.

The President doesn't determine in advance that people are guilty. That's like what the Constitution calls a bill of attainder, where the Congress just describes somebody as guilty. Here, the President is describing somebody as guilty and then saying, go out and get him. Even when the prosecutors are saying there's no evidence to sustain such a prosecution. So, I think that this is a radical reversal of all of the norms we've evolved about the rule of law, and it puts everybody's rights at stake and takes us down a road we don't want to go.

Now, we saw the administration begin with a similar thing, which was the President nullifying a prosecution and a grand jury indictment in the case of Mayor Adams, because he was -- he became a political ally of the President. And so, Trump then insisted to that Republican U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, that they withdraw and quash that indictment.

She refused to do it because there was overwhelming probable cause that a crime had been committed. And I think they had to go through five or six lawyers. All of those people left the U.S. attorney's office in New York, until they could find somebody who would go ahead and do the will of the President. That is not how the American justice system has traditionally worked.

COOPER: Congressman, Raskin, thank you on this busy night, appreciate it

With me now is former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, bestselling author, as well, former federal judge Nancy Gertner joins us. Also, CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig. I mean, Jeff, is it unusual for there still to be so many unanswered questions about what, if anything, support the charges in this indictment?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it's even more bizarre than that is that we don't really know what the charges are because he's charged with making a false statement. And, you know, that's a fairly routine charge in federal court. But what the government always does is spell out what the false statement is.

Here, it's not clear what the false statement is. Does it relate to his relationship with Andy McCabe, his former deputy? Does it relate to Daniel Richman, the Columbia law professor? You know, lots of us who are on listservs about this. We've been spending time all day debating about these various theories of what the charges are. But it reflects the really shoddy nature of this investigation that, you know, people can't even understand what he's charged with after reading the indictment. That's what indictments are for.

COOPER: Well, Judge Gertner, is there a reason why they wouldn't be more specific in an indictment? Or is it just shoddiness? Like Jeff said.

NANCY GERTNER, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: The only explanation, given the sequence of events, that Representative Raskin mentioned is shoddiness. I mean, it's essentially an incoherent indictment, slapdash, slapped together because the statute of limitations was about to run. You know, the full statement, indictment is not difficult to draft. Here's what he said. Here's the proof that it was false. Here's why we believe he intentionally made the false statement.

So the fact that they can't even do that says something about how just completely, I mean, this is a ruse. This is an incoherent indictment.

COOPER: What do you mean it's a ruse?

GERTNER: Well, it's a ruse because he ordinarily, you investigate a crime, and then you find who perpetrated the crime. He wanted to go after Comey, and they were going to find something to get him. This is the reverse of the way we do things. So, it's a ruse.

In the tweet that he sent to Pam Bondi, which was itself extraordinary, essentially says, I want to get these people and Comey was on the list. And so, the U.S. attorney -- the new U.S. attorney had to find something, to come up with. And this is what they came up with, and they came up with it really at the last minute. And really, it's just its incoherent. This is not like a complicated RICO case that takes pages and pages of investigating allegations. This is really a pretty simple crime. And if they can't even do that, it says something about the bona fides of this whole process.

[20:15:53]

COOPER: Elie, how difficult? I mean, there's, again, there's a lot we don't know about this case, as everybody has made clear. But how difficult would it be to prove that Comey knowingly misled Congress, as opposed to getting facts wrong?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST :Well it's a mistake. Yes, let's take this new reporting that the person at issue here is Daniel Richman. Given what we know, there's a major problem, a couple major problems that the prosecution is going to face. First of all, Daniel Richman in 2019 told the FBI, Jim Comey never asked me to leak. Now, perhaps he has recanted that. But if he's going to be the star witness, you've got a big problem on your hands. If you're the prosecution and he said the exact opposite before.

The other thing is in a perjury case, and I think Judge Gertner was just alluding to this. You have to prove a specific false statement in response to a specific question. This charge is based on that question that Ted Cruz asked go back and look at that question. It's a triple or quadruple question mashed into one. Jim Comey can very plausibly say, he asked me four things at one time, and I just said, see my prior testimony. He mentioned Andy McCabe by name, Ted Cruz did twice and so Comey could say, I thought he was talking about McCabe, no mention of Richman.

So, this is a convoluted perjury case, false statement case at best.

COOPER: Jeff, is it possible they would amend the charges later on?

TOOBIN: It's always possible that there could be what's called a superseding indictment, which is another indictment of the same person that might explain it further. And there could be what's called a bill of particulars where the prosecutors explain in greater detail, what the charges are. But I think, you know, there are so many legal issues connected with this indictment already. I mean, there are issues of vindictive prosecution, malicious prosecution, selective prosecution, all of which may result in this case being thrown out. It's not entirely clear that this acting U.S. attorney or interim U.S. attorney or whatever she was, whether she even had the authority to sign this indictment given the -- you know, how recently she had been appointed.

The legal problems with this case are legion, and it's just indicative of, how basically what the Justice Department was doing was struggling to, you know, answer the President's demand for an indictment before the statute of limitations arrived and they slapped together whatever they could. But they are going to have a lot of problems bringing this case to trial, much less getting a conviction.

COOPER: Yes, Jeff Toobin, Judge Nancy Gertner, Elie Honig, thank you very much.

Coming up next, Maggie Haberman of "The New York Times" on the President talking about retribution and his history of seeking retribution.

Well also be joined by a former Republican Congressman, Adam Kinzinger, who is focused on some of it. Later, author and legendary media reporter Bill Carr on another big step in the Jimmy Kimmel late night comeback and his soaring viewership.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, AMERICAN TELEVISION HOST AND COMEDIAN: Tuesday night has more than 21 million views just on YouTube alone. And I want to say, we couldn't have done it without you, Mr. President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:23:39]

COOPER: Before the break, we played a comment made by the President today saying he hopes there will be others, along with James Comey, to face his retribution. Getting back at perceived enemies or those he feels aggrieved by is something the President has spoken about a lot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: In 2016, I declared, I am your voice. Today, I add, I am. I am your warrior. I am your justice and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I am your retribution.

I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt President in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden and the entire Biden crime family.

She should be impeached and prosecuted for her actions.

She should be prosecuted.

The judge and the A.G. should be arrested and punished accordingly.

The radical left, and it's going to get worse. But I mean, bad things happen when they play these games.

Well, revenge does take time. I will say that it does. And sometimes revenge can be justified.

Look, when this election is over, based on what they've done, I would have every right to go after them.

TERRY MORAN, FORMER ABC NEWS REPORTER: Does that give you the right to go after your political opponents with the powers of this office?

TRUMP: I'm going after -- all I'm doing -- hey, Biden did something to me and I did something to Biden.

We will root out the communists, Marxist, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country. For the liars and within the confines of our country. For the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and impostors who have commandeered our government, it will be their judgment day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:25:03]

COOPER: Well, joining us now is CNN political analyst and "New York Times" White House correspondent Maggie Haberman.

Haberman authored the best-selling book, "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America."

Maggie, I'm wondering if you're hearing anything about the confidence level in the White House of these charges against Comey.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: The first step here, Anderson, was getting the indictment and that is something that President Trump wanted. And I think that it's really important to remember that President Trump is aware that there can be a reputational cost and an actual financial cost to people who are on the receiving end of a criminal indictment. And that is part of why he wanted to see this happen. Part of it is also that he believes that he was wronged.

I don't know how far down the road they have thought about whether there will be a conviction, but as I said, I think this was the step that they wanted to see first. And I think the bigger question is, you know, one is going to be whether this case goes to trial and how a judge views this indictment in light of the circumstances around it. But the other is going to be how many other potential indictments might follow because his other retribution targets are clearly at risk.

COOPER: Is it clear to you if that that post he made, to citing address to Pam, was that meant to be a post? It ended up being taken down. It seemed almost -- you know, I mean, it would seem he called her Pam, it seemed almost like a note. Do you know anything about that?

HABERMAN: I believe that it was intended for her private consumption and then he reposted it afterwards. Because he never acknowledges a mistake and always doubles down. You know, I don't think that that was meant to be a rallying cry that the entire general public heard. But once it was, he leaned into it and he told reporters at the White House, you know, they have to act and they have to act fast. So, it's a little hard to unring that bell, Anderson.

You know, look, we have no idea how this case will play out. But his various statements have given fodder almost certainly to Comey's lawyers to argue against this case.

COOPER: Yes, I mean, there's such a thing as vindictive prosecution and a lot of the legal professionals I've been talking to are saying if ever there was a case, this is a case which maybe could be made given the President's statements and also that that post.

HABERMAN: Yes, look, you know, again, I think that most defense lawyers would probably use that that post in some kind of a legal filing trying to get this case thrown out, be it arguing, vindictive, an vindictive prosecution argument which is, it's not often successful to make that claim, but there can be other arguments against the evidence. And I think, you know, that post plus the fact that there were prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia who put memorialized on in a memo that they didn't think that they're, that the case was strong enough to take to trial, that they thought that it was it was too weak to try to win a conviction on. All of that could raise red flags.

And again, you know, there's so little we know about this case, Anderson. I mean, you know, we've all been talking about this all day. CNN has various news outlets have there's so little we know about this that, you know, it's a little hard to say exactly what we're talking about. But yes, I think based on what we have seen and how, you know, it's a its a two page indictment. I assume that Comey's lawyers are going to make a robust filing.

COOPER: Maggie Haberman, thank you very much, appreciate it. Joining us now is CNN senior political commentator, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Congressman, how much of this prosecution of James Comey do you think is about actually seeking a conviction? How much is simply to inconvenience him, sending a message, force him to spend time and money on attorneys?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I mean, I'm sure they'd love to get a conviction, but this is all about the inconvenience. This is all about intimidation. You know, the message. You think about how Donald Trump has operated his whole life. I mean, I like to remind people the Republican Party used to be the party that campaigned against frivolous lawsuits. And now, the President, you know, basically is a practitioner of frivolous lawsuits and lawfare, and that's exactly what it is.

So, he knows that James Comey is going to have to spend money. He's going to be inconvenience. Its damage to the reputation, potentially and that's all that matters. And it's a message he is sending to anybody else that this could happen to you too.

So, what ends up happening? People go quiet. You see, you know, corporations that go quiet or salute and get along and so, so it's -- I guess, look, it's successful, but in the long run, I think it's going to be very much a stain on our history when we look back at how this was done.

COOPER: You served on the January 6th committee, obviously. How, I mean, how do you or do you prepare for the possibility the President could target you others for prosecution?

KINZINGER: Yes, I absolutely no worry about it because first off, what I did was my constitutional duty. And I would argue that I embarrassed him because we showed that he was complicit or launching the overthrow of the government, the attempted overthrow.

But, any retribution would just be based on. He was embarrassed, he feels bad and he wants to, but there's literally nothing he can do. And if he makes the decision to do that and they make up some charges, it'll just make me even more effective at pushing back against him.

[20:31:00]

So I'm not worried about it in the least. The thing that people need to understand is when you back down, he wins. Secondarily, when you stand up and confront him, he tends to back down. And, you know, standing up is contagious, and we need to do that. You see, like, what happened with Jimmy Kimmel, when there was a major pushback against what the President said and done, it's successful and it builds momentum.

COOPER: Do you think if the Comey case is thrown out by a judge, say, or is unsuccessful in terms of the administration's position, do you think that would actually make it less likely there would be future prosecutions, or do you think it wouldn't really have much impact, he would still go after perceived enemies?

KINZINGER: Well, it depends how embarrassed he is out of it. So, you know, if a judge says, hey, here's this technicality that's thrown out, that's one thing. If the judge says what I probably would say if I was a judge, although I don't have a law degree, so, you know, but basically this is ridiculous.

A two-page indictment at the last minute, very sloppy, and it's kind of dismissed with prejudice or whatever, then he'd probably be embarrassed, and yes, maybe a little less. But again, the point here is just to frighten people. The point here is to intimidate.

Nobody wants to go through a situation like what James Comey is going through, but I believe he'll be vindicated. I don't know his case deeply, but yes, that's the goal. And so does he throttle back a little if he's embarrassed? Maybe, but this guy has been consumed with retribution and vengeance, and so that's what he lives for.

COOPER: Adam Kinzinger, thanks very much. Appreciate it. Up next, we're going to take a look at the two main attorneys in the Comey case, the defense attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and his history, and the prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, both on opposite sides, both very different legal backgrounds.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE). No, no, we cannot (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: This disturbing scene, a woman pleading for her husband's release shoved to the floor by an officer in New York in front of her daughter. An update on what's happened now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:37:50]

COOPER: Even before James Comey's first court date, which is expected to be October 9th, which we learned today, it's already clear the lawyers who will prosecute and defend James Comey could not be from more different backgrounds. Here's more from CNN's Randi Kaye.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

LINDSEY HALLIGAN, PPOINTED INTERIM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: What the FBI did was an appalling display of abuse of power.

RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's Lindsey Halligan reacting to the FBI's search for classified documents at Mar- a-Lago in 2022, years before Trump named the 36-year-old acting U.S. attorney overseeing the Eastern District of Virginia. Not even four days into her new job, Halligan brought charges against Former FBI Director James Comey at Trump's urging, despite having said this after the Mar-a-Lago search.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

HALLIGAN: It's up to the sitting President to ensure that our criminal system does not unravel into retaliatory or political prosecutions of former presidents and other government officials.

KAYE (voice-over): According to the Washington Post, Halligan met then-former President Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club in 2021. As the newspaper put it, she had come from court and was in a suit, which probably made her stand out from other female attendees.

Halligan soon joined Mr. Trump's legal team and worked as one of his attorneys in the early stages of the classified documents case. Before entering Trump's orbit, Halligan studied law at the University of Miami. She later became an insurance lawyer.

But despite Trump saying this about her --

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Lindsey Halligan was very smart, good lawyer, very good lawyer.

KAYE (voice-over): -- Halligan had no prosecutorial experience until this week and had previously served as a White House aide, not a lawyer. She told The Washington Post that she was the one who suggested an executive order to remove, quote, "improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology from the Smithsonian Institution," including its museums.

Comey's lawyer, his friend Patrick Fitzgerald, who was also godfather to Comey's son, has a long record of prosecuting high-profile cases. First, as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, where Fitzgerald teamed up with his then-colleague Comey to prosecute mobster John Gambino. And where he later won convictions against Osama bin Laden and others for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa.

[20:40:02]

In 2001, Fitzgerald was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate as the powerful U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Two years later, when scandal erupted in Washington over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, then- Acting Attorney General Comey appointed Fitzgerald special counsel.

PATRICK FITZGERALD, EX-U.S. ATTORNEY: If we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice as perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs.

KAYE (voice-over): Back in Chicago, Fitzgerald would later spearhead the prosecution of disgraced former Illinois governor and one-time Celebrity Apprentice contestant Rod Blagojevich.

FITZGERALD: Governor Blagojevich tried to sell the appointment to the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Obama. The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave.

KAYE (voice-over): Blagojevich's prison sentence was commuted by President Trump in 2020, and he received a full presidential pardon earlier this year. Overseeing the courtroom showdown will be Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who was randomly assigned the case.

And while the case is just hours old, the judge is already a target of Trump's, who posted Friday morning that Comey "was just assigned a crooked Joe Biden-appointed judge, so he's off to a very good start."

Randi Kaye, CNN, Palm Beach County, Florida.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

COOPER: We have an update tonight on a disturbing scene that took place in an immigration courthouse in Manhattan yesterday. A woman was shown in video pleading with ICE officers who've detained her husband in a hallway. Now, one officer then gets rough with a woman as her two young children, a daughter and a son, witnessed the incident.

Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no, we cannot (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, man. Come on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: Ceptible (ph), that was the word they used. ICE says the officer has been, and I quote, "relieved of his current duties." Now, it's not clear if the officer is still employed. We're trying to get more information on that. They're just saying he's relieved of his current duties. New York officials have asked the U.S. Attorney's Office to investigate if a felony has been committed.

Coming up, two giant ABC affiliates -- or affiliate station owners backing down, deciding to carry Jimmy Kimmel's late night show after saying they were suspending it indefinitely. More on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:47:01]

COOPER: Well, as you probably know, since Jimmy Kimmel's return, his show has been preempted by both Sinclair and Nexstar station groups, accounting for nearly a quarter of TV households in America carrying ABC stations. He quipped about that on last night's program.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, ABC HOST: Even though we're still being preempted in 60 American cities on Tuesday, we had our second highest rated show in almost 23 years on the air.

(APPLAUSE)

KIMMEL: Our monologue from Tuesday night has more than 21 million views just on YouTube alone. And I want to say, we couldn't have done it without you, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: Sinclair had demanded that Kimmel apologize and make what they called a meaningful personal donation to the Kirk family and to Turning Point USA. That was last week. This afternoon, Sinclair said it was bringing Kimmel's show back. And hours later, Nexstar has followed suit. I want to bring in author and longtime media reporter Bill Carter, editor-at-large of The Late Nighter. Bill, it's good to see you. So do you think the decision by Nexstar and Sinclair was mostly about their bottom lines? What do you think it was?

BILL CARTER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE LATE NIGHTER: Well, there's a lot of reasons they did this. I think it's obviously -- they've been isolated now that this shows on the air. Viewers want to see it. They're blocking it for seems like performative reason now. But there's also a financial thing. They have a financial deal with the White House pending -- with the government pending. So they had to worry about that.

But I also think, you know, ABC is way more important to them right now than really almost anything that they need that ABC affiliation. And I think ABC had a lot of leverage here. And I'm not saying they forced them to do it. I think they've been in negotiations. I think they reminded them that if they preempt the show more than five times, they could be penalized.

And, you know, there's a lot of things that ABC has that they may want, like the NFL. And I'm not saying they did anything like, say, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. I'm not saying they did that, but I think they exercised a little leverage to make this happen.

COOPER: I want to put a statement up what the President posted online today. He said, "Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, is smart, tough, and a true American patriot. He is supported by MAGA, like few others. Keep up the great work, Brendan. Make America great again. President DJT"

What do you think the government's next move is here, or certainly the FCC, because it certainly seems like the FCC chairman likes the spotlight and likes being in the good graces of the President and wants to pursue this?

CARTER: I think he likes all of that, but I think he's seen that this -- there was a tremendous backlash to this, not just among the left. You saw people on the right saying you can't -- the government can't do this kind of thing and interfere with the free speech of an individual or a company. You had Ted Cruz, you had The Wall Street Journal editorial page, you had Mitch McConnell, you had all kinds of people on the right saying we don't like Jimmy Kimmel, but he has every right to do this.

[20:50:07]

And I think they became sort of isolated and against opinion. I think most opinion in America is America doesn't do this. They don't do this. They don't interfere with free speech. And they -- people are supporting what I think are really American values.

COOPER: You've covered late night for decades. I mean, you know this better than anybody covered Carson and Letterman. Did you ever think you'd see the government behave this way to late night shows? CARTER: No, I mean, it's an extraordinary situation. You had that President actually hates Jimmy Kimmel. He doesn't like Jimmy Kimmel making jokes about him, but he doesn't like any of them. He threatened all the other shows as well.

So he doesn't like people making fun of him. He doesn't like late night. But it's -- what's really extraordinary here, Anderson, is, you know, we had everyone from universities to law firms, to, you know, other companies, news organizations, all basically backing down when Trump threatened them. And a late night host did not back down.

This individual said, no, I'm not going to do it. I'm going to say I won't be bullied. I'm standing on principle and I'm coming back on the air if ABC will allow me.

COOPER: Yes. Bill Carter, it's great to have you on. Thank you, Bill. Appreciate it.

Coming up, dozens of U.N. delegates walking out in protest as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu begins speaking. Also, the President saying the Gaza peace deal is closed. We'll look at that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:56:11]

COOPER: Tonight, the President expressed confidence that an end to the war in Gaza could be near posting on Truth Social. I want to put it on the screen. "Intense negotiations have been going on for four days and will continue for as long as necessary in order to get a successfully completed agreement."

Here he is this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

TRUMP: I think we have maybe a deal on Gaza, very close to a deal on Gaza. I think it's a deal that will get the hostages back. It's going to be a deal that will end the war. It's going to be a deal with -- it's going to be peace.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: Inside the U.N. General Assembly today, dozens of delegates walked out as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to the podium and criticized both Hamas and Western countries recognizing Palestinian statehood.

I want to get perspective now from CNN Global Affairs Analyst Brett McGurk. Brett, based on what you know right now, does it sound to you like a deal to end this war is actually close? Because the President said Hamas is aware and Israel is aware. Didn't say that they've agreed to anything.

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes, Anderson, exactly. Look, I think it's important to discount any predictions of significant progress in Gaza to end the war. We all want that. It's been close before.

This year began, Anderson, with a three-phase ceasefire deal. Of course, the deal broke down after the first phase in March. But let me talk about what's happening now, and it is significant. President Trump laid down for the -- for Arab and Muslim leaders in New York kind of a day after plan.

This is a plan to end the war. It basically would release all hostages, exchange prisoners and Israeli forces would ultimately withdraw and an international force would come into Gaza. This is very similar to what was being discussed last year and was going to be discussed during that second phase of the hostage deal.

But here's what's really key. It's been endorsed. My understanding has now been endorsed by those Arab and Muslim leaders. That is really significant. And that will put pressure on Hamas. You know, Hamas actually does respond to that type of pressure. And over the last six months, other than the military pressure in Gaza, there's been no international pressure on Hamas.

COOPER: I mean, it was remarkable to see the dozens of diplomats and delegates walking out of the United Nations General Assembly as Netanyahu began his speech. And he blasted many world leaders, saying when the going got tough, you caved. Do you think Israel is isolating the world as -- I mean, they're certainly more isolated than they've been, I don't know if ever, but certainly a long time. What impact do you think that's going to have long term?

MCGURK: Well, look, especially over the last six months, Israel has done nothing to articulate what comes after this military phase in Gaza. Since that hostage deal broke down, there's really been no diplomacy. And that is why this American initiative is very important. The Israelis should grab it. They should grab it and run with it.

Well, far more important than those speeches in New York, Anderson, are some of the meetings that went on. You know, after that speech from Netanyahu in New York, he met with the foreign minister of UAE, of the United Arab Emirates. Of course, that is a country that was the first Abraham Accord and the legacy of President Trump.

And the UAE has basically told President Trump and the Israelis that if Israel annexes the West Bank, annexes portions of the West Bank, that means basically declares it Israeli territory, that that would jeopardize the Abraham Accords. President Trump also did something very important just yesterday. He said very clearly he will not permit Benjamin Netanyahu to do that.

That was an important statement. I think that keeps the diplomacy on track. And no doubt the Israeli leader heard that from the UAE today in New York.

COOPER: And Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with President Trump on Monday. What do you expect from that?

MCGURK: Again, the key issue there, Anderson, is this diplomatic initiative, it's -- the day after plan in Gaza. It is a hostage deal, but then it's what comes next. And it would mandate that Israeli forces have to ultimately withdraw from Gaza with an international force coming in.

But let me say, having worked on these issues, there's a lot to get from A to B, from that diplomatic framework to actually having an international force ready to come in. So there's some time to go here. But I think the objective for that meeting from the American side is for Netanyahu to fully endorse and embrace this new initiative from President Trump.

COOPER: Yes, well, we'll see.

Brett McGurk, thanks.

MCGURK: Thank you.

COOPER: And that's it for us.

The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now. Have a great weekend.