Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Sources: Justice Department Indicts James Comey Over "86 47" Post. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 28, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:07]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, sources say the Justice Department has once again indicted James Comey.
Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt.
Right now, three sources tell CNN that former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted for a second time. The new indictment said to be related to a photo that Comey shared on Instagram last year, showing seashells in the shape of the numbers "86 47". Trump administration officials claimed the message was that president Donald Trump should be killed. Comey took the post down, saying that's not what he meant.
Here's what he told CNN at the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: It seemed entirely innocent and clever to me. I have never and actually still have -- don't associate 86 with violence, but because I heard that some folks were. Whether they do that reasonably or not, I don't want any part of it. And so that's why I took it down from my Instagram account.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, but were going to get started with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes and our crime and justice correspondent, Katelyn Polantz.
Kristen, let me start with you. You were part of the team that broke this reporting exclusively. What do we know?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie. As you noted, we don't know the actual charges, but we do know it is related to that social media post. And at the time, Republicans claimed that Comey was intentionally trying to incite violence against the president. And I will tell you, when I'm talking to sources today, they are linking this at least abstractly, to what happened over the weekend, saying that they are trying to basically make sure people are not using rhetoric that is seen as incendiary towards the president of the United States. Now, of course, this is the second time they have indicted Comey. The
first time was over lying to Congress over leaked information to the press. A judge had thrown that out over the U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, saying that she had been appointed improperly at the time. It does feel as though, given the timing, that this is the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, revisiting this case, and specifically revisiting cases that the president has against people he has grievances with.
He's obviously had fallen or Comey had fallen out of favor with President Trump before he was elected the first time, and he considers him a political enemy. We know that this has been something that President Trump had been focused on. And now, of course, it is back now, a secondary set of charges, again, not the same as the lying to Congress, but about that social media post.
HUNT: Kristen, just to follow up on what you said about the events of the weekend, I -- how does that fit in with, you know, the time it normally takes to get an indictment like this?
HOLMES: Yeah. I don't think that we're looking at something that's directly correlated, but now that we have this incident that happened over the weekend, when I am talking to sources about this, they are showing or trying to point to those events to show that the words of Democrats, or in this case, of a former FBI director, have weight, that people listen to them, that that it really does, you know, mean something when you put words down that they can incite violence.
Now, whether or not a judge agrees to that will obviously have to wait and see. But that is the kind of thing I am hearing right now from Republicans when it comes to what we saw over the weekend. And now with this, that they are going to be going after people who they believe are using rhetoric that incites violence.
HUNT: Okay. So, Katelyn Polantz, the first indictment brought against James Comey was dismissed. What is your understanding of how this one is similar or different? How might this play out?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It's a different case. It's a different court. And now, it's a different judge. This is the latest thing that we have learned.
There is a judge assigned to this case, and I can see the case docket open U.S. v. Comey in the eastern district of North Carolina. So that's the full eastern side of the state, including the beaches of North Carolina, where Comey would presumably have taken the photo of the seashells that is the basis of this criminal complaint or indictment.
We don't have any other documents at this time. The judge here, it is, a woman named Louise Wood Flanagan. She's been a district judge. She was appointed by George W. Bush in 2003. But she's worked in this courthouse for a very long time. So, you're looking at an experienced jurist on the bench there overseeing this case against James Comey.
We are waiting for what the exact charge might be. But as far as we know, related to that social media post, that would be a completely different thing than a perjury or false statement, obstruction of Congress charge that Comey faces faced in the eastern district of Virginia.
Kasie, the one thing I will say, though, is that you're very likely to see as this case moves forward, some of the same arguments Comey was making in that previous indictment where he won the dismissal in this case, one of the things that had been on the table in the Eastern District of Virginia last year and was never ruled on by the judge, was Comey's argument that Donald Trump disliked him so much that he was singled out for an indictment unfairly, that it was unconstitutional, and that he was being pursued for his first amendment free speech rights. That's the sort of thing that is very possible to come from his attorneys.
But I've checked a couple of times today. There is nothing that they have to say yet, and were still waiting to even see if Comey personally has been informed of this case against him -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn Polantz, Kristen Holmes, thank you both very much for being here.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny; co-host of "The Interview" podcast from "The New York Times", CNN contributor Lulu Garcia-Navarro; former DNC communications director, CNN political commentator, Xochitl Hinojosa; and former DHS spokesperson, and a former senior adviser to the Vivek Ramaswamy's presidential campaign, Tricia McLaughlin, is here in THE ARENA.
And we're also joined by former U.S. Attorney Michael Moore.
Thank you all very much for being here as we cover this breaking news.
And, Michael, let me just start with you to kind of pick up where we left off there with Katelyn.
Can you kind of help us understand what the dynamics might be at play here? And I think it's worth just noting that the president, back in September of last year, specifically called for people to be prosecuted, called on Pam Bondi the then attorney general, and he said, what about Comey, Adam Shifty Schiff, Letitia, and called them all guilty as hell.
MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Yeah. Well, I'm glad to be with you. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen out of the Department of Justice in a long time. This is not prosecution. This is simply Todd Blanche pandering to a jury of one. And that is Donald Trump.
I mean, if you if you want to see a job interview in action, just look at this indictment because this is complete nonsense. I mean, frankly, the case and the charges that have been brought, if in fact they are simply dealing with seashells will, will wash away pretty quick. I think the judge will look at it as an issue of First Amendment rights, protected speech. Not to mention the fact that there just simply no intent that he intended for any message of harm, physical harm to come to Trump. I mean, he simply uses a code, number to, for something to be removed, which can be voted out of office.
And I was sort of encouraged to hear that you had a judge who had some experience in tenure, coming from a George Bush appointment to, and I think that will make pretty much pretty short work of this. There'll be a great argument as it relates from the defense, to selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution, targeted prosecution that were made in the prior case.
HUNT: Okay. I do want to go back to Katelyn Polantz because she's got some breaking news, some new information about what these charges actually are.
Katelyn?
POLANTZ: Kasie, our team of reporters here on the justice beat have secured a copy of the indictment. It is short. It is three pages long. It's approved by a grand jury. It's signed by a line prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia or of North Carolina. And there are two counts against James Comey, both relating to that Instagram post depicting seashells arranged in a pattern to spell out eight, six, four, seven.
The two counts. One is threatening the president. That's the first one. And the second one is a threat of interstate communications. So transmitting something across state lines that could be perceived as a threat.
I'm going to read exactly what's in this because it is a pretty short initial count that sums it all up. On or about May 15th, 2025, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the defendant, James Brian Comey, Jr. did knowingly and willfully -- knowingly and willfully, key pieces there -- make a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States. In that, Comey publicly posted a photograph on the internet social media site Instagram, which, quote, depicted seashells arranged in a pattern, making out eight, six, four, seven.
And the Justice Department says that is reasonably a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret that as a serious expression of intent to do harm to the president of the United States. That's the indictment language that's been approved by a grand jury today that launches this new criminal case against James Comey, the former FBI director that Donald Trump has so wanted to see prosecuted over the past very many months.
And it is something that James Comey will be able to fight in court as a criminal defendant. He's very likely to take issue with the willful and knowing part of this indictment, saying that he was knowingly making a threat, that he wanted it to be a threat.
[16:10:07]
He has said publicly, even in his discussions with the FBI after this, we know he did a voluntary interview that he intended to do no harm and did not realize that this --
HUNT: Yeah.
POLANTZ: -- was a political statement that could be perceived as a threat -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn, thank you for that update. And of course, please let us know if you have more to share as we go throughout this hour.
Xochitl Hinojosa, you have spent considerable time at the Department of Justice. I mean, are we going to end up in an argument over where the term 86 comes from, which, you know, my understanding is if you work in a restaurant, it's when someone is removed from the bar or something is removed from the menu. And of course, you have that statement from James Comey that sort of, I guess, the details of this. But there's also significant big picture implications.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. That's right. Prosecutors at the Department of Justice always grapple with what is a true threat versus what is protected under First Amendment free speech, right? And this is what prosecutors and the Trump administration will. This is going to be a problem for them. It is a very, very high bar.
They have to prove that James Comey intended to threaten Donald Trump, and they interviewed him afterwards. And it was very clear that he thought that it was political speech. He apologized for it, et cetera.
Do I think that he was trying to, you know, threaten Donald Trump's life? No.
This is also on the backdrop of Donald Trump's tweet saying that he would come after him. And I think the problem with all of this, that the Trump administration faces is that if you are prosecuting and saying that this is a true threat, then what about all of the comments made by Donald Trump and his supporters?
There was one that was similar that said 80 -- that talked about Joe Biden. And the post was identical. The only difference was 46 and it was by a right winger and it was involving Joe Biden. And why isn't that person being prosecuted?
So I think there are a lot of questions here about why theyre one rules for one party and another rule for another party. And this is part of the retribution agenda.
HUNT: Tricia, this is your first time here in THE ARENA. Thank you for being here.
TRICIA MCLAUGLIN, FORMER DHS SPOKESPERSON: Thank you for having me.
HUNT: I want to give you a chance to respond to what Xochitl said there. But, you know, I do think it's worth pointing out. Get a grand jury to hand down an indictment. It does take a bit of time. So this was not something that was done immediately in response to Saturday's event.
MCLAUGHLIN: Kasie, that's such an important distinction here because Donald Trump or Todd Blanche did not indict this individual. It was a federal grand jury that day. And I do have to say, you know, I think if Kash Patel, if he posted this image, 86 48 to a future President Kamala Harris or a future President Gavin Newsom, I think that every single person at this table would really take real issue with it.
Is it criminal? That's what the grand jury. And that's what it's going to have to be seen, what that evidence is and what the charges are actually brought forward.
But I do think its important we see that evidence. And by the way, the comment that 86 just means something to do with getting someone out of a restaurant. A lot of people in the law enforcement community use 86 as talking about a public execution or execution by mobsters, which is eight miles out that I worked at a Department of Homeland Security --
HINOJOSA: DOJ, they did not use it at the FBI.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I let you speak, if you'll let me. Eight miles out and six feet deep to bury a body. So, that has been used.
So if he hasn't heard that phrase, if you haven't heard that phrase, I'm very surprised.
HUNT: I will admit to not being an expert on the etymology of the phrase, other than I -- we've heard what James Comey had said, and I do know that it has been used in restaurants. But Lulu Garcia-Navarro, can you speak to the big picture here? Because this is, of course, a Justice Department that's been through considerable turmoil.
You had the president tell Pam Bondi, then attorney general, to prosecute these people, right? She's, of course, not the attorney general anymore. And the man who previously served as his personal attorney is acting in that role.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I think your previous guest said it very well that this is a job interview. It has been very clear that the president wants Jim Comey and others on his list. Indicted face criminal prosecution. This is part of that larger picture. I think it is going to be made short work of. I just can't imagine in this country that we are in a place where shells on a beach is going to be perceived as you know, something that could legitimately threaten the president's life.
That said, within all of this, it's not just about James Comey. This sends a message to everybody else, right? Because when you get involved in these kinds of selective prosecutions, what you're sending a message to is not only to the person that theyre pointing the finger at, but everybody else, because they can come for you too.
And that is the larger fear under which this sits, that this isn't just something that is aimed at James Comey. This is something that is aimed at any dissent or dissenters from the president's point of view.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn Polantz, and then I want to get Jeff Zeleny in here, too.
[16:15:01]
Katelyn, you've got some new information for us?
POLANTZ: We do. I'm looking at this docket case as the prosecutors are putting different things in there, and there's an arrest warrant that is in the docket for James Comey. I was able to see it on through the courts system, and it says that the marshals are being asked to both provide Comey with the indictment, and they are issuing an arrest warrant. We don't know what that means.
But I will say, as far as the docket goes, it's a very different thing than how this played out in the Eastern District of Virginia. When Comey was indicted there on the perjury count, a summons was issued instead. So that would be a direct missive to Comey to say it's time to appear in court to face this charge on said day.
That's a bit of a different thing. But, Kasie, this is a very fluid situation, given that we are just getting court documents in one at a time, I am able to see the warrant request from the Justice Department potentially escalating things in a way that they hadn't with the Eastern District of Virginia perjury case previously against Comey that was dismissed. But I'm going to keep watching here to see how this plays out.
HUNT: Katelyn, can I ask you? I mean, how much discretion is there for an indictment like this in terms of how a person, a defendant, is expected to respond?
POLANTZ: Well, a lot of that is often in the control of the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys and the federal officials that they get to ask the court for permission to do various things in the court, can either approve or deny.
In this situation, I don't actually know specifically how this office -- there are more than 90 U.S. attorneys offices across the country, and some of them do things in different ways. I don't know exactly if this is unusual for this court. I am able to see the arrest warrant there, and it is different than what they did in the Eastern District of Virginia.
But one thing that I should note too, about how this plays out is that Comey himself, he lives in northern Virginia. So in the case in Virginia, he was able to get requested or summoned to come to that courthouse where he was already in that area. It's quite possible that he would have to appear first in a federal courthouse that isn't in the eastern district of North Carolina before the proceedings move there.
And we know the judges in the eastern district of Virginia, where he lives, are very well familiar with what the Justice Department did in the previous case and how that ended, how it unraveled. So this is going to be a very interesting couple of hours, if not days for both James Comey and everyone who's watching the choices the Justice Department is making here to indict the former FBI director again. HUNT: Well, and Jeff Zeleny, I think it's just worth noting that this
is a president who. And it is it is interesting to mark that, you know, with the exit of Pam Bondi, the sort of this is a good example of the retribution tour that the president promised, you know, as a candidate, right, saying, I am your retribution. He's still on it.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: And there's no doubt. I mean, James Comey occupies a very unique space in the president's head space. We have seen that image there back from January 2017, of him walking across the blue room. And I remember that day so well. The president was disappointed that James Comey was not going to be on his side. And obviously, a lot of time has passed since then.
But if this is a job interview, we don't know if it is. I mean a grand jury, obviously signed off on this, which doesn't always happen. We've seen several indictments fail because grand juries have not. This is a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina. If this is a job interview and it fails, what happens to Todd Blanche in that respect, because the reality here is --
HUNT: You mean an interview of Todd Blanche to become the permanent A.G.?
ZELENY: Exactly.
HUNT: Okay.
ZELENY: An interview from him to become the A.G. If this falls through, I guess if you say and he's not convicted, I think that that will make Todd Blanche look sort of weak in the president's eye. So it's risky for Todd Blanche as well, I think.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But I think from the information that we've just heard, and if that turns out to be true, the idea that theyre going to arrest James Comey, that gives them the spectacle that I think they very much crave.
HUNT: Yeah, that's a good point.
All right. Coming up here in THE ARENA, oversight committee member, Congressman Suhas Subramanyam is here with us live. We're going to get his reaction to this latest indictment of James Comey.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:23:43]
HUNT: Welcome back.
We're continuing to report out the news of the Department of Justice's second indictment of former FBI director James Comey, this time over this photo that Comey shared on Instagram last year, which the DOJ has interpreted as a threat against the president's life. That's a claim that Comey previously denied.
Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia. He is a member of the House Oversight Committee.
Congressman, thanks very much for being here.
What is your reaction to the news that this was a grand jury? So a group of average -- of everyday Americans who said -- who were willing to say that this indictment should be brought. What was your -- what's your response?
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): Well, this is all happening because the president continues to weaponize these agencies, including law enforcement, including prosecutors, against political enemies that he has a beef with. And this is completely irresponsible. It's antithetical to everything our democracy stands for.
But he's doing it because he wants to get James Comey, and he's got a hit list of others that he's going to try to keep going after. Last time they were unsuccessful. I think this is going to be unsuccessful moving forward as well.
HUNT: How did you when this posting went up, interpret the phrase "86 47"? What did it mean to you?
SUBRAMANYAM: It means he wants to get rid of Donald Trump by electing him out or by standing up to him.
[16:25:02]
I didn't see it as a violent in any way or, you know, going after the president physically or trying to hurt him. And James Comey clarified that after the post went up, he took it down when he realized people were misinterpreting it. And he clearly said that it was not meant to incite any sort of violence. And he didn't mean for any sort of violence.
HUNT: And what does it say to you about Todd Blanche, the deputy or the acting attorney general's role in the Department of Justice, considering, of course, that the initial indictment of Comey happened under Pam Bondi, she no longer serving as attorney general?
SUBRAMANYAM: You know, Todd Blanche is there right now as acting attorney general because Pam Bondi was not doing enough to go after political enemies. And so it's not surprising that now this work of going after political enemies has started once again.
Remember, Todd Blanche got the job because he was the president's personal attorney, and he's treating the Department of Justice like the president's personal law firm. And so, we're going to continue to see more of this, and were going to continue to have to basically push back against this, stand up and speak out against it, because this is really, really bad.
HUNT: Congressman, there are or have been, of course, our Kristen Holmes reported that sources she was talking to discussed this indictment and what Comey had said in the context of what we saw happen at the White House correspondents dinner over the weekend and the violence that was directed at everyone in that room, but especially at Trump administration officials, according to the manifesto, from that alleged shooter.
What do you think is the imperative for every person participating in a democratic system right now in terms of their rhetoric, especially as you've heard the White House essentially say, the way Democrats are talking is why this happened?
SUBRAMANYAM: What we say matters, and we have to understand that when we are inciting anger and violence, that that's going to manifest itself in different ways. And so, you know, I read that manifesto and it was pretty clear that they were going after people in that room. It was pretty clear, though, that this is not a partisan in nature. It's not just coming from Democrats or Democratic leaning people.
I've gotten threats myself. Many other colleagues from both sides of the aisle have. And so, we have to make this bipartisan both understand as a bipartisan problem, a bipartisan solution. So I absolutely hate it when the administration and when the president uses every single incident like this to try to say that Democrats are violent, that just makes the problem worse.
HUNT: I want to note we are now expecting a news conference at any moment from the Department of Justice. Here's a live picture of what's going on there. We, of course, have been covering this news of the indictment of James Comey. So forgive me if I have to interrupt you here to go to that.
But we also wanted to let our viewers know to expect that here. But to follow up on what you were saying about rhetoric -- I mean, do you think that there should be a probe into what happened at the correspondents dinner that's similar to the probe that was launched after the assassination attempt against President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania?
SUBRAMANYAM: I think so were going to get a briefing. Members of the oversight committee will be meeting with Secret Service to discuss their perspective on what happened and what we need to do moving forward. So I would support a probe into what happened at the correspondents' dinner. I would also support more hearings, maybe a commission on trying to get out what's going on with political violence.
I'm starting to hear and see people who are interested in public service, not want to get into it right now because theyre concerned about their own safety. This has become a dangerous job, and we should be understanding of that and trying to solve the root problem of it.
HUNT: Yeah. And one other sort of I don't know if its a bug or a feature of the type of event that we saw happen is the proliferation of conspiracy theories immediately afterward. I mean, what do you say to people who are spreading theories, conspiracy theories straight up about what the gunman's true motives were?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah. These conspiracy theories are really harmful in so many ways because people see them and they take them as truth right now. And so we have to continue to control that sort of information flow, get the information out and the facts out as quickly as possible, and then clear up any confusion or any conspiracies that come from it. So I --, you know, it is harmful to us
HUNT: One additional sort of thread that has come out of the weekend and that that speaks to this broader conversation were having about rhetoric and how it impacts the real world is, of course, what's been going on with Jimmy Kimmel. He cracked a joke on his show about Melania Trump soon being a widow that, of course, drawing an intense response from Melania Trump in the wake of the events at the dinner.
And now, there's reportedly action being taken by the FCC to look into ABC-owned stations. What do you think is the appropriate response to what Jimmy Kimmel said on his show?
SUBRAMANYAM: I think condemning it is a good first response. I would be upset, too, if I were Melania. I don't think the joke was funny.
I also don't think trying to silence people, trying to take away his show or punish the network for having his show is an appropriate response. Either we have to find the right balance between him being able to make jokes and us condemning the joke for not being helpful and not being funny. So we have to find the right balance.
Again, I don't like this weaponization though, of agencies to silence people that the president doesn't like or disagrees with.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, thank you very much for spending some time with us today. Really appreciate your perspective.
SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. So, we are standing by for this news conference from DOJ. Ahead, we're going to talk with a former lawyer for President Trump and someone who's worked in the same U.S. attorney's office as James Comey, to get their reaction to the latest indictment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:52]
HUNT: All right. The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, speaking now.
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: -- to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States.
Count two. Same day, May 15th, 2025, that the defendant, James Comey knowingly and willfully transmitting an interstate commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the president of the United States. Both of these counts carry a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years.
So I think it's fair to say that threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime. Threatening the life of the president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice. Over the past year, this department has charged dozens of cases involving threats against all sorts of individuals. We take these seriously, every single one of them.
For example, just today in the northern district of Florida, there was a guilty plea from an individual who threatened multiple political leaders, including President Trump. In the eastern district of North Carolina, where this case was indicted earlier today, there are multiple threats, cases very similar to this one, including one where the defendant pled guilty to threatening former President Biden, another one that's scheduled to go to trial this summer. Another one indicted, an individual was divided -- was indicted for threatening Tom Homan.
I say that to say that while this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute. I want to take a moment to thank the hard working members of the FBI who investigated this case over the past 11 months or so, the United States Secret Service, who also assisted in this investigation, and the United States attorneys office for the Eastern District of North Carolina, led by United States Attorney Ellis Boyle, who's standing to my right.
This was an investigation that remains ongoing, that's been ongoing for about a year. And that's all we're going to say about it today. I will let the U.S. Attorney Boyle speak now and then. And after that, Director Patel.
Thank you.
ELLIS BOYLE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Earlier today, a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned a true bill indicting Mr. James Comey with committing two felonies. Count one, he knowingly and willfully made a threat to kill and to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States in violation of 18 USC 871a.
Count two, he knowingly and willfully transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill president Trump and violation of 18 USC 875c.
Mr. Comey will be given every form of due process, all citizens are entitled to receive, to include a trial by a jury of his peers in the Eastern District of North Carolina. It doesn't matter who you are. We take all threat cases seriously and prosecute anyone who violates federal law, regardless of title or status. Thank you
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Thank you.
As you heard from the attorney general, the U.S. attorney, former FBI Director James Comey, has now been indicted for two felony counts. While many of you may read this indictment and view this matter as a simple investigation, it is the farthest thing from that. Every single investigation this FBI and our partners at the Department of Justice undertake, especially those that involve the threats to harm or hurt or even kill individuals, whether they hold public office or civilians in our country are met with the same measure of investigative prowess and tools and personnel and partnership with the Department of Justice, as anyone else.
As U.S. attorney indicated, James Comey will be afforded every matter of due process under the United States Constitution. And as the attorney general indicated, this has been a case that's been investigated over the past nine, 10, 11 months. These cases take time. Our investigators work methodically. They are career agents, career prosecutors who work these matters. They call the balls and strikes in the field as they see fit, pursuant to the facts of the case and the law. They took that information and made a presentment to a grand jury, a jury of their peers in the district in which the alleged crime took place, and that grand jury spoke, and that grand jury returned a two count indictment against James Comey.
James Comey allegedly threatened the life of the president of the United States. And as you all now know, shortly after posting that threat, he deleted that threat and then issued an apology. All of that information was presented to the grand jury. And Mr. Comey will have his day in court and his ability to speak to a jury of his peers.
Thank you.
BLANCHE: Thank you. We'll just take a couple of questions.
REPORTER: Mr. Attorney General, the Justice Department in this filing today also issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Comey. Is it your belief that that he is a continued public threat? And is there -- is there a request also for detention that you anticipate will be made in this case?
BLANCHE: So the Department of Justice does not issue arrest warrants. Grand juries do. And so the grand jury returned an indictment and arrest warrant. I expect that there will be communication with Mr. Comey's counsel, and we'll go from there. This case will proceed like hundreds of others do every year. There will be some sort of arraignment set by the judge or assigned to the magistrate judge. And when that happens, you'll know about it.
REPORTER: But this is being handled differently from the last time he was indicted. That's my reference. In this case, the department requested an arrest warrant, right?
BLANCHE: Well, I don't think that it's public or clear what the department requested. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant.
Go ahead. Yes.
REPORTER: Sir, how will you prove intent when, as the director had acknowledged. Mr. Comey, said he did not associate "86" with doing harm, and he took it down promptly, said it was political speech, not an intent to harm the president.
BLANCHE: Well, it's not -- it's not -- this case was indicted today. This conduct occurred about a year ago, May 15th of last year. There has been a tremendous amount of investigation. And how do you prove intent in any case?
[16:40:01]
You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself, to the extent -- to the extent it's appropriate. And that's how we'll prove intent in this case.
And so I think that talking about what Mr. Comey will or will not do if there's a trial, when there's a trial, it's not it's very premature for me to do that today.
REPORTER: General Blanche, I want to ask you a quick question about there's a number of other different types of conduct Comey has been accused of over the past. One of them is abuse of FISA warrants. I wanted to ask if there's anything that we could talk about today with regards to that.
But on a separate matter, if I may ask any more updates about the ballistics forensic analysis with the shooting that happened over the weekend?
BLANCHE: So on the first question, no, nothing else to report about any investigations or anything involving Mr. Comey except the indictment that was returned today by the grand jury. I don't have anything further to talk about with the ballistics that are still being analyzed.
And I said it all yesterday, and I -- every law enforcement member who is speaking on this issue is saying the same thing as they should, which is that this is an ongoing investigation with really, really smart experts trying to understand what happened in that shooting and where the bullets went and ended up and where the bullets came from. And once that is at a place where we can definitively say, to the extent we can definitively say, we will, we will let you know.
REPORTER: Director Comey posted this almost a year ago. Why bring this case now? Did you always feel like this was a strong prosecution, or did something change recently?
BLANCHE: This -- this investigation just didn't come now. It's the result of -- of a lot of work by law enforcement over the past year. We don't time when we bring -- when we bring cases around anything other than when the investigation is at a place where we should go to the grand jury. And that's exactly what we did in this case, as well.
REPORTER: As a former FBI director, you may not agree with what he did. Should he be able to turn himself in as a former FBI director? He's not a flight risk.
BLANCHE: I didn't say he can't turn himself in.
REPORTER: He's not under arrest right now, and he may be able to.
BLANCHE: I don't know whether he's under arrest right now. I'm here talking to you. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant. I think that the way that this happens is different in every case. It's fact intensive. It depends on who -- you're right, who the defendant is. It depends on whether he has counsel. It depends on what the judge wants done.
And so I don't -- I don't know when the judge will schedule an initial arraignment, if that will be scheduled by the magistrate or the district court judge. I am sure. I don't know if you want to speak to that, or if it's just something that will come up in the next coming days. You'll know when it happens.
As far as what Mr. Comey does between now and then, I'm going to leave that up to the line. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the FBI agents, and the work that theyre doing.
REPORTER: Why -- Director Patel, maybe you said that it's a complicated thing. A lot of people might think it's an easy case. Why did it take so long? I know that you guys chose to go with this now, but to the layman, just looking at this case or layperson looking at the case, it was an Instagram post. He apologized. Why did it take so long?
BLANCHE: Well, I'm not going to get into the details of the investigation itself, but a lot of these cases, you can look at when the threats were made and when charges are brought, they're not easy cases. And so, we have to -- there's a communication that's sent in allegedly in this case.
And so that means that we have to look at devices. Mr. Comey is a lawyer. He has lawyers. So to the extent that were looking at materials that that are potentially privileged, we have to get a wall set up a wall and let totally independent lawyers look at those.
And so, that doesn't happen overnight or quickly. And the statute of limitations on this is five years. We brought it in under one year. So that's -- that's really where we're at.
REPORTER: It's clear that you don't want to talk specifics today, but to the American public, can you at least give us a sense of whether you have hard evidence or evidence that shows that Mr. Comey intended for President Trump to be harmed? And then secondarily, for critics who say, where does free speech -- free speech end, and an actual threat of violence begin?
BLANCHE: I don't know what critics say that, especially today, but it's not a very difficult line to look at. And it's not, in my mind, a difficult line for one to cross over one way or the other. We cannot -- you are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America. That's not my decision. That's Congress's decision. And a statute that they passed that we charge multiple times a year.
And so, whether -- whether there is a defense, as you just described, maybe, maybe there is, but the government will have evidence. I am not going to talk about the evidence that we have. That's unfair to him. It's unfair to the prosecutors.
But it's enough to say that the grand jury returned, returned an indictment. I'll just take one more question.
REPORTER: Thank you, sir. Mary Margaret, with "The Daily Wire".
Should we expect more indictments of this sort? For example, in 2020, Gretchen Whitmer did a TV hit with 8645 on her desk in the background.
[16:45:00]
Is that the kind of thing you would pursue? And then just really quickly, should Comey expect to face more charges for his role in the Russia collusion investigations?
BLANCHE: I'm not going to comment on other investigations involving Mr. Comey. There's he had he was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia that was dismissed on procedural grounds because of the judges finding regarding the U.S. attorney. So that case is under appeal. As far as other investigations that are happening, it would not be appropriate or fair for me to comment on that time.
As far as other instances of threats against the president of the United States, those will be investigated. Every case is different. The facts are different. Who makes the threat matters? What the threat says matters.
You're right. The question about intent matters. And we have to prove that that's something. That's our job. And that's something that prosecutors will have to do in front of a jury at the right time.
But you cannot compare. It's not fair to the American people. It's not fair to the defendant. And it's certainly not fair to the prosecutors to compare -- well, if you did it here, why didn't you do it there. Every -- every case is different, but there's one thing that will never be different, which is that you cannot threaten to kill the president of the United States. Full stop.
All right. Thanks a lot, guys.
REPORTER: Did President Trump's message to Pam Bondi saying that she was guilty as hell influence this prosecution --
HUNT: All right. We have been listening to the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, alongside the FBI Director Kash Patel, and the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. They were discussing the latest indictment of former FBI Director James Comey.
We're joined now by our team. Katelyn Polantz has been standing by, as has Kristen Holmes, and we're also joined by former Trump attorney Bill Brennan and former federal prosecutor Berit Berger.
Thank you all to all of you for being here.
Katelyn, let me start with you just in terms of how the acting attorney general presented this, he was pressed at some length. You know, after explaining the nature of these charges as to the question of the arrest warrant that you pointed out before we went into that news conference, and whether that would mean that there would be a scene where Comey would be arrested by authorities.
Can you walk us through what stood out to you from what the acting A.G. said there, as well as dig in a little bit on that point?
POLANTZ: Kasie, the question here is how aggressive is the Justice Department going to be in these moments after this grand jury has returned the second indictment against Jim Comey? The first time around, they weren't that aggressive. They let him come into court under a summons.
In this situation, there is an arrest warrant. I'm looking at it right here. It has the U.S. attorneys name at the top of the letterhead, and it is requesting the court in the Eastern District of North Carolina to issue an arrest warrant to put in the hands of the marshals, the indictment, to get it to Comey and to put him under arrest.
The question that our own Evan Perez asked at that press conference, and then others followed up about is whether Comey is a danger to the public. Is he a flight risk? He's a former FBI director. When he was previously indicted, he was not in custody like this. And the question to Blanche has been, do you need to arrest him?
Blanche is clearly underlining in the press conference that any threat to the life of the president is enough for the Justice Department to pursue a nine to 10-month investigation over and to potentially charge, as they have done here with Comey, he also says, though, that I expect there will be communication with Mr. Comey's counsel and will go from there.
He may be able to turn himself in, but right now, we're watching a scramble essentially, on how the Justice Department is pursuing the next steps following this indictment, and then what Comey's team will do, is he going to be able to negotiate a surrender, or will there be something more aggressive toward the former FBI director now that he faces two counts related to this seashell post on Instagram, which the Justice Department says is a threat to the president?
HUNT: Berit Berger, are you able to shed any additional light on what often or normally happens in these kinds of cases? I mean, Katelyn, theyre outlined kind of the facts. We heard what Todd Blanche had to say about it and what kind of discretion is there in terms of an arrest, and how do you interpret what was said?
BERIT BERGER, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: So there's a great deal of discretion. U.S. attorney's offices have different policies depending on who the U.S. attorney is, what kind of case theyre dealing with. But certainly it's within the U.S. attorneys discretion to agree for a surrender where somebody would just come into the courthouse with their lawyer and not have law enforcement go to their house and arrest them and put handcuffs.
Now, given the nature of this charge, because the threat -- because the crime that he's been charged with is actually one of a threat of violence against the president, the policy of this office could be one that anytime we have a threat of violence, we go forward with an arrest.
[16:50:12]
We don't let that person surrender because technically, they would be accused of a crime of violence. And we don't want to let those people surrender.
One could imagine a situation where you have, you know, the U.S. attorney saying, even though that's our policy, given everything we know about this defendant, given the fact that he was just indicted and certainly did not flee or didn't commit any further acts of violence in that time, that there's no need to go forward with this. But you know, they may be wanting to do it for sort of the look or the spectacle of it.
But the fact that they had a judge sign off on it means that they have the authority to arrest him. And because they have that arrest warrant, law enforcement really does need to follow up with that. They really can't just sit on the arrest warrant because, you know, God forbid anything goes wrong, and they had that arrest warrant. It's not a good look for the FBI at that point.
HUNT: Kristen Holmes, can I get you to weigh in on kind of any reporting that you have out of the White House on this, as we've seen this unfold? Obviously, President Trump has made no secret of how he feels about the former FBI director.
HOLMES: Well, and in the past, Kasie, he has specifically told people privately that he wants to see Comey thrown in a jail cell, that he wants to see him arrested. That was no secret. He wanted these charges brought.
I mean, I will remind you that one of the reasons that he fired his attorney general, Pam Bondi, was because he believed that she was slow walking these cases against his political foes. Comey is his political foe. Now, in terms of this case and how they are going to handle it, it is unclear at this moment, but President Trump has made it very clear behind the scenes that he wants these various political foes, and that includes James Comey to, quote/unquote, go through what he went through when he was indicted, essentially kind of having to be in front of the cameras. He believes that others should have to face what he faced during that time.
Now, of course, if you'll remember, he was allowed to turn himself in. But president Trump, you know, has said repeatedly he wants to see Comey thrown in the jail cell.
And there's just one other part of this I want to point out, because you could tell that the attorney general, the acting attorney general, was really trying to stress this idea that this was not a distinct case, that this was a routine case, that they have tons of cases about a threat to Joe Biden, a threat to other leaders. Tom Homan, and that just happens to be that this one is more significant, given the fact that James Comey is James Comey, the former FBI director.
But that is intentional, given what we've heard from President Trump, who has repeatedly called Comey directly a criminal. So they are clearly trying to separate that from President Trump's rhetoric, with this case saying, anyone who threatens the president, this is a routine case. We would always take it seriously.
HUNT: Well, and Bill Brennan, you, of course, have worked directly with Trump. You presumably have some experience with cases that may relate to things like this. What would you draw our attention to as this conversation unfolds?
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Well, a couple of things. It has to be remembered that this indictment is so different from the previous Comey indictment. This involves a threat against the President of the United States. So the common courtesy of allowing somebody to self surrender may not be extended here, and especially in light of the White House Correspondents' Dinner debacle.
I think that it probably won't be extended here because a message has to be sent. And of course, Mr. Comey is presumed innocent, but the message has to be sent to the people that are watching this, that if you are accused of threatening the president, you know, you'll get no courtesy and there'll be -- there'll be a price to pay.
There is a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down a couple of years ago in 2023, called Calamine versus Colorado. And it emanated from a stalking case in Colorado. And the justices redefined what's protected and what's not protected. And this concept of true threat was really focused on and it's a subjective standard. But if there is a recklessness and if you consciously disregard what effect your speech or posting in this case of some seashells might do to incite someone, then you've got a problem.
And I think if you get a jury empanelled and they hear that before, this isn't a guy and, and I think he'll be judged because of his past a little differently. This isn't a guy working at the Pepsi plant. This is a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a former deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice --
HUNT: There's a difference here, Bill.
BRENNAN: -- the FBI --
(CROSSTALK)
[16:55:00]
HUNT: You're talking -- you're talking about incitement, though. I just -- I'm just saying, like the charge here is that he willingly and knowingly made a threat to take the life himself. I mean, I take your point about --
BRENNAN: But the law here --
HUNT: Yeah.
BRENNAN: But the law here is if he consciously disregarded and through recklessness and effect that that might have on others, they can bootstrap that there. It doesn't have to be -- it's -- it's not solely his subjective intent. And you have to ask yourself if the -- according to a statement, he's just walking down the beach. He sees these seashells.
I mean, if a 60-some-year-old man who used to run the FBI sees this, he's going to post it on Instagram like some 13-year-old girl? I mean, it doesn't come into his head that, wow, this could probably -- this could possibly incite someone like the fellow from California who's accused the violence. I mean, it's a serious case.
HUNT: Let me press pause on this conversation for a second. I want to go to our Evan Perez, who was in the room at this Department of Justice news conference.
And, Evan, of course, we heard you pressing the acting attorney general. What else are you learning?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Kasie, the reason why we asked that question is the fact that it is -- it does appear different from the last time. Remember, Comey was indicted just a few months ago. And in that case, there was not an arrest warrant issued. And what this seems to indicate that that they plan to use that. And so that's the reason why I asked that question.
Take a listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PEREZ: Mr. Attorney General, the Justice Department in this filing today also issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Comey. Is it your belief that that he is a continued public threat? And is there -- is there a request also for detention that you anticipate will be made in this case?
BLANCHE: So the Department of Justice does not issue arrest warrants. Grand juries do. And so the grand jury returned an indictment and arrest warrant.
I expect that there will be communication with Mr. Comey's counsel, and we'll go from there. This case will proceed like hundreds of others do every year. There will be some sort of arraignment set by the judge or assigned to the magistrate judge. And when that happens, you'll -- you'll know about it.
PEREZ: But this is being handled differently from the last time he was indicted. That's my reference. In this case, the department requested an arrest warrant, right?
BLANCHE: Well, I don't think that it's public or clear what the department requested. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant. Go ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PEREZ: Kasie, despite the fact that he is trying to say that this was handled like any other. It wasn't. Its not like the last time. And so I think were going to see what happens tonight, whether Comey goes -- gets picked up by the FBI or whether they try to arrange a surrender.
HUNT: All right. Evan Perez for us -- Evan, great work as always. I know you're going to be leading off the top of the next broadcast. So our panel is back.
And Xochitl Hinojosa, I want to kind of get you to weigh in too, on what sense you may or may not have of how these things are often handled, because, I mean, the idea of going to, as of what Evan was just saying is, is pretty significant, especially in these divided times.
HINOJOSA: Absolutely. And I think I looked up the two cases that Todd Blanche actually mentioned during his press conference. One was a threat to Tom Homan. The second one was a threat to Joe Biden.
The one on Tom Homan is awful. It talks about killing the mall ICE agents. It talks about -- it's very direct in what they want to do to ICE. It's very direct in wanting to kill Joe Biden.
These are -- those are typical sort of threat cases that the justice department prosecutes. So when Todd Blanche says this is what the Justice Department does -- no, this is not what the Justice Department does. While I was on this panel, I was also texting former and current DOJ and FBI officials just to see if 86 is something that they use.
That is not a term that is known to kill people for -- at the Justice Department or FBI. So I the James Comey was not trying to send a message in that sense. It might be a term for DHS or ICE, but it is not for the FBI.
So this whole business as usual sort of narrative doesn't necessarily pass the muster here with Todd Blanche and the Justice Department.
HUNT: And Bill Brennan, can I get you to weigh in on this question, around 86 --
BRENNAN: Sure.
HUNT: -- because there is, you know, if you if you look it up, you know, if you look at what Merriam-Webster talks about there are slang dictionaries that will say that 86 is used, as was mentioned on this panel by members of the mafia to indicate killing. But the broad definition, the broadly understood definition, is basically throwing things out, which could easily have --
BRENNAN: Yeah. We're out of peas at the diner. Yeah, 86 the peas.
But let's -- let's talk about this particular case in 86.
HUNT: In '26.
BRENNAN: This guy was director of the FBI. In the first term, first Trump term, Governor Whitmer was jammed up over 86. He didn't know about this. The Biden threat. He didn't know about this? He is either -- he is either one silly bastard or he's clueless.
HUNT: All right. Bill Brennan, Berit Berger, Katelyn Polantz, all my panel, thank you very much for being with us.
Don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
