Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
DOJ Indicts Former FBI Director James Comey For A Second Time; Two Months Since Attack Killed 168 Children At Girls' School; Ex-FBI Director James Comey Responds To New DOJ Indictment; WH, Republicans Accuse Dems Of "Inciting Violence" Against Trump. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired April 28, 2026 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Definition is basically throwing things out which could easily have --
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Yes, we're out of peas at the diner. Yes, 86 of peas.
HUNT: Right.
BRENNAN: But let's, let's talk about this particular case in '86, this guy --
HUNT: We only have 20 seconds.
BRENNAN:-- 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's 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.
[17:00:40]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. It's a very busy afternoon as we come on air. We just heard from King Charles III addressing Congress only the second time in world history that a British monarch has done such a thing. We're going to see him again shortly with Queen Camilla for a formal state dinner at the White House.
King Charles, we should note, made several pointed references in that speech, cloaked in British understatement about several items of which Donald Trump is not a particular fan, such as climate change or NATO and the U.N. Supporting Ukraine. Charles even defended the Royal Navy, which Trump insulted the other day. We wonder how President Trump will respond and we're going to cover that story as well. Also today, two rather aggressive moves by the Trump administration. Both are ways that the Trump team is reacting, it seems, to the horrific attempted assassination Saturday night and using government power to use that event to justify going after perceived enemies, Jimmy Kimmel and James Comey, in light of that averted tragedy, power to punish speech, things that Kimmel said, things that Comey conveyed that the president and his team do not like and are now characterizing as constituting a threat to the president.
First, a stunning move by the FCC which polices U.S. network airwaves. The FCC now challenging Disney, which owns the ABC Network, ordering ABC's eight owned and operated stations to file paperwork to renew their broadcast licenses. Thing is, many of those licenses are not up for renewal until 2028, when Donald Trump will not be in office anymore. Many see this as the Trump aligned FCC again trying to pressure Disney to fire late night host Jimmy Kimmel, who is a rather prominent Trump critic. We're going to get into all of that.
But first, breaking news in the law and justice lead. An arrest warrant is out right now for former FBI Director James Comey, another perceived political opponent of Trump indicted for a second time. The reporting today was first on CNN this new prosecution involves again, communication. This one is an Instagram post and now deleted of shells on the beach that read 86 47. Eighty-six is slang for getting rid of something, 47 prosecutors suggesting is a reference to Trump who holds the 47th presidency.
And the Trump is claiming that 8647 in shells was a call for assassination, which Comey vociferously denies. The acting Attorney General Todd Blanche detailed this second case just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Let's bring in voices covering this, CNN Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes, CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez and former prosecutor Elie Honig.
Evan, you're at the Justice Department where we just heard from acting Attorney General Blanche. This indictment largely centers around this photograph Comey posted on Instagram showing seashells. What's at issue here for prosecutors? And do you think this actually could be a real case?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the charge here, there's two counts, Jake. One of them is making a threat against the president of the United States. The other one is making -- is using interstate communications to make that threat. So those are the two counts and they carry a 10-year possible sentence if Comey is convicted. The key here is whether there was an intent to threaten the life of the president of the United States. Comey says that he did not. He says he saw the shells on a beach there in North Carolina. He took a picture of it, he posted it on Instagram and that after it had gone viral and that there was a reaction and criticism of it, he took it down and apologized for it, said that he never knew that that reference could be one of intent to harm the president of the United States, which he never intended. So that is what is the key here and what this case will turn on.
[17:05:00]
The fact is a grand jury in North Carolina has now agreed with the Justice Department that this is worth going forward with. And so this case will now take its course.
The other thing about this, Jake, is that this, you know, we just had a press conference with the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, in which he said this is just like any other case. And I can tell you that is absolutely not true. We know the fact that just a few months ago he was -- Comey was indicted on another case and that ended up being dismissed. But in that case, there was no arrest warrant issued. In this case, there is an arrest warrant that has now been issued.
And the prospect is that the feds will go pick up Comey at his home here in Virginia. And, you know, we know that the president of the United States wants that perp walk. And so the question is, is that what we're going to get in the next 24 hours, Jake.
TAPPER: Elie, how valid are these charges?
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think this indictment is deeply flawed. I think it's probably fatally flawed. And here's why. The law that Justice Department prosecutors have chosen to charge here requires an intent to kill or physically injure the president of the United States. And I think if you look at this communication, these seashells, it's just way too ambiguous.
What does 86 mean? Yes, there have been instances in pop culture and elsewhere where people have used 86 to mean kill, but there have been plenty of other instances, apparently far more instances where it simply means to remove or to cross off a list. And that ambiguity is going to be a major problem for prosecutors because I will tell you, ambiguity is always the enemy of the prosecutors because you have to prove your case not just by 51 percent or 75 percent, you have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't see any realistic way prosecutors are going to be able to do that here.
TAPPER: Kristen, the president was calling on James Comey to be prosecuted just two days ago, but for a completely different reason. Let's remind our viewers of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: FISA was used against me and very, very viciously by a dirty cop. You know, we had the Comey gang. Every one of those people should be prosecuted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: What are your sources telling you about the reaction in the White House to this new indictment?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, President Trump has been wanting to make sure that his political foes are indicted, and he has been urging his Justice Department to do so. A reminder that Attorney General Pam Bondi, part of the reason that she was fired was because President Trump thought that he -- that she was slow walking some of these indictments, slow walking bringing charges against these political foes, including James Comey. He has said privately he wants to see James Comey arrested. As Evan said, he wants to see a perp walk.
Now, what we heard from the attorney general or the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, there was a real distancing of President Trump or of this case, excuse me, from the political rhetoric of President Trump saying that they would do this with anybody, that the only reason why this is notable at this moment is because of James Comey's name, not because of the actual charges. He said that there were charges -- that there were cases out there that were against people who were making threats against Joe Biden. They are clearly trying to separate this case from the rhetoric we've heard from President Trump. But that's just not going to be easy to do, particularly as you know that just days ago Trump was calling for Comey to be prosecuted on a completely different charge. He wants to see his political enemies pay for what he believes was injustice to him.
TAPPER: Elie -- well, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Thanks to all of you.
Coming up next, that other rather aggressive move today by the Trump administration going after Disney, which owns ABC. They're going after the eight ABC owned and operated broadcast stations as a way of trying to get late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air. How what's happening sets up a major battle over the First Amendment and free speech.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:12:57]
TAPPER: Politics now. Today, the Trump aligned Federal Communications Commission is challenging the station licenses of ABC. This is because of the joke that Jimmy Kimmel made on Thursday night, two days before the horrific assassination attempt against President Trump and senior leaders of his administration. And a joke that was made two days after that would be assassin began his trip to Washington, D.C. Here is the joke from Thursday night.
He is pretending he is at the White House Correspondents' Dinner roasting the crowd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE": And of course, our first lady Melania is here. Look at Melania. So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Kimmel last night said that this was a joke about the age difference between the president and the first lady, which is considerable, and how the first lady seems in public when they are together. He says that this was not in any way a reference to shots being fired.
In a statement responding to the FCC's challenge, ABC's parent company Disney said, quote, "We're confident our record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels."
Now, critics say this is a dramatic escalation by the FCC. Station licensees have broad legal protections, but the early renewal orders, well, that's not normal. And it does not seem a coincidence that this FCC moves comes the day after President Trump and first Lady Melania Trump called on ABC and Disney to fire Jimmy Kimmel yesterday. Last night on his show, Kimmel defended himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIMMEL: I also should point out Donald Trump is allowed to say whatever he wants to say, as are you and as am I, as are all of us, because under the First Amendment, we have as Americans a right to free speech.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Fact check, true. Members of the Trump administration sometimes seem a bit selective in what they consider beyond the pale when it comes to jokes because frankly, we've heard plenty of jokes from Trump and his allies about actual attacks that had happened in the past, including that brutal 2022 hammer attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul, which left him severely injured, traumatized by a lunatic with a hammer.
[17:15:31]
RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, maybe Paul Pelosi needs the hammer instead of the metal.
PETE HEGSETH, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Well, it's metal.
All right, Rachel, it is --
CAMPOS-DUFFY It's metal.
TRUMP: We'll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi who ruined San Francisco. How's her husband doing, by the way? Anybody know? And she's against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house, which obviously didn't do a very good job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: The apple did not far -- fall far from the tree. Donald jump -- Donald Trump Jr. Posted on Instagram around that same time, "Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready." It's underwear and a hammer.
Why is that funny? Her husband was hit in the head with a hammer and he's still injured. Why does anybody think that's funny?
Republican officials and pundits have also taken issue with people calling Trump fascist or a tyrant, saying that that sort of rhetoric leads others to commit acts of violence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The entire Democrat Party has made their pitch to voters across the country that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy, that he is a fascist, and that they compare him to Hitler. I mean, these are despicable statements that the American people have been consuming for years, and so many mentally perturbed individuals are led to believe these words are truth and then are inspired to act on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: OK, I hear that. What's the response to this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections.
The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.
She's a Marxist, communist, fascist, socialist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: That last remark, of course, directed at Trump's then opponent, then Vice President Kamala Harris. You'll also recall that people on the right condemned those on the far left who celebrated, quite disgustingly, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And it is certainly understandable to oppose anyone publicly celebrating the death of a public official they didn't care for. And we did see a lot of vile social media posts and such from those on the left about that tragedy.
But once again, we here at The Lead ask, does this standard that we're not taking issue with necessarily, does this standard only apply to the non MAGA among us? Because just last month posting on Truth Social, President Trump said, quote, "Robert Mueller just died. Good. I'm glad he's dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people," to say nothing of the comments he made about Rob Reiner. So there's that.
But while our friends on the right need to contend with this hypocrisy and this double standard, a message for our friends on the left now you have to face some ugly realities about the acceptance of violence among too many people in your ranks. Here is a left wing streamer on the Twitch platform with whom Democrats -- this is a gentleman with whom Democrats have campaigned and sat for interviews with and platformed and much more, this guy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HASAN PIKER, ONLINE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: If you cared about Medicare fraud or Medicaid fraud, you would (BLEEP) Rick Scott. OK?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you say Hamas is a thousand times better, do you actually mean that or is that a rhetorical move or like a solidarity signal? Like what -- I mean, it's all of the above.
PIKER: I do mean it. I think it's a rhetorical move because it frustrates a lot of people. I've also said I'm a harm reduction voter. I'm a lesser evil voter and therefore I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.
It doesn't matter if rapes happen on October 7th. Like that doesn't change the dynamic for me even this much. The Palestinian resistance is not perfect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: He also said that the United States deserved 9/11. He apologized for that. And he apologized for what he said about Rick Scott after he was suspended from Twitch. But his comments made seemingly in support of Hamas's terrorist attacks on October 7th in which Americans, innocent American civilians were killed. No apology there.
We can't pretend that the corrosive impact of such sentiments being normalized isn't happening. It seems quite apparent to many political observers.
[17:20:03]
Peter Hamby of Puck wrote today, quote, "There is a rising miasma of conspiratorial thinking, dangerous fact, denying and dehumanizing language that has taken hold on the American left," unquote. He's not saying it's not on the right. He's just saying it's also on the left. And Hamby notes that since 2018, after the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, when most Americans saw political violence as primarily a problem on the political right, that was 2018. Last October, Pew found that 53 percent of Americans see left wing extremism as a major problem, basically tied with those who view right wing violence the same way, 52 percent.
And a lot of this is based in actions. The assassination of the president of United Health Care, which lots of progressives were celebrating, three assassination attempts on Donald Trump and on and on. With the response of too many on the left being a shrug or a claim that the assassination attempts were staged, which there is no credible evidence of, full stop. But that said, you can also be forgiven for wondering how sincere the Trump administration is about taking on any of this, given their exclusive focus on the left. And they're going after late night jokes and accusing journalists as being part of the problem here.
And as for the role of the federal government suppressing any free speech, well, tread carefully, folks. Here on the same day that King Charles addressed Congress, let's revisit words delivered by George Washington back when he was fighting King Charles, great, great, great, great, great grandfather King George III. In an address aimed at firing up his tired Revolutionary army in 1783, George Washington said, quote, "The freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent, we may be led like sheep to the slaughter." That is what George Washington thought the free speech stakes were.
This is also a major day for California's race for governor. Ahead, the fight for attention and endorsements, we're going to talk about it with a California political insider. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:26:30]
TAPPER: Politics now. And let's cue the election music if we can. Yes, I'm going to write lyrics for this someday. California is 35 days away from its wide open all party primary. The candidates for governor, the leading ones anyway, will debate tonight.
The crowded Democratic field could actually split liberal voters and help the two primary Republican candidates get through the primary. It's a jungle primary, so the two top vote getters are the ones who face each other in the general election. Two Democrats recently dropped out, including one many saw as the frontrunner, former Congressman Eric Swalwell. We all know why. He ended his bid earlier this month after being accused of sexual misconduct and worse, allegations he denies.
Let's bring in CNN's Elex Michaelson, who is entrenched in California politics.
So notably we have not seen any endorsements for any of the Democrats from Gavin Newsom because, well, I don't know why, but if he did that, he has like an 85 percent approval rating among Democrats. He could really bolster one of them. You spoke to a senator whom Newsom wanted to run who thought -- Newsom thought he was going to run.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. This is interesting. Sort of news that we've had recently that Alex Padilla, the senator from California who originally was appointed by Newsom, that Newsom was pushing him to run thinking that he could consolidate Democrat support behind him. But Padilla chose not to part because of family reasons. So he's now on the sideline.
He hasn't endorsed anybody either. And so the question is, could Padilla and Newsom come together to lift somebody up because there is a possibility that there would be two Republicans that finish in the top two which would lock out the Democrats and there would not be a Democratic governor of California. Here's what Padilla had to say to me earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: Was he telling you should run?
SEN. ALEX PADILLA (D-CA): We talked about it. And as you know, I actually seriously considered and that included several conversations with the governor.
MICHAELSON: But he tell you should do it?
PADILLA: He was encouraging, that's for sure. We've known each other for a long time.
MICHAELSON: When you see the field now and you see this possibility of two Republicans advancing, are you thinking about maybe I need to endorse somebody? Maybe I should work with the governor to endorse somebody. Are you thinking about what you can do as a leader to make sure that doesn't happen?
PADILLA: Look, I think all along I have not been inclined to endorse or get engaged in the race. Not really buying this theory of two Republicans coming top two and Democrats being boxed out. If we get a little bit closer to Election Day and that seems like a real possibility, then that might change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: Governor Newsom has talked about this break the glass theory, that if in the final days it looks like it's going to be the top two Republicans that he would consider endorsing. So you could see a scenario where you would have like Newsom, Padilla, Pelosi, sort of all getting behind somebody and saying this is the person. The problem is so far they don't clearly feel that strongly about any of the people in the field already.
TAPPER: Yes, the way that the Democratic Party rallied around Joe Biden after the South Carolina primary --
MICHAELSON: Yes.
TAPPER: -- I think fearing that Bernie Sanders --
MICHAELSON: Bernie Sanders, right.
TAPPER: -- be the nominee.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
TAPPER: So CNN's "California Governor's Debate" is next Tuesday. Congratulations. Can't wait to watch. And Elex's show you can watch -- catch him every night. It's called "The Story Is." It's at midnight Eastern and 9:00 Pacific only on CNN. And like I said, he and Kaitlan Collins are going to moderate the governor's debate next Tuesday night, that's at 9:00 Eastern, 6:00 Pacific, and we're going to carry that on CNN and on the CNN app, on CNN Internacional, and on CNN en Espanol.
[17:30:11]
Still here on The Lead, two months since the start of the Iran war, two months to the day, two months to the day since that deadly strike in a girls' school. What we know and what we still don't know about that attack, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In the World Lead today, April 28th, marks two months since the war in Iran began and two months since 168 children and 14 teachers were killed in a missile strike that hit a girls school in Iran on the very first day of the war.
[17:35:03]
Now, President Trump initially tried to blame Iran for the strike, but that narrative quickly changed. Video surfaced showing an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps target near the school that was struck by a Tomahawk missile, mainly used by the U.S. military Tomahawk missiles. "Reuters" first reported that military investigators believed it was likely that the U.S. was behind the strike. "The New York Times" first reported that the reason was due to outdated intelligence.
CNN's own investigation revealed that satellite imagery from 2013 showed the school and the Revolutionary Guard Corps base once part of the same compound. But images from 2016 later revealed a fence separating the school and the base.
With us now, Malachy Browne, who worked on the investigation for "The New York Times." Also with us, former federal prosecutor and military JAG officer Margaret Donovan. Malachy, tell us more about what your investigation found.
MALACHY BROWNE, SENIOR STORY PRODUCER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. Hi, Jake. Our initial investigation found that the U.S. had been targeting the IRGC base, which was a military base located beside the school in the first hours of the war. And as part of that wave of strikes, the school was hit. And it was a direct hit.
The school was almost entirely obliterated. And so it wasn't collateral damage. And it was misidentified. It appeared to have been misidentified as being still being part of that base. However, as you say, a decade ago or more, it was clearly separated from the base. And reporting since then has indicated that the base was no longer being used. And other civilian buildings and medical facilities were established there.
TAPPER: So, Malachy, do you have any idea why we don't have any answers from the Pentagon about this? I mean, they've gone into detail about any number of operations that they portray as heroic. Do you have any indication that the Pentagon is looking into this with any urgency? I mean, it's 168 girls and 14 teachers. That's not exactly who this war was supposed to be going after.
BROWNE: You know, this is an egregious military error. It's reckless. There should -- it should be treated with urgency. It appears to be slow walked. But maybe there are things that the military is looking into that we don't know yet.
For instance, was the school on a no-strike list? If it wasn't, why not? Did they use outdated targeting, as our initial investigation suggests? Was it -- you know, were they repurposing old targets because of the speed at which Secretary Hegseth was demanding targeting? These are all things that should be looked at in the investigation. And also, will there be restitution for victims?
The administration has been very slow to acknowledge the human toll that this mistake has taken on the residents and families in Minab. And so that should be part of the investigation, too.
TAPPER: Margaret, as I said, you know, Secretary Hegseth has had a lot to say about a lot of things. They have not had a lot to say about this horrific incident with all these innocent girls killed, apparently by the United States. You're a former JAG officer. The Pentagon has promised answers. If CNN's investigation, if Malachy's investigation are correct, and this was the fault of the U.S. accidental, though, it may have been, is there any legal risk for any members of the military?
MARGARET DONOVAN, FORMER ARMY JAG: There could be. But I think that it might be helpful or instructive here to look at two other examples where something similarly horrific has happened at the hands of the U.S. military. The first one that comes to mind is the Kunduz strike in Afghanistan. That was a strike in 2000 -- October of 2015, where the U.S. accidentally fired on the Doctors Without Borders hospital.
There was over 40 civilians killed. And to your point and to Malachy's point just now, days after that, General Campbell, who was in charge of forces in Afghanistan at the time, was testifying in front of Congress. Within two months, we had a 120-page report that was authored, if not published a few months later, detailing every last piece of data of what happened in that strike.
And the result of that was finding that soldiers may have deviated from the rules of engagement. They may have deviated from procedures. But they ultimately were not criminally charged.
The second example happened that I can think of happened in Mosul. This is in March of 2017. There was a strike by U.S. forces on an apartment building, and there were secondary explosions that caused upwards of 100 civilian casualties.
Again, the U.S. military issued a fulsome report. Within a month, you had comments from the secretary of defense and from commanders in the field. Within the weeks following, we had a lot of transparency following those strikes. [17:40:03]
However, again, there was no criminal charges that resulted from that. Basically, in both of those instances, the investigators found that this was not intentional. And if it was not intentional, then legal accountability is not going to follow. Now, there are crimes under the UCMJ, for example, manslaughter, dereliction of duty.
Those could all be possible outcomes for soldiers that are involved here. But again, it's going to take a thorough investigation by the Department of Defense itself. So somebody who can talk to these people, who can have first-hand witness interviews with the people involved in the strike in order to make those determinations.
TAPPER: We're running out of time, but I just want to ask you shortly, if you could, do you have confidence in this Pentagon that they're capable of an actual, thorough investigation into what went wrong?
DONOVAN: They certainly are not creating any confidence with their actions immediately following the strike.
TAPPER: All right. Thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it.
We are going to check in back with our breaking news story. The former FBI director, James Comey, he just issued a video response to the new indictment against him for that photograph of seashells that he took. We'll have that story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:45:34]
TAPPER: Very newsy afternoon today. This just in to our Politics Lead. The former FBI director, James Comey, just reacted after he was indicted again today. This one was over a photograph of seashells in the shape of 86-47 that officials are claiming constituted a threat to the life of President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Well they're back. This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Let's bring in Scott MacFarlane, of MeidasTouch. CNN's Jamie Gangel and Peter Hamby, who's one of the founding partners of Puck News. Jamie, what are your sources telling you about this case against James Comey? I just have to say, you can find lots of examples of Republicans saying 86-46 about Biden. I don't -- what makes this more egregious than that?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So I've spoken to a number of legal experts, also former high-ranking law enforcement officials. And what they tell me is the word nonsense. They do not see this as a serious case. I spoke to one who said the Comey indictment is crazy.
We've had more solid cases with actual intent that have never been considered for indictment. It is very hard to bring a case like this, even when there is a serious threat. The official said to me, you need means, method and intent. It's always very hard to make intent. They just think this is Donald Trump's retribution. And one person said to me, Todd Blanche is auditioning to be the next attorney general.
TAPPER: Right, he's the acting attorney general now. Scott, what do you think?
SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: A world of difference, like a world of difference between a grand jury and a trial jury. A grand jury, you don't have to convince everybody, just a certain number.
You don't have a defense in there arguing that case. It's just a prosecutor's presentation. They have found this worthy of indictment. Bring this to a trial jury and see how all of this flies. When you need unanimity beyond a reasonable doubt. And, oh, by the way, there's a defense that clearly James Comey is keen on making. There's a long trajectory ahead here. And there is a grave risk to Todd Blanche. This thing blows up in his face in court.
TAPPER: Peter, you have a very interesting column in "Puck" today about how the left does have a problem when it comes to violence. But before I get to that, I want to know what you think about this. And if this counts as part of what you were talking about.
PETER HAMBY, HOST, SNAPCHAT'S "GOOD LUCK AMERICA": No, this does not. We live in a country with the First Amendment. And as I point out in the article that I wrote that you mentioned, Jake, you know, it is very common in politics and sports on Wall Street for people to use, you know, language about that is militaristic. People are battling. They're in the crosshairs in a campaign. You could 86, whichever presidential candidate you want.
It is language. People are allowed to say things in this country. And these things have gone to court before and been tossed, as Scott mentioned, by actual jury trials who understand that this is not an actual call to violence. But we can get into this, Jake. I'm happy to answer questions.
TAPPER: Yes, let me let me bring in -- let me let me bring in your column from "Puck News," because it's very provocative, very interesting. I retweeted it if people want to read it. You wrote, "The American left has a problem. Political violence, conspiracy theories and crazy talk are increasingly coming from inside the House. Left wing violence is rising, and voters increasingly blame liberals for our toxic politics." Tell us more. And do you think Democrats are in denial about this, Democratic officials? HAMBY: Not totally. Mark Kelly, Senator Mark Kelly today wrote a Substack saying that we should condemn political violence, you know, whether it's against Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, and the six people that also died in Tucson back then.
[17:50:05]
Look, the two things need to be said before saying this, because my mentions are on fire with people saying, remember January 6th, remember the assassination of Melissa Hortman, which, by the way, are in this piece.
TAPPER: Yes.
HAMBY: Donald Trump ushered in a totally different era that tolerates, you know, he made the Republican Party a home for people who are more tolerant of violence, hate speech, lying, et cetera. That being said, in the first years of the Trump administration, most people blamed Republicans and Donald Trump specifically for the incivil, toxic tone in our politics. Polls say that.
Today, after three Trump assassinations, Luigi Mangione, the riots of BLM, there are plenty of examples. Fifty-three percent of Americans now, Jake, according to Pew, see left-wing extremism as a major problem in this country. Fifty-two percent say the same about right- wing violence and extremism.
And Morning Consult, another important poll in September, said, who commits more violence, left-wing people or right-wing people? More Americans, 29 percent, said left-wing than right-wing, 27 percent. Again, about the same.
TAPPER: Yes.
HMABY: The sea changed from the early years of Trump. And I just think that the language on the internet in the second Trump term is looser. It's dehumanizing.
There's more tolerance for conspiracy theories and name-calling. Yes, there's been a rejection of that Michelle Obama, you know, when they go low, we go high thing. I get it. But now people on the left, it's not hard to find YouTubers and podcasters, screaming about Donald Trump. So it's not a surprise that there has been an uptick in left- wing attacks this year. And the Center for Strategic and International Studies found for the first time that left-wing violence in 2025 surpassed right-wing violence.
TAPPER: Yes, actual violence.
HMABY: Over time, more people have been killed by right-wing violence. That is true. But there is, people need to admit that it is ticking up inside the liberal coalition.
TAPPER: Yes. And Scott, what do you make of the argument there are too many people in the Democratic Party and too many Democratic pundits that are allowing this to happen?
MACFARLANE: I think it's clear across the board there is a meanness in our dialogue that transcends what we saw even before 2025. I think it's clear there are elected leaders who think they can go viral or raise more money if they use more heat in what they say, more name- calling, more vulgarity. You could see how that stuff gets viral real quick. And you can see terms like Gestapo used to describe ICE agents.
I heard Gestapo used to describe the D.C. police on January 6th. How about we just get rid of Gestapo from our rhetoric and our dialogue altogether? The debate over whether one side is more than the other, it's an important debate. But how about we all just pursue our better angels? And that has to come from the top, Jake. It's got to be leadership that does that.
TAPPER: And that's one of the issues here also. And like, look, we can contain in our brains two competing thoughts. But like, this is horrible on the left. It's horrible on the right. And as Peter said, like, President Trump might be condemning these calls for violence, but he's also making them.
GANGEL: Right. So a pox on both their houses. Everybody, you know, stop. You know, the President, though, is in an interesting position right now because there have been, and I wonder if this goes into Peter's polling, that there have been multiple attempts on his life. Also, the White House is a unique platform. When they speak out and blame Democrats, they get a lot of attention, even though sometimes they take words out of context.
So I think we need to say all the inflammatory rhetoric is going to go away. But let's have a reality check. These politicians raise money often.
TAPPER: Yes.
GANGEL: How many times have we seen someone say something and then we pick up our phone and they've sent out a fundraiser?
TAPPER: Well, that's the thing. And also, it's not just politicians, right, Peter? Because we have a lot of people getting a lot of heat and the algorithms are built to reward this. They reward conflict, which they call engagement. If you put something out there and it outrages people, that's engagement, even if it's horrific. And you tweeted earlier today about one of the biggest podcasts on the left and how it was pushing conspiracy theories, in your view. Tell us about that.
HAMBY: Yes, look, most actual Democratic elected officials are not peddling conspiracy theories or advocating violence, although Jasmine Crockett of Texas did on Threads yesterday, suggesting it was a false flag operation. Jennifer Welch is a great example of this. Podcaster on the left, one of the most ascendant voices online in the second Trump term, who is just all about savaging Trumpism and MAGA.
And today she was talking about the dinner and while saying, I don't believe in conspiracy theories, she also said, let's play Candace Owens for a second and talk about some of these conspiracy theories. And I -- should we believe them? Trump lies all the time. Wink, wink.
[17:55:06]
I mean, and so it's at least opening the door with someone with a huge microphone on the left for people to think that maybe this was a secret conspiracy and that's pretty dangerous. And again, I think a departure from the first Trump term and the rhetoric on the left.
TAPPER: All right, Peter, thank you so much. Scott, Jamie, thanks to you as well.
We're going to go live to the White House in a little more than an hour. Guests are going to start filing in for tonight's state dinner. It could be a little awkward, given the King's address to Congress just hours ago with British understatement. He still brought up a number of topics at odds with President Trump's views. What this might mean for the King's diplomatic mission here in the U.S. to repair relations between the two superpowers. Let's talk about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:59:56]
TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, a formal state dinner set to begin at the White House in just minutes in honor of King Charles and Queen Camilla. How will President Trump respond to the pointed references King Charles made in his speech --
