Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
King Charles Calls For U.S.-British Unity In Forceful Address; DOJ Indicts Former FBI Director James Comey For A Second Time; Sources Say, Iran Expected To Submit Revised Peace Proposal Soon; State Department Announces New Passport Featuring Pic Of Trump; Musk Testifies In Lawsuit Against OpenAI And CEO Sam Altman. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired April 28, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: 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.
[18:00:03]
How will President Trump respond to the pointed references King Charles made in his speech to Congress, however shrouded they were in British understatement? We're going to cover all angles of this high- stakes diplomatic mission.
Plus, former FBI Director James Comey indicted today for the second time in less than a year. At the center of this case is a photo that Comey posted on Instagram of seashells on the beach. They were arranged in the numbers, 86, 47. Comey says the message was political. Get rid of President Trump, the 47th president, in an innocent way. A critic said he was calling for Trump's assassination. We're going to dig into the new charges Comey's facing.
Also Elon Musk taking the stand today in a trial that could derail one of the world's largest A.I. companies. Musk is suing OpenAI, claiming that the company betrayed him and its original mission. What all of this could mean for the future of A.I., especially as companies are laying off thousands of employees because of this evolving technology.
The Lead tonight, King Charles continuing his high-stakes diplomatic mission in the United States, wrapping up a speech to Congress a short time ago, centered on shared democratic values with several pointed lines directed at America's leaders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING CHARLES III: America's words carry weight and meaning, as they have since independence. The actions of this great nation matter even more, that our two countries rededicate ourselves to each other in the selfless service of our peoples and of all the peoples of the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It will be interesting to see how or if President Trump reacts to the king's speech tonight when he hosts the royal couple for a state dinner, especially the parts not in that clip, where the king talked about several items that Trump is not a fan of, say, climate change or NATO or the U.N., or supporting Ukraine. We're going to talk about that in a second.
Earlier today, the king and President Trump met privately inside the Oval Office in the wake of growing tensions between these two countries.
CNN's Max Foster and Kaitlan Collins are at the White House. And, Max, what did you make of the number of political references in the king's speech considering the fact that we spent yesterday talking about how the king transcends politics, is above politics?
MAX FOSTER, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR AND ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Transcends British politics, perhaps Australian and Canadian politics, but not constitutionally American politics. I think you're right to note that. He was talking about current political American issues, so checks on executive power, the importance of NATO, the importance of the transatlantic alliance, importance of supporting Ukraine and making sure they win that war. These are, you know, generally accepted views in Europe, but in America, they are political issues.
So, I think it's interesting that you saw that, Jake, and I think that that is something completely different from previous monarchies. Actually in modern times, we could only compare him to Queen Elizabeth II, but she would never go near any vaguely political issues, but he really lent into that.
And I do think it was interesting because he was quite taken aback by the response to Congress, all those standing ovations. He did achieve what appeared to be bipartisan support in a very divided Congress. And I think he felt that. And so he would've -- at the beginning of the speech, you talk about the weight of history on his shoulders actually coming out of it, he would've felt it went well because he got that response and it could have redefined his reign if he got it wrong. And actually, I think, you know, the response I got from a palace spokesperson was the king was deeply honored to have been invited, and was very touched by the warmth and generosity and response that he received. Jake?
TAPPER: Kaitlan, what are you learning about which of these issues, if any, came up during the private Oval Office meeting between Trump and Charles?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, I mean, you covered the White House. You know how it is when foreign leaders are typically visiting heads of state. This event has been so carefully choreographed and scripted as to where there are not a lot of opportunities for reporters who were in the press pool to shout questions to ask exactly what happened behind closed doors when these two leaders met.
And, yes, there were photographers in the room, but obviously not our T.V. cameras in order where the president, you know, often takes those questions. And so all of those questions in terms of how the president is responding to this speech, what he thought of it, given we know that he did plan to watch the king deliver his speech to that joint meeting of Congress earlier today have still gone unanswered.
And obviously looming in the background of all of this, Jake, is the extreme tension between President Trump and the British prime minister, Keir Starmer and Trump's fury that the U.K. has not joined his war effort in Iran, something that the British prime minister has obviously stood by but has faced intense criticism from this president that has led him to question NATO and the purpose of those alliances, and the president saying that they've never been there for the United States, that it's just the United States that has been pulling all the weight there.
[18:05:06]
And that is why those comments that Max was just referencing that the king made in his carefully delivered speech stood out all more where he was emphasizing the importance of NATO, where he quoted and referenced the British prime minister, but not the tension between he and President Trump.
All of those moments stood out so much more given, of course, what President Trump has been saying, it very clearly still feels in the last several days and weeks. And so, obviously, they had that private Oval office meeting. They also reviewed the troops, which is an extremely high honor, the highest honor that can be given to a visiting head of state. And you can maybe hear the music behind me. They are preparing for tonight's state dinner. It is going to be white tie and tails inside that room. That just speaks to obviously the level of formality that the president wants to give the king given his own state visit at Windsor Castle last fall.
TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins, Max Foster, thanks to both of you.
Kaitlan's going to have much more coverage of the state visit on our show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. She's going to be joined by Democratic Senator Cory Booker of the Garden State of New Jersey. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.
Let's bring in Journalist Tina Brown. Tina, what stood out to you from King Charles' speech this afternoon?
TINA BROWN, JOURNALIST: Well, it was very -- it was a rather sort of twinkly, far more sort of theatrical, really, performance in terms of his facial expressions that I've ever seen. I think that he -- actually, the king was very sort of roused by the reception that he got. He doesn't get that kind of reception in the very restrained U.K. I mean, everyone was clapping and all the rest of it. So, I think he felt he was a wild success, which might have made him play to the gallery a little bit.
But there was also, I think, quite a few sort of veiled rebukes in there. I mean, you know, his reference to, you know, Ukraine about the unyielding resolve that was required in Ukraine was quite obviously a message to Trump. He was never going to not do a speech in which he did get to talk about his real passion, which is the environment. It's quite interesting. He didn't use the word, environment. He talked about preserving of nature. I mean, who could be against nature, you would think.
So, I thought that was rather sort of sly of him in a sense that, you know, he talked about the need, you know, to nurture and replenish nature. But, you know, nature's not the deadly worthy environment, which we know that Trump really hates. And, of course, you know, he also stressed sort of interfaith and being tolerant and all the things that, you know, we know are not exactly music to Trump's ears.
So, he was stating his values and they are his values and they've always been his values. And I think that at the end, when he talked about rededicating, and he rolled out aha, which was quite unlike him, really, you know, we rededicating ourselves to this, you know, this greater alliance, you know, I think he means it. He was there to cement that bond that has been so frayed. And I think he did it very gracefully, actually, without letting go of his own values, which, I think, you know, stood out pretty clearly.
TAPPER: He also -- he talked about how the only time NATO had ever invoked Article 5, an attack on one, an attack on all is -- was after 9/11, which kind of was a pointed reminder perhaps to President Trump who keeps saying NATO has never done anything for the U.S. He defended the British Navy, even though Trump said the British Navy's basically consists of toys. It was very interesting.
BROWN: Yes.
TAPPER: The Epstein scandal is just one of the well of --
BROWN: And, of course, Charles was in the Navy, you know?
TAPPER: Right.
BROWN: So, I mean, he spoke with conviction about the Navy because, you know, he was in it. And, of course, you know, his own son, Prince Harry, you know, fought twice. I mean, he went to the frontline twice in Afghanistan. So, you know, his comments about, you know, the solidarity of the troops, he means that very much. And that was obviously a designer slightly ran that home because Trump had, you know, really insulted the British military when he -- you know, when he made those comments about NATO not stepping up and so forth. It actually enraged a great many people in the U.K.
TAPPER: Yes, when he suggested that there weren't any sacrifices made by NATO countries in Afghanistan or Iraq, just factually incorrect. And I read enough of the U.K. media afterwards to know that there were a lot of really, really hurting gold star mothers.
Let's talk about the Epstein scandal, because obviously that's just one of the many topics kind of lingering in the background of the king's visit. Earlier today, a number of the survivors' families, advocates were on Capitol Hill for the speech. That includes Sky Roberts, the brother of the late Virginia Giuffre, who allegedly was -- well, there was a criminal act that allegedly committed against her by Prince Andrew, former Prince Andrew. The brother of Virginia Giuffre said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SKY ROBERT, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S BROTHER: You would expect this to be a moment for the king to give a message to the world that he stands with survivors. We still can't get that from our own president of the United States.
[18:10:01]
He continues to say hoax, victims or whatever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, the king mentioned kind of like vaguely, obliquely supporting victims. He talked about supporting victims of some of the ills that had exists in both the U.S. and U.K. Do you think he was referring to Epstein? And is that enough, do you think?
BROWN: Well, I mean, that line was so opaque that actually I was astonished to hear that, in fact, it was supposed to be about Epstein, because, I mean, it was a big fail if it was supposed to be an Epstein line. Look, there's no reason in the world actually that the king would have ever seen the Epstein victims, the survivors this on this occasion because his brother, you know, he is facing, has been arrested. I know he is on, you know, with criminally for acts, you know, which are associated with Epstein. He would not, in any way, be able to sort of interfere with the course of justice and for him to meet with the survivors would be a real act of sort of intervention in that case. So, there was no way that he was ever going to do that.
And, frankly, it's, I think, a bit unfair, really, because, I mean, you know, as Sky Roberts said, you know, we don't get anything but hoax from the president. Well, exactly, the president there testifying, not, you know, the king of England, who's got absolutely zipped to do with this, except that he happens to be the brother of the dreaded Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
TAPPER: Right. And also the head -- as the king, the head of the legal system in the U.K., and therefore, it's been pointed out to us, would be considered inappropriate for him to get involved on his brother's side or the other side either.
Tina Brown, always great to have you, thank you so much.
Former FBI Director James Comey indicted for a second time today, this one over a photo of seashells that he posted on Instagram. Critics claimed since it said, 86, 47, that was Comey calling for Trump's assassination. Comey said he was just calling for people to oppose Trump, get rid of him. I'll ask a former federal prosecutor what she thinks about the Justice Department's case.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:15:00] TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, former FBI Director James Comey is now responding after he was indicted again by the Trump Justice Department. This is the second time in less than a year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: 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: Comey was charged with making a threat against the president's life and transmitting that threat in interstate commerce. That's according to court documents. This is over a photograph that Comey posted on Instagram last year. It's of seashells he saw on the beach that spelled out, 86, 47. 86 is slang to remove or eject somebody. For example, when it comes to using the term 86, here's then Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz bragging about how Republicans 86ed the House speaker, the head of the Republican National Committee and the Senate majority leader, McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell, all of them, not dead, all of them still alive even though they were 86ed. The 47 in 86, 47, that refers to Trumping the 47th president.
Now, Comey claimed he thought the message was political. He didn't realize some people associated 86 with violence.
Joining us now, former Federal Prosecutor Mimi Rocah. Mimi, we know the charges now, making a threat against the president, transmitting that threat in interstate commerce. What kind of a case do you think the Justice Department has here? Is it strong? Is it weak? What's your take?
MIMI ROCAH, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Jake, this charge does not even remotely pass the left (ph) test. I fought the first indictment against Comey for a completely different conduct was thin. This is so thin, it doesn't even float.
It is embarrassing that a Department of Justice brought this. And Comey's exactly right, this is not how it's supposed to work. I believe deeply in the grand jury system, in our adversarial system, but a grand jury is only as good and honest and, you know, lawful as the prosecutor that stands before it. And I think step one, as it was in the prior case, is going to be seeing what was said to the grand jury because I just don't believe if they were properly instructed on the law that this indictment could have been voted the way that it was.
There are different elements for each count, but the bottom line is you have to -- prosecutor has to show beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury now that Comey intended this essentially as a threat against Trump or intended others to take it as an incitement to commit violence. And it can't just be that some people, you know, associate it with violence. That is not the legal standard. And it is also First Amendment protected speech and courts have been very clear about that. So, there are so many legal hurdles to this.
TAPPER: If you were working for the DOJ -- well, let me take you out of it because you wouldn't prosecute this case. How could a prosecutor try to convince a jury that 86, 47, from a political opponent of Donald Trump and at least Trump's view, constitutes a threat on the president's life?
ROCAH: Well, I mean, I guess what they would say, and, again, it's really hard for me to make arguments like this that I don't believe in and don't think are right, but they would argue that Trump perceived it as a threat and other people perceived the 86 as a call to violence.
[18:20:12]
Again, that's just not the law though. You can look at the pattern jury instructions from the Fourth Circuit where this case was brought. You can read Supreme Court case law. You can -- you know, as a district attorney and as a federal prosecutor, I can't tell you how many times I had fact patterned egregious fact patterns where really disturbing things were said online about schools or police officers or places where people in places where I really wanted to bring a case if it was able to be brought under the law and we couldn't. Because the law is not -- it's very protective, again, of First Amendment, and it is not just somebody says something disturbing, that's a federal crime.
And that is what they've done here. They've taken something that, you know, arguably, I mean, I don't even see this as -- it doesn't matter whether it's disturbing. It is not threatening. And they are trying to turn it into a federal crime, and it is so obviously vindictive when you take it on top of the prior charges as well.
TAPPER: Mimi Rocah, thanks so much. Good to see you.
Iran is expected to submit a new peace proposal to the U.S. soon. Will President Trump accept it? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:25:00]
TAPPER: And we're back with the World Lead. Sources say the government of Iran is now revising its proposal to end the war. This is after President Trump's signaled that he would reject the Iranian offer from the past weekend. The president posted today, quote, Iran has just informed us that they are in a, quote, state of collapse and want the U.S. to open the Hormuz Strait as soon as possible.
Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Adam Smith from Washington, he's the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
First of all, Congressman, is that accurate what the president said? REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): There's almost zero chance that's true. I mean, the president has been lying about what Iran is saying for a long time. I mean, what was it a week ago, Friday, when the president said that Iran had completely capitulated, that J.D. Vance and Witkoff and Kushner were flying over to Iran. Iran had agreed to give up their nuclear material, give up their ballistic missiles, stop supporting terrorist groups and open the Strait of Hormuz. None of that was true. In fact, Iran hadn't even agreed to meet as became obvious as they kept sending J.D. Vance back and forth to the airport. And, ultimately, he nor Kushner nor Witkoff ever left.
So, we cannot believe a single thing that the president says about where this is at, which leaves us sort of up in the air about where it's really at, or what is Iran's position and where are any sort of negotiations that exist in reality actually headed.
TAPPER: The president did not want to accept Iran's proposal that would reopen the strait without a resolution for its nuclear program. Is there any world in which you think Trump made the right decision here to wait for a better deal?
SMITH: Well, the wrong decision was starting this war in the first place. Now, we're in a very stuck position. I mean, look after everything and the costs that we have inflicted on the Middle East and the world, not to mention our own country, with gas prices and soon to be, you know, food shortages because of the cost of fertilizer, you know, to come to the end of that and just be basically negotiating to get Iran to get us back to status quo and open up the Strait of Hormuz, that is a very bad outcome. So, the war shouldn't have been started in the first place.
But the question I would have is, what are we going to do that is going to change that outcome? And what would be the cost of it? You know, how do we get Iran to move off of this position? Clearly, simply hitting more missile sites and drone factories and bombing the country more aggressively isn't going to do it. So, what is the plan to force Iran to give us a better deal? I guess it's the blockade, the hope that the blockade will make Iran shift. But that does not seem to be happening.
TAPPER: There's a major development for the oil industry and, therefore, for the world economy today. The United Arab Emirates, the UAE, is leaving OPEC, which is the Gulf state oil organization, effective May 1st. It was a rumor for some time now amid tensions with Saudi Arabia. That does mean the UAE would no longer be beholden to OPEC production quotas. They could sell more oil in theory. What do you make of this development?
SMITH: Well, it's better for the global oil market, no question about it. It breaks up the cartel. It gives us a better chance that production will better reflect, demand, and could keep the prices down. I mean, it does reflect more than anything, I think, the growing tension between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And that could create, you know, more -- what's the word I'm looking for here -- tumult within the Middle East. But, yes, it's good that the OPEC seems to be weakening because of UAE's decision. I'm glad the UIE made that decision. I think it's a positive for the U.S. and a positive for the global oil market, but it doesn't do anything to deal with the problems that the Iran war has created and the problems we have in the Strait of Hormuz right now.
TAPPER: I want to get your perspective and opinion on what's going on right now. We've heard two assignments or two announcements to today, one, the FCC putting pressure on Disney and ABC stations. This is in the wake of President Trump and First Lady Trump calling on ABC and Disney to fire Jimmy Kimmel for a joke he made two days before the assassination attempt. And the other is the indictment of James Comey for putting the Instagram photo image of shells in the shape of 86, 47. What are your takes on these two developments?
SMITH: Look, Trump is running this country like an authoritarian dictator, not like a democratically-elected president of a constitutional republic.
[18:30:03]
He's been doing that almost since the day he came into office. I guess sort of in his defense, it's what he said he was going to do when he was campaigning for office.
So, look, this is a fundamental threat to our Constitution. The charges against James Comey, I heard your previous guest, I completely agree with her, absolutely ridiculous. This is the president using our government, our power to attempt to take vengeance on his political foes. You know, it is an attack on the First Amendment. It's an attack on our Constitution. And I hope that we will get some Republicans in Congress to finally rise up and recognize this.
This isn't about conservative or libera, Republican or Democrat. This is about, are we living in a constitutional republic or an authoritarian dictatorship? This is, once again, an abuse of power by President Trump that people ought to be speaking out loudly against.
TAPPER: Democratic Congressman Adam Smith from Washington State, thank you so much, sir. I appreciate your time.
A Republican member of Congress is joining us next. He's take on the ongoing fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security and the move that could transform the U.S. Senate. Stick with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:35:00]
TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, after Saturday's alleged assassination attempt against President Trump, calls are growing for Congress to finally pass funding for all of the Department of Homeland Security, including the Secret Service. DHS has been shut down for 73 days now.
Several Senate Republicans are pushing the House to pass its package, which -- the Senate package, which funds the department, but excludes ICE and Border Patrol, which have sufficient funding for most of their salaries for the next couple of years.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, says the bill is haphazardly drafted the Senate bill, indicating that House Republicans want technical changes to be made to the Senate bill.
Let's bring in Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. So, Senator, you want the Senate, well, tell me what your position is. My impression is that you want to get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats are not willing to fund DHS, but I might be mischaracterizing. Tell us what your position is.
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Well, first of all, if I had any feeling the Democrats would preserve the filibuster, that's what Republicans would prefer to. But, you know, I'm part of the conference who believes absolutely when they get power, they'll end the filibuster. So, we ought to act first at a moment of this kind of dysfunction where our nation's at risk and we're not funding the very agency. That we depend on to try and keep us safe. So, I guess my next ask is get seven Democrats. You know, a lot of them run as moderates and then they govern as radical leftists. Get seven Democrats to join us to fund the entire department.
I would think after the White House Correspondents' Dinner, when even reporters are at risk, reporters would start putting a little more pressure on Democrats, you know, Jake, turn the tables. If Republicans had shut down the government for 42 days, filed that up with shutting down DHS for 71, we would be excoriated by the court media. First of all, we wouldn't do it because of that kind of accountability. The problem is the Democrats can do this with impunity.
So, the best result here, just have the Democrats vote for the House full funding of DHS. If that's not possible, and that's what we evaluated a couple weeks ago, you know, in the Senate we said, okay, let's fund what we can, which is about 90 percent of DHS, and then quickly move to a skinny reconciliation bill to fund the rest.
The problem we have right now is, for whatever reason, the House is not willing to accept 90 percent because they're not getting 10 percent funded, fine, I understand their point, but they need to understand that the money for ICE and CBP is rapidly running out because President Trump is using the flexibility of the one big, beautiful bill and paying other salaries of other people in DHS.
So, it's not going to fund them for a couple years. It's not even going to fund them till the end of the fiscal year. We're hearing that funding for ICE and CBP personnel will start running out yet this month.
TAPPER: Really? Okay.
JOHNSON: So, the hopping (ph) again, because Democrats are so obnoxiously obstructionist, you know, Republicans are going to have to do this on our own. So, right now, I hope the House will pass the partial funding bill, the 90 percent funding bill, and then take up the Senate skinny reconciliation bill, and then immediately move to a larger reconciliation bill. There's all kinds of things I want to do through reconciliation. But, again, if none of that works, I have been proposing and in the filibuster. You know, we have already ended it for -- first, Harry Reid ended it for judges, then we had to end it for the Supreme Court justices because they're obstructing, you know, our nominee. Now, we've ended it for all nominees because they were so obnoxiously obstructionist, they weren't going to allow President Trump to staff his administration. We're already pushing the bounds of reconciliation.
I mean, what's left? I mean, we're so far down that slippery slope. We're almost at the bottom of the Hill. Rip the band-aid off, get rid of the filibuster. Let's move on trying to save this country.
TAPPER: But to be clear, your first hope is that Speaker Johnson will bring it up for a vote, that's your first hope when it comes to this funding bill?
JOHNSON: No. My first hope is have Democrats join us and pass the House bill. I mean, that's what they should do.
TAPPER: Okay, but what about the House passing that Senate bill?
JOHNSON: Yes. Again, recognize -- okay, take 90 percent and then take the other 10 percent through a skinny reconciliation bill.
TAPPER: Okay.
JOHNSON: We've already passed a resolution. If they would do that in the House, we could then pass the bill. That could be funded within a couple weeks.
TAPPER: Okay, I misunderstand.
JOHNSON: Then we could move to a more fulsome reconciliation bill. So, let me turn to this other topic I know you want to discuss, because the Justice Department today announced the indictment of a former senior adviser to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. David Morens. He's accused of hiding federal records and emails related to COVID research during the pandemic. Morens' attorney didn't give us a comment about the indictment.
I know you support it. Why do you support it? What do you hope this indictment accomplishes?
JOHNSON: Well, first of all, a big shout out to my staff on the permanent (ph) subcommittee investigation. We got these documents not through HHS under the Biden administration. This was from a university that was dealing with the HHS. My staff pulled this needle out of the haystack out of 115,000-page dump, you know, data dump --
[118:40:03]
TAPPER: Yes, load of documents, right.
JOHNSON: -- in response to our oversight. And they found that email where Dr. David Morens' brain about the fact he has this FOIA lady who showed him how to basically destroy FOIA documents, you know, how to make them disappear. And then also told people, please send any sensitive material to my Gmail account.
So, we've got federal records laws. You can't destroy federal documents. You have to use your official email accounts for official business. He didn't do that.
But, again, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What we're going to be releasing tomorrow in our report shows other instances of HHS employees during the Biden administration pushing the COVID injections, doing the exact same thing, saying, well, let's not talk about this in email, let's do this offline, hiding 25 serious safety signals on adverse events. Again, it'll be a bomb -- it should be a bombshell, our hearing and our report released tomorrow.
TAPPER: All right, Republican Senator Ron Johnson of the great State of Wisconsin, thanks so much for joining us. I appreciate it.
So, you've got TrumpRx, Trump gold cards for immigration, Trump Accounts for kids, the Trump-Kennedy Center, and now the president's face will be on a special passport. That's next on our political panel. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:45:13]
TAPPER: Our politics lead, the State Department announced today its going to begin issuing special passports in honor of the 250th birthday of America, featuring -- there you see on the right. Oh, look, our Founding Fathers, that's a beautiful, appropriate image. And then on our left, it's a face of President Trump, in honor of America's 250th anniversary.
Remember, just last month, the Commission of Fine Arts approved a commemorative coin. I think it's a dollar featuring President Trump. Last year, his name was affixed to the Kennedy Center. Now, the Trump Kennedy Center.
There's a lot more, honestly, but we only have 15 more minutes in the show. But he has done a lot of branding.
Shermichael. So, I mean, I get it. He's a brander. This is his thing before. Trump steaks, Trump hotel and casino Trump's magazine, Trump air. I get it.
But usually, this is done for you by other people after you leave office.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure. But President Trump is obviously saying, why wait? I mean, this is par of the course. You will not forget him, that's for sure. And it reminds me of the COVID checks.
Remember, he had his signature. And so everybody was saying no, it was -- it was like people said, oh, Trump gave me a check during the COVID pandemic.
So I get the marketing of it. Would I do it? No, that's just not my style. But that's par of the course for Trump.
TAPPER: Ashley?
ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER PELOSI ADVISER: I mean, my point is, could he have at least smiled and not look like a super villain? You know, it's like --
TAPPER: That's a badass look. That's blue steel, baby.
ETIENNE: I mean, I don't know that I would call it blue steel. But nevertheless, I mean, the problem is that we're celebrating 250 years of America, the founding of our nation.
TAPPER: Yeah. Not honoring Donald Trump. And so he's taking this opportunity to celebrate and honor himself. And I think that's the part I find most disgusting about all of this, is that it's all about Donald Trump. It's not about --
SINGLETON: You know what they say. When your haters want to celebrate, you celebrate yourself. There you go.
ETIENNE: Well, I mean, the American people need --
SINGLETON: I mean, I'm just saying. There you go.
ETIENNE: That's his job.
TAPPER: You don't have to do it. I will celebrate both of you.
SINGLETON: Thank you, Jake.
TAPPER: Just whisper to me and I'll come up -- I'll come up with an Ashley Etienne coin or some cheese named after Shermichael.
ETIENNE: Make it mine.
TAPPER: Whatever it is.
Let's turn to Florida, where, by the way, an airport has been renamed, the Palm Beach Airport is now named after Donald Trump. But he didn't do that.
SINGLETON: He didn't do that. There you go.
TAPPER: Governor DeSantis did that. Governor DeSantis did that.
But also DeSantis, the special legislative session kicked off today to consider Governor DeSantis' new congressional maps. This is part of the redistricting wars. It could give Republicans four additional House seats after the midterms.
Ashley, these maps could hit Florida House and Senate Florida floor rather as early as tomorrow. The latest in this -- I mean, Virginia did it. Now, Florida's doing it.
How do you see it? ETIENNE: I mean, you know, sort of you know, the Republicans started
this fight and, you know, Democrats are hell bent on finishing it. Now, DeSantis is jumping in. You know, and the question here is whether or not what he's doing actually violates the state constitution. In 2010, they passed a bill that said, you cannot draw maps that would benefit any political party, any one political party, nor can you draw one that would disenfranchise people based on race and language.
And that's the argument that Democrats across the state of Florida are making, is that this particular map actually violates the state's constitution.
SINGLETON: There's a lot of irony in everything you just said, because Virginia, where I live, that's exactly what's going on there. Republicans have argued you're disenfranchising Republican voters, 48 percent, 47 percent voted for the president, in the most recent presidential election and the Supreme Court, at least for now, theyre saying Virginia's Supreme Court, I should say, they're saying you cannot move forward with counting the votes or moving forward with the redistricting plans. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next two weeks.
But what it goes to show you is that there are some states that are saying, wait a minute here. We get the politics of this, but there are there are laws, there are constitutions in place, and you can't write and you can't violate the state constitution. And I like that.
Like I get what Texas is doing. I get what California is doing. But Jesus Christ, Jake, we need some semblance of normalcy here. And so I'm happy to see what the Virginia Supreme Court has done. And we'll see what happens in Florida.
TAPPER: Would you two, as a Republican and Democrat in the world governed by me, agree to every state has to have a nonpartisan redistricting commission.
SINGLETON: Oh, yeah. I would agree with that.
TAPPER: That tries to do it as fairly as possible. For example, Republicans will always bring up -- I mean, this is -- this is an abnormal because it's being done mid-decade as opposed to the end of the decade. But all sorts of tomfoolery goes on at the end of the decade, right?
I mean, that's when the redistricting and gerrymandering really happens. People say, well, look at Massachusetts. It's -- okay. They 40 percent vote for the Republican for president, but they have zero percent of the congressional districts.
Like, what about some sort of equity that way? Would you -- you would be willing to do that?
ETIENNE: No, I'm actually for that.
TAPPER: Yeah. ETIENNE: I mean, if the voters of the state agree with it? Absolutely. I think it's the way to do it.
SINGLETON: I think representation matters. And if a third of the state votes one way, you cannot ignore that representation. Even if I, as a Republican, lived in a place where most of the state voted to the other side, I wouldn't say -- well, I don't care. I'm going to disregard it and give most of my side the representation. That's just not fair. That's not equitable.
ETIENNE: The problem, though, is you have a president who is --
[18:50:00]
SINGLETON: I knew you were going to go back, but go ahead. Actually, just -- just --
ETIENNE: If you cannot win legitimately, so he's rigging the system.
SINGLETON: We're on the same page for a moment.
ETIENNE: I mean, because he's rigging the system. And so --
TAPPER: You mean, you're referring to the midterms in terms of not winning legitimately?
ETIENNE: Absolutely.
TAPPER: I just want to make sure people understand you're not saying he didn't win legitimately.
ETIENNE: No, no, no, no. Yeah. That he's afraid that theyre not going to win --
TAPPER: In the midterms, right.
ETIENNE: So, yes. So, he's trying to rig the system. That's the problem we have right now.
(CROSSTALK)
SHERMICHAEL: I mean, look at history. History tells us what happens with the party of the president. You know this as well as I do.
ETIENNE: Yeah. But when --
SHERMICHAEL: You legitimately lose seats. So the history is not on our side.
TAPPER: OK. So let's -- let's turn to an issue. I don't know, you might be -- you might be scrapping, scrapping about this also. But I want to turn to the James Comey indictment. So he's on charges related to a photo -- photo of seashells that spelled out 86, 47; 86, "get rid of", 47 "Trump".
He says he didn't -- he just meant it like in a political way. Get rid of Trump. He didn't mean it in terms of violence. And when he found out that people said, oh, that's violence, he took it down.
But the Trump administration, they -- they indicted him today for this, saying it was a call to assassinate Trump. What do you think?
SINGLETON: The first time this was dismissed on a procedural account because of the attorney? I think the judge said wasn't appropriately appointed, something to that effect.
This is serious. I know Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, I personally think he's a really, really good guy. And I -- and the way he articulated this, I thought was as fair as one could get. We have to articulate the facts to a jury and to a judge. Mr. Comey has a presumption of innocence, and he should have his due date in court.
And I got to tell you something, Jake, if this is ultimately dismissed by a jury, this will finally be put to rest. Now, there's an ethical, moral implication on should the president be calling for this? And there are going to be a lot of people saying, absolutely not. This is a bridge too far.
But at some point, I think you have to allow these things to move forward so that a jury of Mr. Comey's peers and anybody else can say, look, this is nonsense, were dismissing this so we can all finally move forward.
TAPPER: There is a -- there's a major Trump influencer who I think a year ago or two years ago wrote, "86 46" about Biden. There wasn't any anything brought against him, any charges brought against him.
ETIENNE: No, you're absolutely right, because that's not what this is about. This is about retribution. This is, you know, Donald Trump's continuation to misuse the depart -- weaponize the department of justice to go after his perceived enemies.
And Comey has it right. This will not end here. He's going to continue to go after Comey and James and others until something happens. But here's my other thing is like to be such a tough guy. He's so sensitive. And if this is some sort of a violation that you can be indicted on, I mean, imagine the millions of people who've said something similar or if not more extreme.
SINGLETON: It's not difficult to indict anybody. We all know that.
ETIENNE: But I'm saying you have to indict millions of people. Like, you know, he's not the only person that's ever said, you know --
TAPPER: You're going to have to continue this in the green room.
All right, guys, thanks, both of you. So great to have you guys here. I love having you here.
Elon Musk took the stand today in his legal battle against Sam Altman, the maker of ChatGPT. What did the former first buddy have to say about the man he calls Scam Altman? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [18:57:12]
TAPPER: In our tech lead, the trial that many call a tech soap opera. Elon Musk, testifying in his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman. Musk co-founded OpenAI and initially helped fund it. But now, he's alleging that the company betrayed him and its original nonprofit mission by shifting to a for-profit model.
Musk claims the shift was a breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment. OpenAI says that Musk had pushed for a for profit structure himself. The company says Musk left because he could not assume total control, and that the lawsuit is motivated by a desire to derail a competing A.I. company.
After leaving OpenAI, Musk founded his own A.I. company, xAI.
CNN's Hadas Gold is in Oakland, California. She's following this trial for CNN.
Hadas, what did Musk say to the court?
HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, this is just the first hour or so of Musk testimony. It will continue for several more hours tomorrow. And he told the jury that he thought A.I. could kill us all. And that part of the reason he wanted to found an A.I. research foundation was because he wanted to avoid a terminator style outcome.
He walked the jury through his version of OpenAI's founding, saying it started partly as a counterbalance and open source counterbalance to Google, after Google co-founder Larry Page called him a specious for being pro-human. He also warned that if he loses, he says it will give license to looting every charity in America. We will continue to hear more from Elon Musk tomorrow.
Interestingly -- interestingly, though, today the judge in this case actually reprimanded Elon Musk for his posts on X. He's been posting a lot about the trial. As you noted, he called Sam Altman "scam Altman". She said today to him to stop posting about the trial.
She said, "Try to control your propensity to use social media to make things worse, outside the courtroom. Perhaps you've never done that before."
TAPPER: Tomorrow, the defense is going to get a chance to question Musk. What do we anticipate in that line of questioning?
GOLD: Yeah, Jake, they will probably bring up what they say is reams of evidence, emails and call logs and conversations where they say Musk was well aware of OpenAI's plan to have a for profit subsidiary there, arguing that Musk was even pushing for that, saying that's the only way they'd be able to compete against the likes of Google.
And theyre going to bring up the fact that Musk has his own A.I. company, xAI. Theyre saying that he is bringing this trial way too late, years after the fact that he knew all of this stuff was happening at OpenAI. They're saying he's bringing this up only because he wants to bring a
competitor, OpenAI, down a few notches, especially ahead of OpenAI's likely planned IPO later this year, because if Musk gets what he wants in this trial, OpenAI would have to revert back to a nonprofit. Sam Altman and Greg Brockman will lose their positions on the board, and something like $130 billion would have to go back into OpenAI's nonprofit. That would obviously very much scramble OpenAI's plans and completely change the landscape for A.I. -- Jake.
TAPPER: All right. Hadas Gold in Oakland, California, covering the battle of tech titans, thanks so much.
And you can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bluesky and on TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN.
If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.
We're going to leave with live pictures from outside the state dinner about to begin at the White House.
