Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Ex-FBI Chief James Comey Indicted, to Surrender Tomorrow; Grand Jury Indicts Comey on Obstruction, False Statements; Comey Indicted in Extraordinary Escalation of Trump Revenge. Comey Indicted For Two Charges; Trump Accused Of Inciting Violence After His Warning To Democrats. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 25, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, breaking news, James Comey indicted. The former FBI director becomes the first major Trump foe to face charges. This after the president seems to forget he ordered the indictment.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think I'd be allowed to get involved if I want, but I don't really choose to do so.
PHILLIP: Plus, while tensions remain high after another act of political violence, Trump is accused of inciting more with his words.
TRUMP: Ultimately, it's going to go back on them. I mean, bad things happen when they play these games.
Live at the table, Charles Blow, Ben Ferguson, Johanna Maska, Jim Schultz, Elie Honig, and Josh Rogin.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Our breaking news tonight, a federal grand jury has indicted former FBI Director James Comey. And sources tell CNN that he is expected to surrender just hours from now. It is an unprecedented escalation in President Trump's efforts to prosecute his political enemies. And it's coming days after Trump publicly demanded that his attorney general do so despite her reported reservations about the case.
Now, Comey is charged with giving a false statement and obstructing a Congressional proceeding over the handling of the Russian investigation, which Comey oversaw.
Now, a short time ago, Trump celebrated the news, writing justice in America. Comey, meanwhile, is vowing to put up a fight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn't either.
Somebody that I loved dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she's right, but I'm not afraid, and I hope you're not either. I hope instead you are engaged, you are paying attention, and you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does.
My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So, let's have a trial and keep the faith.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Two really important things to understand here is that Donald Trump has been president for nine months. The statute of limitations on this charge runs out in just a matter of days. And before this happened, he fired the U.S. attorney who did not bring these charges, appointed someone else, and she did bring those charges.
And, Jim, this is also about something that not only happened five years ago, but was also thoroughly investigated by the Office of Inspector General and also by Trump's own former attorney general. They did not bring charges. So, where are these new -- where's the evidence that substantiates this new charges? Where is that going to come from?
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: So, the record is the record and they're going to have to rely on that record and prosecuting the case. I think any prosecutor handling this case would wish that the president didn't say what he said beforehand, no question about it. And, you know, that just makes things harder for that prosecutor when they have to try this case eventually.
So, you know, the facts are going to bear out the way they bear out. An indictment was brought, was approved by a grand jury. We'll see what happens. I don't --
PHILLIP: Strong case or weak case?
SCHULTZ: I think it's a tough case. All these cases, just by every -- all these cases that involve Congressional testimony are tough cases to begin with. This one in particular, with the time that's gone on and the record that we've had for years, and there's been no indictment brought, it's going to be a tough case.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, it's extraordinary that they even bothered with this one because, again, it's not like it hasn't been looked at. It's not like Trump's own former A.G. did not pass on a chance to indict someone on this basic set of facts. [22:05:00]
So, what's going on here, Elie?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This ground has been gone over again and again and again in exhaustive detail by the Justice Department inspector general, by the special counsel, John Durham, desperate to find anyone to indict did not indict this case by Trump's former attorney general. The vast majority of the times when federal prosecutors get an indictment, it results in conviction.
Here, it will take a miracle to turn this mess of a case into a conviction. It all comes down to this allegation. Jim Comey was lying when he said he did not authorize the leak, and Andy McCabe was telling the truth when he said he, Andy McCabe, authorized the leak and then told Jim Comey about it afterwards. Those two things are not even necessarily in conflict, right? If you owned a business and one of your employees came to you and said, hey, yesterday, I did something, you could say I didn't authorize it, right? Those two things are perfectly in sync with one another.
So, look, all the circumstances around this case tell that it's weak, and now we see the indictment and it's weak.
PHILLIP: I mean, the facts, to your point -- I mean, the facts don't even -- I mean, we know what the facts are there. There are some parts of this that are not in dispute. Andy McCabe authorized a leak and then told James Comey about it after the fact. Those facts are not in question. Those facts are not in question.
BEN FERGUSON, HOST, THE BEN FERGUSON SHOW: Somebody lied to Congress. Both of them were under oath when they were testifying to Congress, and if you look at the words that were given by James Comey, by the way, a guy on the record who has no problem leaking, he leaked to a professor to go ahead and get there to be a special grand jury into Donald Trump. So let's be clear, he is a pro at this. He's not an amateur. James Comey went pro in leaking.
PHILLIP: Okay. Let's stick with what we're talking about today.
FERGUSON: No. But I'm saying there is a history with him.
PHILLIP: I don't think that history is relevant.
FERGUSON: I think it's relevant. We're talking about did you or did you not leak classified information?
PHILLIP: I really want you to finish your original point. You were saying?
FERGUSON: So, I go back to the history. Is there a chance that he leaked and lied? Yes. Is there a chance he lied to Congress? Is there a chance that Comey and McCabe both lied under oath? There are a lot of options here. But the idea that you're saying that like, oh, we know and it's a weak case, I don't think tonight --
PHILLIP: Okay. Hold on, let me just tell you the reason --
FERGUSON: You don't know which testimony it was?
PHILLIP: Yes. Well, let me just tell you -- don't hold on. Let me just tell you the reason I said that there are certain parts of this that are not in question. In the interview with the Office of Inspector General, McCabe, Andy McCabe, who was James Comey's deputy, he admitted to the inspector general that he was the one who authorized the leak. He also admitted that after the leak, he went to his boss, James Comey, told him about it.
Now, the part of it that is in question is McCabe characterizes that conversation one way saying that Comey just sort of shrugged, didn't really say that it was a bad thing. And Comey says, no, that's not what happened. I actually thought it was very problematic.
But on top of that, one of the other parts of this is that if you want to figure out who to believe, there's more information to back up Comey's side. Because the day after the story was published, he convened a staff meeting with the special counsel in attendance. And the special counsel had contemporaneous notes that said that Comey said in that meeting that they needed to figure out how to get our folks to understand why leaks hurt our organization.
So, I know this is getting in the weeds here, but the facts actually matter.
FERGUSON: Sure.
PHILLIP: And, again, there is a reason that when this was addressed in Donald Trump's first administration, his A.G. said, we're looking at McCabe here. But even McCabe wasn't charged, even though it's clear that McCabe is the person who authorized the leak.
SCHULTZ: But I also think Chris Coons was just on not too long ago. He took a very conservative approach. He's a good lawyer, he's on the other side. I disagree with him on a lot of things. But if Chris Coons is saying, look, we've really got to wait and see here, I think it's a bit of early to say this thing's a slam dunk one way or the other.
CHARLES BLOW, THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: But the point here for Trump is not even about the victory or not, whether or not it goes to completion and whether or not he has proven right on the charge. This is a flexing of muscle, right? This is -- Donald Trump wants to show that he has the power to do this. This is -- that is the danger part in it, showing that he has the power to make the Justice Department act on his whim rather than on their own expertise. That is what he's trying to do.
He wants the spectacle of Comey having to defend himself, which is going to be very expensive. It's going to be very disruptive to his life, because Donald Trump believes that it was very disruptive to his life, and he believes it was unfair to him that someone had the power to call him to account for the things that he had done.
Once we see that, once we see that as not just as an issue about the facts of the case necessarily, because that, you know, Trump over the weekend said, you know, I don't care, I don't care if he's guilty, you just have to move fast.
[22:10:10]
Those were Trumps words over weekend.
FERGUSON: James Comey's own words, and it seems rich what you're saying, like this idea that everyone else has been above it and that somehow Donald Trump's doing different. James Comey literally tweet out, it's been a good day. That was how Comey reacted to Trump being indicted in the Alvin Bragg case. So, the idea that like somehow Trump is going out there being vindictive and no one else has ever celebrated something like this is of concern (ph).
BLOW: It's not -- nobody said anybody's ever celebrated. That is also not the point and that's also a diversion.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: There's also a diversion from the facts, this idea of always trying to equalize what Trump has done as a human, as a person in the country and equal that with what other people got -- this doesn't rise to anywhere near --
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: This has rise anywhere near what Trump was convicted of.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Go ahead.
JOHANNA MASKA, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: I agree, gentlemen, that Trump is trying to flex a muscle here, but the average American, my hometown, Galesburg, Illinois, the people who voted for Donald Trump, want them to flex muscles for them, not for a political persecution. And right now --
FERGUSON: I don't know this. I'm asking sincerely. Did you vote for Trump?
MASKA: No, I did not.
FERGUSON: Okay. Raise your hand if you voted for Trump in this table. I did. So, you have no idea what we believe.
MASKA: I talked to very regularly -- no.
FERGUSON: That's not -- he literally ran on saying he was going to do this.
MASKA: We are losing manufacturing plants in Iowa.
FERGUSON: He literally ran on saying that there was going to get accountability for the abuse justice. MASKA: And here we've got -- he literally ran for four years --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Can you just give her (INAUDIBLE) please? Thanks.
MASKA: He literally ran for four years saying that political persecution was awful, that he was a victim. It didn't hurt him. He ended up as president of the United States. And now he overturned it. He has no outstanding indictments, and now nobody wants him to go after more people.
FERGUSON: That's actually absolutely not what he said and what he was going for.
MASKA: A very small percentage of the MAGA base will be happy with this.
FERGUSON: You're also wrong.
MASKA: Many people are very concerned about their economic security.
FERGUSON: You can do two things at the right at the same time.
MASKA: It seems he is not addressing that.
FERGUSON: Donald Trump, and there was a montage plate on CNN earlier today, he literally ran off saying there will be accountability for the abuse of power in the deep state, period. He said it by name, James Comey. He said he was a liar by name.
PHILLIP: Yes. Well, okay --
(CROSSTALKS)
FERGUSON: No one should be surprised about today.
PHILLIP: Hold on one second. Let me just actually play what Trump, to your point has been, has said over the years about James Comey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He's a leaker.
One of the best things is this firing James Comey's ass out of it.
James Comey, who was a disaster, by the way.
Comey is a corrupt person.
Comey is a dirty cop.
Comey should hang his head in disgrace.
Phony, crooked Comey.
Fraud.
The worst scum on Earth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, okay.
FERGUSON: He ran on it.
PHILLIP: Yes. Trump ran on it. But let me ask you this, Elie, in the court of law, when James Comey's, prosecutors say, this is a vindictive prosecution, how is that going to go? Because, I mean, Trump has made it clear, not just in those clips, but literally in the last week, firing personnel who wouldn't bring these charges and bringing someone else who has been there for five days to bring them. I don't know, it just seems like a bad fact pattern for these.
HONIG: There's never been a stronger case of vindictive prosecution than when the president posted explicitly on social media. I am no Jim Comey apologist or fan. I've been strongly critical of him over the years. This is not a Jim Comey character test. That's not what this is. This is a criminal indictment. They're trying to lock him up.
I've also been critical of some of the prosecutions of Donald Trump. Not all of them. This is not okay. This is an endless spiral of retribution. Let's focus on what this is. This is a criminal indictment. I was a prosecutor for 14 years. They're trying to take away a man's liberty.
They're going to have to go into court with something better than what I've heard so here so far, which is who knows, who knows who's telling the truth. They're going to have to go in court and argue, A, Jim Comey's testimony and Andy McCabe's testimony contradict one another, which I do not believe they do.
Hold on. You've talked plenty. They contradict each other, which they do not, I do not believe.
Two, that Andy McCabe, a friend of mine, I'll say this, okay, we all know him, or many of us know him, but he was found by the Justice Department under Trump to be lack credibility, to be not credible. Now, they're saying Andy McCabe is unequivocally telling the truth, and Jim Comey is unequivocally lying. Some prosecutor, if this case gets to a jury, which I doubt is going to have to stand up in front of a jury and say, ladies and gentlemen, Andy McCabe is telling you the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.
PHILLIP: Well, you have to have proof. I mean, Elie and Jim, they're going to -- I mean, it seems to me that you have one person saying one thing, okay?
[22:15:00]
I know you don't think they're contradictory. But even if you argue that they were, the only way to solve that dispute is to bring in new evidence proving definitively that one person is lying and one person is telling the truth. Do you think, based on the way that this one- page indictment is written, that they have that proof?
SCHULTZ: We don't know what's before the grand jury.
PHILLIP: Okay. This indictment is literally --
SCHULTZ: But I want to go back to the selective prosecution.
PHILLIP: A few words.
SCHULTZ: You talked about a vindictive prosecution. I don't believe this is going to -- there's going to be a chance of a selective prosecution motion here that would be successful. Do you?
HONIG: Oh, yes.
SCHULTZ: Why?
HONIG: Of course.
BLOW: Why don't you believe that?
HONIG: Sure. I mean, the definition of a selective prosecution is the person was chosen for prosecution for political reasons. I mean, how -- I've never, have you seen a stronger argument for that? This --
SCHULTZ: Well, they just -- the courts just don't favor those.
HONIG: No, they usually lose. You're right about that.
SCHULTZ: They usually lose on these.
HONIG: Yes.
SCHULTZ: And I think --
HONIG: Usually not a presidential tool (ph).
SCHULTZ: When you make these -- when you make a presentation before the grand jury, and if they have facts that bear out that Jim Comey did in fact commit a crime, I think you have a hard time getting that --
PHILLIP: Yes. But I was asking, and you brushed it aside.
SCHULTZ: We don't know what is.
PHILLIP: Do you believe that they have those facts? And if they don't, do you think that they would need it?
SCHULTZ: I don't think -- they do need facts. They do need facts that are going to bear out, that are going to show that he committed the crime. I can't tell you what they presented to the grand jury, nobody at this table.
FERGUSON: I've talked to several senators tonight and some on the Judiciary Committee. Full disclosure, I do a show with Senator Ted Cruz. We were literally prepping before this, having multiple conversations. And one of the things I wrote down that I just want to read was this. FBI likely has corroborating evidence it was Comey who is lying. That is coming from somebody that I spoke tonight, a source that said, after they've looked through what they've seen, that is what they're leaning towards now.
So, the idea that this is somehow simplistic or there's nothing there, or that somehow this is like, oh, it's just one page, so therefore we just throw it out --
PHILLIP: I mean, was that based on that actually knowing that there's corroborating evidence? Because I think that --
FERGUSON: Based on what they are not going --
PHILLIP: Let me just finish. I think that just observing the facts of this case, it would stand to reason that the only way that they could think that they could actually prosecute this case is if they did, in fact, have that corroborating evidence.
FERGUSON: Correct, and that's what I'm saying.
PHILLIP: But I'm asking you, does your source actually know that or are they just speculating like that?
FERGUSON: I'm saying what they have gone through in the letters that go back December the 10th of 2020 where this all started and there was back and forth. There was a letter that Senator Cruz put out the General Barr and Director --
PHILLIP: I have it here.
FERGUSON: If you want to read from part of it, you can.
PHILLIP: I have it here. I mean, here's --
FERGUSON: There's a lot more there than a one-page.
PHILLIP: Let me read the key part of it because I think that this is the relevant part. He wrote this back in December 10th, 2020. He says, so that the American people may know the truth, please provide to the fullest extent possible any and all emails, records, communications, and any other documents relevant to our determination whether Mr. Comey knew of and approved of the FBI's leak of information pertaining to that Clinton investigation.
Now, again, he wrote this to the Trump DOJ.
FERGUSON: Correct.
PHILLIP: The Trump DOJ that had already by that point determined not to bring charges in this case. So, I think --
FERGUSON: If there is new -- and this is what said to be --
PHILLIP: I think that it really begs the question, has something miraculously appeared in the last five days that have changed the facts of this case, or is it what appears to be in front of our very eyes, Donald Trump telling his U.S. attorney to prosecute?
FERGUSON: I think there was a lot of people in that office that were trying to protect the former FBI director, number one. I also think his son-in-law resigning is a big point of that where you can say --
PHILLIP: Including the U.S. attorney that Trump appointed to that very office?
FERGUSON: Let me just say this, and you can make your decision up. You have a son-in-law who has resigned, who was -- I'm assuming they're probably not going after his father-in-law, okay, and has resigned tonight. That is big news that we should talk about.
The second thing is this, I think it was a bad move for the FBI director to lie to Grassley and then lie or lie to Grassley or lie to Cruz about the lie. That's what's probably going to get him in the most trouble.
PHILLIP: You are saying -- hold on. You're saying that he's lying, but that is the very thing that is in dispute here. We don't know that he's lying and he maintains that he is not lying. And on top of that, if he was in fact lying, why on Earth would Trump's former de attorney general not have indicted him?
FERGUSON: They may not have the information that corroborates now with the information. That's why I said this statement earlier on the air, clearly, there's something new and you guys are assuming nothing changed in the last couple days. It could have been there for the last six months. And you could have an office.
BLOW: So, the last prosecutor ignored it.
FERGUSON: Okay. I'll go back to what I said a moment ago. You had an office that clearly was protecting the former FBI director, and you had a son-in-law in that office that was clearly protecting, I think, it's fair to say his father-in-law.
BLOW: And the word, clearly, you said a lot of work in your statements right now.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: (INAUDIBLE) some sources, and your clearlys and your declarative statements mean nothing at this --
FERGUSON: You may not like facts, my friends. The grand jury is way more on my side than yours right now.
[22:20:02]
BLOW: (INAUDIBLE) nothing at this table.
PHILLIP: We're going to pause here on this conversation, but more ahead. And, Elie Honig, thank you as always for joining us. Next, another special guest is going to be with us at the table as we follow this extraordinary moment for America and the rule of law.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: The breaking news tonight, former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted just days after Donald Trump directed his DOJ to charge him.
Joining us at the table is Josh Rogin. He's the lead global security analyst at The Washington Post and Intelligence and author of Chaos Under Heaven.
Josh, as we were just discussing, the big question that's hanging over this case is whether or not the fact that Donald Trump directed this prosecution is going to matter. And also I think other people are probably wondering what other prosecutions are coming next. I mean, we know it's not just Comey, it's Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Lisa Cook, John Bolton, Miles Taylor, Chris Krebs, John Brenner. These are all people that Trump has said he wants to see prosecuted.
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Right. Does it matter? Well, I don't think this is the first time a president has intervened in law enforcement. I hearken back to a time when they used to be a little bit embarrassed about it, where they weren't so proud of it. I think that's the norm that's been shattered here. Now, they're just doing it out in the open. Remember when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac? It was like a scandal for like six months. And that's because that was bad. We thought it was bad for the people under investigation to be politically motivated and for the presidents to intervene in law enforcement. That's all gone.
PHILLIP: Well, but, I mean, just to be clear, I mean, Bill Clinton wasn't president at the time.
ROGIN: Exactly.
PHILLIP: They had a conversation and it was just the appearance of a conversation that caused everybody to lose their minds then. Now, it's the president sending messages, saying, prosecute him.
ROGIN: But to your point, it's not really about Comey. James Comey's going to be fine. He's an amazingly successful person with a lot of resources. And there are not just the people that you mentioned, but another a hundred people who are -- don't have those resources who now have to worry about if the Justice Department's going to come after them for criticizing Trump. And those people, if they get indicted, may not be able to afford it. Their careers may be impacted.
And then there's another huge group of people that will have a chilling effect. And I think that's the real point of this. It's not really about the indictment itself, it's about the chilling effect it send to anyone who might want to speak up against Trump. And that chilling effect is real and it affects a lot of people that names will never know.
And then, you know, we had all these leaders from the U.N. here this week and I was talking to all of them. You know, there are a lot of countries out there where the presidents get to use law enforcement to silence political dissent. The Chinese government does this. The Russian government does this. The Turkish government does this, the Saudi Arabian government. Do we want to be that? Is that what we like? Is that good? Are we going to keep going down that road? Are we going to have a rule of law where --
FERGUSON: I would've loved to have heard this speech from you when. Michael Flynn was getting indicted, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Jeffrey Clark, that was all done under Democrats. And you guys are like, man, I tell you what, now, the weaponization. Welcome to our world. Congratulations for finally joining us.
ROGIN: And you know it's a strong man because --
FERGUSON: It's not a strong man when you're holding people accountable for what they did.
ROGIN: Yes. But that's just a --
FERGUSON: There's an abuse of power that happened in the last administration. I just gave you the names. And you're acting like they never did it.
PHILLIP: Ben, do you think that it matters what those people were accused of doing?
FERGUSON: I think it matters that you have on the record a former administration that went after people --
PHILLIP: Okay. Can you answer my question?
FERGUSON: I'm answering your question. You don't like what I'm saying?
PHILLIP: Do you think it matters? Does it matter whether or not those people actually did the things that they were accused of doing?
FERGUSON: I'll give you a great example of answer to this question. When James Comey decided --
PHILLIP: I think that's a yes or no -- that's a yes or no question. You could literally just answer that by saying, yes, it matters, no, it doesn't matter.
FERGUSON: I go back to the facts.
PHILLIP: Do you think it matters?
FERGUSON: I think the facts matter.
PHILLIP: Do you think that when Michael Flynn was charged with -- when Michael Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI, does it matter whether he did it or not?
FERGUSON: I think it's pretty clear they knew they were setting him up to lie.
PHILLIP: When Roger Stone was charged and convicted of lying to Congress --
FERGUSON: And they raid his on live T.V.
PHILLIP: -- and lied to Congress, does it matter to you whether he lied or not?
FERGUSON: I think it should matter when you lie to Congress.
PHILLIP: So does it matter to you whether he lied or not?
FERGUSON: I think we're talking about that right now with James Comey.
PHILLIP: Ben, yes or no?
(CROSSTALKS)
FERGUSON: It should, across the board.
PHILLIP: All right. So --
ROGIN: But your argument is, basically, maybe it's something bad, so we can do something --
PHILLIP: Josh, hang on one second, one second.
ROGIN: If it's bad, it's bad.
PHILLIP: I don't even want to go the road of -- I don't even want to go down the road of the false equivalency. Because I'm asking you, do you think it matters whether the facts support charges or not? Because if it matters --
FERGUSON: 100 percent. You guys have said at the table tonight that there's no facts for James Comey to be indicted.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
FERGUSON: You don't know that?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second, Ben. If it matters whether or not the charges are substantiated or not, you would be just as upset about Michael Flynn lying, about Roger Stone lying and then getting pardoned, as you are about the allegation of James Comey lying. Would you not be?
FERGUSON: I am angry when anyone uses the government to go after their political opponents the way that the last administration did it.
PHILLIP: So, that only is a valid argument if in fact it was the government just going after people for things they didn't do.
FERGUSON: They went after Donald Trump what they didn't do.
PHILLIP: But if they did in fact commit crimes, do you think they should be prosecuted for it?
FERGUSON: If you commit a crime regardless of party, I think you should be prosecuted.
PHILLIP: Okay. Well, then let's -- well, then I think that really answers your question, Ben.
[22:30:02]
(CROSSTALK)
BEN FERGUSON, "THE BEN FERGUSON SHOW" HOST: So, do you think James Comey was there to entrap General Flynn? Yes or no. It's a simple question.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, the facts -- the facts -- listen. The facts ought matter.
FERGUSON, "THE BEN FERGUSON SHOW" HOST: It should matter, but you won't answer that question --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Listen. No, no. Hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: -- didn't commit a crime.
FERGUSON: Exactly. You're saying he's innocent but --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Listen, my friends. I am not pre-sentencing anything.
FERGUSON: I wish you guys treated Trump that way.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: James Comey --
FERGUSON: I really do.
PHILLIP: -- has not been convicted of a crime. That is actually the presumption of innocence, which I know you know well about.
UNKNOWN: Sure.
PHILLIP: And that presumption of innocence, he actually has. We had a whole discussion here about whether -- about --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Should it change if he's convicted?
PHILLIP: It will absolutely change if in a court of law he is convicted. But all we have right now are the facts of the case as we know it. There are things that we don't know. There are things that we don't know. But just to be clear, the presumption of innocence isn't me giving James Comey a break. It's actually a right that he has in this country.
Now, on the other hand, some other people that you were just claiming were, you know, politically persecuted were actually convicted. They were actually convicted.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: So, are you saying -- let me ask you. Do you believe all right. Have you condemned --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, do you think it matters whether or not that those crises were valid?
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: I have the whole list to give you. Is there anyone on there you think, hey, you know what, they got a raw deal. I think the last administration went after them for political persecution. Do you think the way they set up Flynn and entrapped him and the way that James Comey got on stage and mocked it, do you not think there's a problem with that? I'm being serious.
UNKNOWN: You are crazy.
FERGUSON: You won't answer the question because you know I'm right on this one.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: The answer is --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: He got on stage and literally mocked the fact that he was so trusting and didn't call an attorney. I'm asking you a question.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on -- hold on a second. Hold on a second.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: That's true. Call me a narcissistic. UNKNOWN: Either political prosecutions are good or bad.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think that you guys like to use this idea of entrapment in a way that is totally incorrect. It is not entrapment to ask somebody a question and then they lie in answering that question. That's not what entrapment means, okay? So, just to be clear -- just to be clear --
FERGUSON: So, you don't it was totally above board even though he literally said it wasn't.
PHILLIP: Michael Flynn --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: He sent a couple FBI guys in there.
PHILLIP: -- could have told the truth and that would have negated this entire thing. So no, that is not actually at all entrapment. End of story on that one. But let's move on for one second. I want to, I want to, want to just raise one other thing.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: No, I'm saying --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: -- you act like what we're witnessing right now is like this shocking moment that we can't believe that just happened. When you guys literally went pro in this, we're barely amateur.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. I don't have time to play this sound, but I just want to add, Charles, that Donald Trump also has now opened up the frontiers of the George Soros Foundation being investigated. So, this is not just about James Comey.
UNKNOWN: Exactly.
PHILLIP: There's a long list of political enemies. You were saying, you were talking about this. But I just want to introduce that because I think it's valid to add to this that Trump is expanding the list of people that he does not like. To -- he wants to -- he's accusing the Soros Foundation, according to "The New York Times", of things ranging from arson to material support of terrorism.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: That is what they're looking at.
CHARLES BLOW, THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Right. And then -- (CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: On college campuses -- I'm sorry.
BLOW: Let me finish. This is why it is so maddening for Americans because this deflection that you're doing, this false equivalency that you're doing --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: Pretty direct bro.
BLOW: No, I'm not finished. She asked a direct question about whether or not, you know --if those things were true, whether or you'd be upset about it. You would, around this studio, try to avoid answering yes or no.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: To avoid answering yes or no, you ran around this table. That is why it's so maddening because we have to sit here and watch you jump through hoops -- you jump through hoops and --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: You guys responded to Trump's campaign and said it didn't happen. And you literally were doing -- you're getting FISA warrants and you knew they were a lie. You said that, you literally said the Steele dossier was user-generated at the FBI and then you weaponized it to go after Donald Trump to have a coup against a sitting President of States of America. And you want to lecture me right now about (inaudible)? Come on, man. Come on.
BLOW: Just because you talk loud does not mean you're right.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: No, but that's the fact.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: Just because you talk loud doesn't mean I'm going to you continue to talk over me. It's ridiculous.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: FBI said Dossier was user-generated and you used it to go after him.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: And at some point, I'll let him finish and then I'll talk.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: Go ahead. BLOW: Are you finished yet?
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: I come in to correct the record. You got to recognize the government.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: You're destroying the record. You're muddying the waters. You're constantly doing this and you --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: -- overthrow the will of the people with the Steele dossier that you knew was alive.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: That's not true.
UNKNOWN: Charles did that?
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Not true.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: I was here during that time.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Is political persecution wrong or not?
PHILLIP: Let's let somebody answer and then I'll let you respond, okay? I promise I will let you respond, but go ahead.
JOHANNA MASKA, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: Well, I just don't understand what Trump actually thinks that he has to win out of this because if he has to explain it while Americans are losing their jobs, he's not winning. So, you know, this, no, but the whole circle that you just did, you said if someone is, you know, guilty, then they should be persecuted. If they're not guilty, then they shouldn't. We don't know.
[22:35:00]
Sure. But what's happening here is you guys are setting up a very dangerous precedent. And, no. I'm sorry. You think that we did all of the president setting.
FERGUSON: You did.
MASKA: You think --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: You guys went pro in it. In political persecution.
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: President Obama. I worked with President Obama. Yeah. You think President Obama set up --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: Were they not spying on Donald Trump's campaign? Yes or no?
BLOW: Oh my God.
MASKA: Okay. Russia interfered in every election.
BLOW: Oh my God.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: It is a fact that -- did they get vice awards? Yes or no? Oh, so then therefore it must be real, even though it wasn't.
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: So, should we know what Russia is doing? Yes, 100 percent.
PHILLIP: You guys -- okay.
FERGUSON: -- Donald Trump of working with the Russians and you know it was a lie.
PHILLIP: All right, Ben, you lost your chance to respond because I asked you not to intervene and you did.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But listen, let me just you Jim. Hold on, Josh, a straightforward question, okay -- because at the end of the day, it seems like the justification for all of this is that well, they did it to us first. But at the same time, even if you think all of those other investigations involving Trump adjacent people were invalid, there is no evidence that they were directed by the President in the way that Trump is directing this. So, is it right to do it just because of the perception that it might have been directed by the prior president?
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: -- that I think any prosecutor taking this case would prefer that the President not weigh in on it because they have -- they're the ones that have to go prosecute that case and get a conviction. It makes it harder when he does what he does. That -- you know, that's a fact. Any prosecutor taking that case wouldn't want to hear him saying those things. It makes it harder, and therefore he probably shouldn't do it.
PHILLIP: All right. Thank you, Jim. Josh Rogan, thank you very much for joining us. Another special guest is going to be with us at the table to talk about the presidential history of all of this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:41:31]
PHILLIP: James Comey has been indicted after the President ordered his DOJ to charge him. So, where does this stand in American presidential history? CNN historian Tim Naftali joins us to help contextualize all of this. Tim, when it comes to presidents obviously wanting to prosecute their political enemies, I can't imagine this is new, but actually, doing it is another story. Tell us what the history --
(CROSSTALK)
TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, this is the most blatant presidential intervention in a prosecution. Richard Nixon tried to bribe the judge in Daniel Ellsberg's case, offered him actually to be the director of the FBI. The judge could not be bribed. Richard Nixon also intervened in the William Kelly case and reduced the sentence -- that was a military court sentence, after the My Lai massacre.
So, Nixon did intervene. But this is taking presidential intervention to a new level in American history. Not only did the President complain that his original assistant U.S. Attorney was not willing to pull the trigger on an indictment, but his Attorney General made clear in her very first letter to every single lawyer that you must zealously defend the interests of the United States and they are defined by Donald J. Trump.
Whereas every previous attorney general made clear that their oath was to the constitution of the United States. We live in a country where your oath is not to the President. But Pam Bondi made clear, the President will decide what is in our interest, which means he will decide when to prosecute.
FERGUSON: Eric Holder said, and I quote, "I'm still the President's wingman." Eric Holder brushed off questions Thursday about when he might lead the administration. Instead, the top lawman professed his allegiance to President Barack Obama. Let's not say it's unprecedented. You just said that every other attorney general acts a certain way. People around the President. That is Eric Holder saying, I am the wingman of Barack Obama.
NAFTALI: And can you give us an example of a prosecution that he --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: You're taking that totally out of context.
FERGUSON: No, I'm literally saying my allegiance is not to the Constitution as you just stated.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
FERGUSON: He's saying my allegiance is to the President of the United States of America, my wingman.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: Name a case. Name a case where Obama waited and put his thumb on a --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: I go back to what I just said. You can't tell me that there's --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: -- have not said their allegiance is to the President.
BLOW: You talk louder because you can't name it.
FERGUSON: Again, what did he just say? He said it was unprecedented.
BLOW: No. It is -- what --
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: He just said the wingman, not the constitution, to Barack Obama.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Ben, Ben, can you just -- another person speak?
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: -- and you talk around it.
PHILLIP: Before you jump in for just a moment?
FERGUSON: Sure. Sure.
PHILLIP: I mean I'm going to repeat Charles's question because I think it's a valid question. Is there an example that comes to your mind of President Obama leaning on his wingman to change the outcome of a case?
FERGUSON: I don't know if there was a case. My point is he wasn't saying his allegiance was to the constitution.
BLOW: You know there wasn't a case. It's not that you don't know. You know there wasn't.
FERGUSON: I don't know if was or wasn't a case.
BLOW: You thought it was very convenient to try to drag Barack Obama and Eric Holder into this mess that is really Donald Trump's and Pam Bondi's.
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: All right. I think the broader point -- the broader point, Lindsey, is about what this means for the future of the DOJ. And in a way, you were talking about Trump supporters that you know. He did say he was going to do this, that he was going to use the DOJ to prosecute his political enemies now that it's happening.
[22:45:04]
Is this going to raise any red flags?
MASKA: He also said he was going to lock Hillary Clinton up over and over and over. He said, lock her up, lock her up. They don't believe that. They believe that he's going to bring back the economy, that he's going to defend their jobs, that he's going to actually work for them. And right now, we are not seeing that. Even in Iowa, I was just talking with folks. No, they're not seeing markets. India, they were selling to India for a long time. They're not -- they don't have the markets.
Farmers are struggling. We've got manufacturing, closing. Those are the problems that Americans care about. So you can say -- you can say all you want about this -- you can say all you want about it being a political winner. But I just think when you're going after someone for something about perceived retribution, you have to explain that to the American people and they are losing their jobs, you are losing.
FERGUSON: This is the second night in a row where that talking point's been used.
MASKA: No.
(CROSSTALK)
FERGUSON: It's the second night. It must have been sent out by the Democratic Party. The President is doing pretty good on the economy and the American people I think agree with him.
PHILLIP: Tim, I'm curious what you think. You know -- and by the way, I should say, I apologize, Johanna, I was thinking -- Lindsey Halligan is in my head. But the through line between these two conversations is that oftentimes when Donald Trump is back against the wall, he does revert back to some of his promises of this nature.
He goes to targeting his political enemies when, you know, his approval ratings on immigration and on the economy and on all these other issues that he should be strong on are headed south. Do you see this as sort of a defense mechanism and will it work, or is there a risk that it could offend just regular Americans going about their day-to-day lives?
NAFTALI: I have two answers. The first answer is this is not Trump one. In Trump one, rhetoric did not always lead to action. President Trump, over the course of his four-year interregnum, learned some things about how to run the federal government. And Trump two is fundamentally different. His words matter. He says he's going to go after you, he's going to go after you. So, number one, these are action statements. In Trump one, sometimes
it was just frustration. Frustration because of all these guardrails. Now, these are action statements. Number two, he only trusts his base. One of the saddened -- one reason why we're in such trouble right now is that we don't have a president who wants to persuade anybody. He's given up persuasion.
PHILLIP: No, he doesn't need to because he's not going to run again.
NAFTALI: Well, he doesn't need to for his base.
BLOW: Well.
NAFTALI: He does because we have, but here's the point. He is saying this to make his base happy, because his base is worried about the price -- price of eggs, although they've come down lately.
UNKNOWN: A lot.
NAFTALI: No, no.: They're back to where they were in October.
UNKNOWN: They were.
NAFTALI: They have reason to be unhappy that promises have not been kept. So, this rhetoric is red meat to them, but what's different from Trump one is this isn't just red meat. These are orders. These are action statements.
FERGUSON: That he ran on.
PHILLIP: Thank you very much. Next for us, President Trump is accused of trying to incite violence after new information emerges about the sniper in the deadly ICE attack.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:52:59]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Donald Trump is being accused of inciting violence after his warning to Democrats. This is in response to the new developments and the deadly attack at an ICE facility. The Feds say that the suspect left behind handwritten notes that showed his hatred for the government and for ICE.
Quote, "Hopefully, this will give ICE agents real terror to think, is there a sniper with A.P. rounds on that roof?" That's what the suspect allegedly wrote. Now, when asked about the shooting, Donald Trump blamed the left and warned of retaliation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Once you start dehumanizing people, once we take three dimensional people and turn them into two dimensional cartoons --
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The radical left is causing the problem. They're out of control. They're saying things. And they're really dumb people. I look at Crockett, I look at some of these people, they're -- they're very low I.Q. people, actually. But the radical left is causing this problem.
Not the right, the radical left. And it's going to get worse, and ultimately it's going to go back on them. I mean, bad things happen when they play these games. And I'll give you a little clue. The right is a lot tougher than the left. But the right's not doing this. They're not doing it. And they better not get them energized.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:03]
PHILLIP: Before we go, I wanted to let you know that I am going on tour. My new book, "A Dream Deferred, Jesse Jackson and the Fight for Black Political Power", it is coming out next month on October 28th. And I'll be going across the country to speak about it with colleagues and friends, many people that you've seen right here on this show. And you can scan that Q.R. code right there on your screen to pre-order the book and to get more information about -- and tickets for the tour. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is CNN breaking news.
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez, in for Laura Coates. Our breaking news tonight, an indictment as stunning as it is historic. The former FBI director and one of President Trump's biggest enemies is now facing a prospect of spending time behind bars up to five years if he's convicted, and it's a big if.
[23:00:03]
We'll get to why in a moment.
But this indictment is the biggest prize yet for Trump's retribution agenda. Comey is facing two charges, one for making false statements, and another for obstruction.
