Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.S. Atty: Dallas ICE Shooting "The Very Definition of Terrorism"; FBI: Shooter Left Handwritten Notes Discussing Killing ICE Agents; Sources: Possible Comey Indictment Could Come as Soon as Today; Hegseth Summons Top U.S. Military Brass for Unexplained Meeting; Judge to Rule on Bid to Toss Conviction or Get New Trial. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 25, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: ... notes belonging to the shooter. They included a game plan of the attack, describing ICE employees as people showing up to collect dirty paychecks. They said that he wanted to maximize the lethality of ICE personnel, and that he did not expect to survive this attack. One of the notes included, quote, "Good luck with digital evidence," seeming that this shooter tried to destroy some evidence. I wonder what you glean from all that.

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR WASHINGTON, D.C.: Yes, Boris. We've seen this. There is online communities where these actors are really taking cues from previous actors. And dare I say, the next shooter, whomever that may be, and there will be another one, unfortunately, is looking at what this shooter did and what the Charlie Kirk shooter did. And they're learning from each other, and they're doing things.

They're listening to experts like me talk about how the FBI is going through their background, how they're looking at this -- how they're looking at their social media posts. And so, this actor, this shooter, clearly understood this and tried to delete -- probably delete his footprint.

It is a huge cause of concern, because these actors, with less training, are getting better. I mean, we saw the Butler shooter who was just, what, a year and a half outside of high school. I mean, this is a 20-year-old man who came within centimeters of killing then- presidential candidate Donald Trump, with almost no training.

And so, you know, in the hands of very incapable people, we see these weapons are having immense effect and devastating effect on the lives of individuals in this country.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, we've seen that time and again. Talk to us about the apps, Donell, because this is something we heard ICE focusing in on there. These are apps that were designed for people to crowdsource the location of ICE agents, with the idea that people in their community would steer clear of the ICE agents. Of course, it also shows the location of the ICE agents, and you have ICE saying, this makes it, this gives the ability of people with nefarious intent to locate ICE agents. What are you hearing here? Considering this was an ICE facility, which

also raises other questions, this was not, you know, we don't know if that ICE app was used specifically in this instance.

HARVIN: Yes. So, there's two things here. One, ICE facilities are publicly listed. I was able, before we came on air, just to kind of look and see. You can just Google the ICE facilities, and come up on a map. And so, that's something I'm sure DHS will have to look at. They have some unpublished ones, I'm sure that they're leasing or renting, but that's a concern.

So, this individual knew and had a list of ICE facilities, or DHS facilities, rather, that he was looking at.

And second, the apps, and I'm not going to mention any specific app, you know, because I don't want people looking them up. But, you know, technology is value neutral, right? And so, these apps have recently, and I've heard this over the summertime, individuals who are using these apps, crowdsourcing, as you've mentioned, Brianna, to indicate where ICE was doing activities, where they saw ICE to steer people who they thought would be migrants and may be caught up in this away.

Certainly, there's a duality to that, and that clearly was used in this particular case for a maligned actor to track the comings and goings of ICE agents and put them at greater peril.

SANCHEZ: Donell, please stand by. Let's go to Ed Lavandera, who is in the room for this press briefing.

And Ed, I wonder what stood out to you from what you heard.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, a couple of things, and I don't know how much of the -- toward the end of the press conference, you guys were able to hear, but agents were asked about whether or not this shooter suspected or had believed that he would leave this scene alive or not. And the special agent in charge of the FBI Dallas office said that from the writings, it seemed clear to them that this suspect had no intention of surviving this -- yesterday morning, in the attack there on that ICE field office.

We also asked the investigators whether or not the suspect's family is cooperating. They wouldn't answer that question, but clearly they have been searching various locations connected to the shooter, and obviously have search warrants at a property in the Northern Dallas suburb, as well as in Oklahoma properties connected to the shooter. So, presumably they're talking to family members. FBI agents just wouldn't confirm exactly whether or not those family members are cooperating and speaking with investigators.

But clearly investigators feel that based on the notes and the evidence that was discovered at these residences gives them a clearer picture of what motivated this attacker. One of the notes talking about how this shooter believed that ICE agents were quote, people showing up to collect a dirty paycheck.

[15:05:06] The U.S. Attorney talking about how there were bullets riddled the entire length of the building, which is several dozen yards wide in the vantage point and explaining how the shooter arrived in the area around this ICE facility in Dallas early yesterday morning. And also, the lengths that apparently this had been in the works and planned for some time. Purchasing the firearm that was used in this attack back in August, as well as searches of DHS facilities and ICE facilities, not just here in Dallas, but around the country, according to the FBI agents.

SANCHEZ: Ed Lavandera and Donell Harvin, thank you both.

So, we are also monitoring the push to charge former FBI Director, James Comey. Sources say that he could be indicted as soon as this afternoon on perjury charges. He's facing allegations of lying to Congress back in 2020 when he testified about the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Comey has maintained that he was truthful under oath. CNN sources also say that Attorney General, Pam Bondi and top prosecutors have concerns about the case. They'll have to file charges if they do by Tuesday when the statute of limitations expires.

Joining us now to discuss former FBI senior intelligence adviser, Phil Mudd.

Phil, great to see you.

The Attorney General says, or according to our reporting, believes that it would be possible to bring an indictment though she has concerns about the case. What do you think those concerns might be?

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Well, this is pretty basic. If you're betting in Vegas and I'm not a big better, but I'd bet on this one, the government's going to lose this one. The concerns would revolve around two things. One is in general in these cases, you're talking about not only proving that somebody lied, but you're talking about intent, proving intent five years ago. What did James Comey intend to do? How do you get inside his brain? Did he leave a digital trail you can access or did he talk to people about his intent to lie? I find that really hard to believe.

So, in this case, I think historically, a perjury case is going to be difficult.

Let me give you the second piece of this. You mentioned that we're running up on the statute of limitations on Tuesday. Well, why is that? That is presumably because prosecutors, their supervisors and DOJ central, the Department of Justice have determined that the evidence in this case isn't good.

So, you combine the fact that perjury is tough to prove and that prosecutors in this case think they have a weak case. And I'm telling you, this is not going to go that far, I think without a judge and jury saying, this is a weak one.

SANCHEZ: There's also the possibility that if there is a trial, Comey could just use the President's posts as defense material, right?

MUDD: I think so. I mean, I think if one of the allegations is this is a political trial, obviously you mentioned the post as one piece. I'm not a lawyer, but the first question I'd have as a defense attorney beyond that would be, can I also call the former prosecutors, including the U.S. Attorney in that area who was replaced as a result of pressure on this case? Can I call them as witnesses to say, did you ever get any pressure from the White House to bring this case? Yes or no. And if you chose not to bring it, why did you choose not to bring it?

And presumably the answer is, chose not to bring it because it's a bad case. So, it's not only what the President said, it's the actions to replace the U.S. Attorney that suggest that the case isn't related to the law, it's related to vengeance.

SANCHEZ: I wonder more broadly what this does to other folks that have been critical of President Trump in the past, including those that he's named in that social media post toward Attorney General Bondi, Senator Adam Schiff, for example, and others.

I was speaking to Congressman Eric Swalwell earlier who mentioned that he knows that at some point in the future he may be prosecuted as well. What do you think the message is that this sends?

MUDD: Jimmy Kimmel, are all of us allowed to speak? Is a comic allowed to speak on late night TV? How long have comics been criticizing presidents on late night TV? This isn't just a narrow issue of people in Washington. It's everyday citizens who are questioning their right to speak.

Let me tell you something to get personal for a moment. You think I didn't think for a minute, in contrast to what I would have thought 10 years ago for a minute about whether it's a good idea to go on TV and criticize the President? This country is based on free speech and people of us, and I'm a third-tier player, a fourth-tier player, people of us, whether it's Jimmy Kimmel, James Comey or me, have to now think in this environment whether it's appropriate to speak. And if we do, are we going to be threatened?

I don't know, I've been threatened in the past. I don't know what's going to happen in the future. It is a problem in America when you say, I love the First Amendment, except if it's somebody I don't like. That's not good.

SANCHEZ: Phil Mudd, always great to talk to you. Appreciate the time.

MUDD: Thanks.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, an all hands-on deck meeting. The Pentagon calling top generals and admirals home. What will that mean for the posts they're assigned to in hotspots around the world?

[15:10:01]

KEILAR: Plus, you shut, we cut, the White House threat over this shutdown battle.

And then later, more than 100 ABC journalists urging Disney's CEO to stand up and defend free speech against attacks by President Trump and his administration.

We'll have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:14:42]

KEILAR: We're now learning that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered hundreds of senior military officers from all around the globe to come to Virginia for a meeting next Tuesday, and there are no details on why, there's no details on what it's about, but there are lots of theories, and they range from a group physical fitness test, ha-ha, to a possible mass firing of officers, which is not so funny.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand is with us now. What do you know about this musical fitness test, ha-ha, to a possible mass firing of officers, which is not so funny.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand is with us now.

What do you know about this meeting?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The short answer is that no one seems to have any idea what this meeting is actually about, except for Hegseth and a very, very small circle of advisors. The hundreds of general and flag officers around the world who received this summons today are deeply concerned because obviously Secretary Hegseth has exhibited a particular disdain for senior military officers ever since he entered office, even before that in public appearances. He has said repeatedly that he believes that roughly a third of senior military officers in the military are complicit in the active politicization of the military.

So, this is not a group that he has necessarily expressed a fondness for in the past. And so, there are concerns that perhaps some of them are coming to be fired, but, you know, there are also other explanations. A congressional aide, for example, told us this could be for Hegseth to announce some kind of new military campaign. It could be to announce some kind of overhaul of the military command structure, something big, obviously, that can't be just discussed on a video conference call, like meetings are -- happen all the time, but for some reason needs to be in person, and that's why you saw some officers also joking that perhaps this is a fitness test, but just to underscore how anxious people are about this.

One source told us that it's like the "Squid Games" for general officers. They are just concerned that some of them could in fact be on the chopping block here. But, of course, we don't actually know what this is about. But it is unprecedented because all of these officers are going to be in the same place at the same time. And that also raises security concerns and concerns about, well, their commands in their respective theaters around the world, there's not going to be anyone remotely a senior in charge at that moment, so just a lot of questions here about why this is necessary.

KEILAR: A lot of anxiety. All right, Natasha, we know that you'll stay on it. Natasha Bertrand, thank you.

Still ahead, Sean "Diddy" Combs back in court. His attorney's making a new push to get his conviction tossed ahead of next week's sentencing. What they're arguing next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:21:50]

SANCHEZ: Sean "Diddy" Combs is back in court today. His legal team wants the judge to toss his conviction on prostitution-related charges or grant his bid for a new trial. Now, the judge did not issue an immediate ruling but said that a decision would be made, quote, "very shortly." Combs is scheduled to be sentenced next week after a jury found him guilty in July on two counts of transporting individuals for prostitution. You'll recall he was acquitted of the more serious charges.

We're joined now by former state attorney Dave Aronberg for some legal perspective.

Dave, great to see you as always.

What were the arguments presented by Diddy's attorneys?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: Good to be with you, Boris. Diddy was saying that he was just a paying John, a customer, rather than a pimp here. So, the Mann Act shouldn't be throwing him into prison for any length of time when he was no more than just a person on the side of the street being convicted of a low- level prostitution crime. He also said that he didn't actually have sex with these individuals. He was just a voyeur.

But the truth is, is that the Mann Act is broad enough to encompass voyeurism in this capacity as well as someone like Diddy who was a John. But in reality, he also was the maestro. He was the one who put this whole thing on. So, claiming that he's just a low-level participant or he was just a voyeur is not really what this was about. This was about a guy who did these freak-offs, who had led the whole enterprise. So, I think the judge is going to reject the defense arguments here.

SANCHEZ: What about the potential sentencing? The defense, aside from these arguments for a new trial, they've said that he should serve no more than 14 months. He's already been behind bars for about 13 months. The prosecution wants more than that. Where do you think this might land?

ARONBERG: Well, the prosecution seems to want about four or more years to a maximum of seven years and three months. I get the seven years and three months max, because that's what the probation team came up with. That's the federal guidelines from the probation office. So, I think that the judge will probably give him a little more time

than the defense wants, but less time than the prosecution wants. He may just split the two here. And I think the judge wants to give him more than just the minimum because the judge is like everyone else. He was probably appalled at what he saw, the violence against Cassie, the level of depravity that was going on there.

So, I think that Diddy is not out of the woods yet, even though he was acquitted of all the major crimes.

SANCHEZ: Talk to us about that because obviously it's important to remember he was accused of some very serious federal crimes and ultimately the jury found him not guilty.

ARONBERG: I was surprised, Boris, that he was not convicted of sex trafficking when it came to Cassie. Cassie, his former girlfriend, was the one who started this because there was that video that was released by CNN, by the way, that showed how vicious that Diddy was. This level of violence that he denied until the video came out.

[15:25:03]

And then, she filed a civil lawsuit. And the civil lawsuit was settled within 24 hours. That tells you that the defendant knows that he's going to have to pay big time when he settles it one day later. And then, that led to the criminal charges.

But yet a jury found that, I guess it was consent. The jury doesn't have to explain why they found him not guilty, but I would think it's because there was some level, some evidence of consent here. Early on, Cassie and other victims seemed to willingly participate in these freak offs.

But there would have to be consent on every time. And that's where I had an issue. It's clear to me that Cassie did not consent for every freak off, not every circumstance. And that video shows four. So, I think he could have been found guilty very easily. And we're definitely living in a post Me Too movement.

SANCHEZ: Dave Aronberg, appreciate the analysis. Thanks for joining us.

ARONBERG: Thank you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead, we're just days away from a possible government shutdown, but this one is different. It could mean a lot of people will lose their jobs permanently.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)