Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Justice Dept Drops Criminal Investigation Of Fed Chair Powell; Trump Sending Witkoff, Kushner To Pakistan For New Talks With Iran; Trump To Attend His First WH Correspondents' Dinner As President; Source: Investigators Believe Robbers Who Stole $1.8M from An Armored Truck In Philly Had Inside Information; Justice Dept. Bringing Back Firing Squads For Federal Executions. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 24, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Or you have some other options like trying to get a -- a parking spot to park your car, but they're not allowing anyone to drive to the stadium. So, they're not making it easy, and it's certainly not cheap, guys.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Wait, $150 on the train? That's what you're saying?

GINGRAS: Yes. Yes. For ...

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yikes.

GINGRAS: ... for a ride typically that costs $22 right now, if I was to do it.

KEILAR: I'll buy you both a beer at the bar. We'll watch the game. July 19th, it's a date.

SANCHEZ: Sounds like a good time. Some glizzies, it'll be awesome.

KEILAR: Amazing. Brynn, thank you so much.

GINGRAS: All right.

KEILAR: And a new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

The DOJ drops its investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, likely clearing the way for Kevin Warsh's confirmation as the next head of the Central Bank.

Plus, our peace talks with Iran back on track. President Trump is sending Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Pakistan. Iran's foreign minister is also expected to travel there for negotiations.

SANCHEZ: Also, a new gene therapy that restores hearing to children who were born deaf has just won FDA approval. The company behind it, making it available for free. We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: It is the top of the hour. I'm Brianna Keilar alongside Boris Sanchez here outside of the Capitol in the nation's capital and it's really looking like the standoff over who will lead the country's central bank has ended. Fed Chair Jay Powell no longer under criminal investigation by the Justice Department, clearing the way for his replacement, President Trump's new nominee, Kevin Warsh, to be confirmed.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia announcing the case's closure this morning.

SANCHEZ: This comes after pressure from Republicans, including Senator Thom Tillis, who's repeatedly said he would block Warsh's confirmation unless Powell's case was dropped. CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez is here with the latest.

And Evan, Pirro said the case against Powell is now being turned over to the Fed's Inspector General.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right, which has been doing an investigation for several months, so this is not a new thing. And so, what we -- what we have here is we were -- we're trying to figure out who was going to blink first, Boris and Brianna, and it appears that Jeanine Pirro is the one who finally blinked.

And, you know, what we were expecting is that this investigation needed to end so that Kevin Warsh's nomination can go forward. And -- and it's been clear that this has been everything but a normal investigation. First of all, the FBI's not involved in it. This is being handled by a couple of political appointees in -- in -- in Pirro's office. If you remember, they showed up in pretty unusual fashion to the construction site down at the Federal Reserve headquarters to try to get access to it, and they were turned away. That was the -- that was just the latest blow for this investigation.

Last month, they -- the prosecutors themselves told a judge that they didn't really actually have evidence of wrongdoing by Jerome Powell, and that's one reason why the judge turned them away and said that they -- that the subpoenas were no longer valid.

Now, one of the things that happened after that is Pirro held a news conference and said that they were going to appeal that ruling. They never actually did. So, it was just a matter of time for us to get to this off-ramp that the -- the U.S. attorney finally availed of herself today. And what we heard from her this morning on X is she said that she expects a comprehensive report from the Inspector General. She says, "I will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation should the facts warrant doing so."

And remember, this is all over hundreds of millions of dollars in -- in cost overruns on a multibillion-dollar renovation project for the historic building, the Federal Reserve Headquarters building here in Washington. And the allegation has been, at least from President Trump, is that there has been some wrongdoing, perhaps some -- some crime was committed, in that none of that has actually been proven.

And again, we're going to wait to see what the Inspector General finds because we -- we certainly haven't heard and haven't seen any evidence of it. Thom Tillis didn't believe it. But then again, of course, as you guys pointed out, a little bit earlier, Karoline Leavitt is still hanging on to the idea that perhaps there might be something here to go after.

SANCHEZ: Evan Perez, thank you so much for the update on that story. The White House says that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be traveling to Pakistan tomorrow for new peace talks with the Iranians. Sources tell CNN the pair will meet with Iran's foreign minister and that Vice President J.D. Vance will be on standby to travel to Islamabad if those talks progress.

Meantime, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said today that the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports is growing and will last, quote, "as long as it takes," adding that a second aircraft carrier will join the blockade in the coming days. Let's discuss with retired Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.

[15:05:06]

General, thanks so much for being with us.

So, the U.S. sending this third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, what options does that give the U.S. military?

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY (Ret.): Well, it certainly gives the U.S. military a lot more options. One of the great concerns in the GCC countries is that their bases not be used for attacks into Iran. So, to replace that, you bring in an aircraft carrier that's 90- fighter aircraft that are capable of being used.

They could also, if it is, as Pete Hegseth says, this is going to take as long as it takes, it can also be used for replacement operations. So, those other sailors that have been in the region for so long can go home. The -- we talk about an aircraft carrier being 500,000 tons of diplomacy, and here's a good example of it.

SANCHEZ: To that point regarding what Hegseth was describing as the naval blockade growing and going global, practically, what does that part of it mean going global?

KIMMITT: Well, I think he was referring to the fact that it's not just Iranian tankers, it's not just American military forces there, but the fact remains that this is expanding in terms of the number -- number of countries that actually have assets in that region or potentially could bring assets in the region. Sadly, it also means that the situation is going global as we see this blockade creating significant problems throughout the world, not only with petroleum prices, but also with fertilizer, with helium, and other items that are so necessary for the world economy.

SANCHEZ: It's also notable that President Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to shoot down any Iranian boats that are placing mines in the Strait of Hormuz. We've heard the administration repeatedly say that Iran's navy is at the bottom of the ocean, and yet these sort of smaller speedboats continue to be a nuisance. What are the implications there regarding what remains of Iran's capacity on the water? KIMMITT: Well, two things I'd say, Boris. First, he is correct. The

Iranian regular navy is at the bottom of the Gulf. The speedboats do not belong to the Iranian Navy, but to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. That may be a distinction without a difference if you're on one of the boats being attacked. The speedboats do have a significant capability. They're basically manned drones, for lack of a better term, on the water. There are hundreds of them. They present a serious threat. It was a speedboat like that which -- which attacked the USS Cole in Yemen years ago.

So, I don't think we can discount the danger that they present, but I suspect our U.S. Navy is pretty -- pretty capable of handling that threat.

SANCHEZ: There are still concerns about clearing mines from the strait even after the conflict ends. We understand that briefers from the Pentagon told lawmakers here on Capitol Hill that it could take up to six months to fully clear the Strait after the war ends. How do you see the threat of mines still lingering?

KIMMITT: Well, first of all, we got to understand that there are only a couple of lanes that are used for egress and exit from the Gulf, so it's -- and the Strait. So, it's not necessarily the fact that all of the Strait and the Gulf need to be cleared of mines, but at least as a minimum to get international traffic going again, you've got to have two -- three-kilometer lanes, one for coming in and one for leaving. But that's a narrow case for restricted traffic, but that will at least open up the strait. But to get rid of all of them, it's going to take a significant amount of time.

SANCHEZ: Retired General Mark Kimmitt, thanks so much for sharing your expertise. Appreciate the time.

Still to come, President Trump is ending a years-long boycott by attending and speaking at an event celebrating the same press corps that he often attacks.

Plus, in a brazen daylight heist, robbers stealing nearly $2 million from an armored truck. Why investigators now think this was an inside job.

And later, the Trump administration firing back -- rather bringing back firing squads for federal executions. Some breaking news from the DOJ. Stay with us, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:13:56]

KEILAR: It is the talk of the town here in Washington. What will President Trump say when he attends his first White House Correspondents' Dinner as president tomorrow night? This event, which, of course, we call the "nerd prom," it's really self-explanatory. It's seeing changes besides the President ending his years-long boycott of it. SANCHEZ: For instance, this year there won't be a comedian poking fun

at politicians and the media. But for a president who's traded barbs with news organizations for more than a decade, those jabs could still come. The White House says President Trump's speech will be entertaining for the entire country.

Here to walk us through what is a big night for Washington, a former speechwriter for President Obama, David Litt.

David, thanks so much for being with us.

So, obviously, the first time that President Trump is attending as sitting president. You say that the President should attend. This dinner, though, very different than the ones that he has previously skipped. How do you see him playing a role in the White House in those changes?

DAVID LITT, FORMER LEAD SPEECHWRITER FOR PRES. OBAMA, WH CORRESPONDENTS' DINNER: Thank you for having me. And I think you're exactly right. The President has been involved in a standoff with the Correspondents' Association for years because he does not want to be made fun of.

[15:15:07]

And it seems like, at least this year, he's won. They're not going to have a comedian who's going to tell jokes at his expense. And instead, they're going to have a magician, so there's that.

And that means that he gets the -- he -- he is both the opener and the headliner as far as comedy is concerned. So, he gets to go on his own terms. And I think he also thinks that he has more allies in the room because of the CBS News merger. And, you know, you had David Ellison, who obviously owns CBS News now, doing a dinner in Trump's honor last night. So, I think he sees this as a much friendlier crowd in all sorts of ways than he did in previous years.

KEILAR: And he's been in the room before, not as president, but, of course, back in 2011 when then-President Obama made some jokes at his expense. I think we all remember that. That predated your joke-writing tenure by a year. But I wonder what you're watching for in the tone of jokes as Trump takes the stage.

LITT: I would be shocked if President Trump doesn't take some shots at people he doesn't like, and the list is very long. I think the real question is going to be, does he try to balance that with something charming? Obviously, I'm a Democrat. I'm not a big fan of President Trump. Everyone I know who's met him in person says he's very charming. You hear that sometimes about politicians.

This is his opportunity to show it. J.D. Vance, interestingly, said President Trump is the -- has the best sense of humor of any American politician. This is an opportunity to prove it. And so, the question will be, as you said, the White House has billed this as a speech that will be entertaining for all of us. That's possible. Or it's possible that President Trump will do what he likes to do best and really speak to his base and we'll see what happens.

SANCHEZ: So, you mentioned the magician. I think he goes by mentalist. It's Oz Pearlman. He -- he's sort of a -- it's hard to describe what he does. He sort of guesses what's going on in your brain, right? And I -- I wonder what you make of that choice.

LITT: Well, I guess you're not a mentalist as you don't know. I think -- so, I think the choice -- and first of all, this is nothing against Oz Pearlman or mentalists or magicians or whatever, which I think are very fun. It's more that the Correspondents' Dinner, to the extent it had value as an institution, partly was about showcasing the idea that the President of the United States was willing to sit there and be made fun of, right? I mean, you saw George W. Bush do this when Colbert took the stage, but also President Obama. And I remember Jimmy Kimmel saying, you know, there's a term for that kind of guy. Not two terms, but President Obama obviously wanted to win a second term. I don't think he was thrilled to hear that everyone laughing at that joke, but he took it, he was able to be thick-skinned about it.

And I do think it's a very big shift that now you have the President, who I'm sure is going to make fun of people he does not care for, but instead of demonstrating that in a free country, the President is supposed to be able to take a joke, we're going to demonstrate the opposite. I do think that's unfortunate.

KEILAR: Okay, and if that is in the interest of all Americans, then I would ask you to think about what you would write for President Trump if you were writing a joke for tomorrow night that you think kind of serves a greater purpose, but is also perhaps hilarious. I mean, is there any -- like, what would you -- what would you write?

LITT: Well, I would actually point to the end of the President's monologue traditionally for presidents of both parties as the part that serves a greater purpose, because that's a moment for the President historically to -- to say publicly that, yes, the relationship between the President and the press is adversarial, but the First Amendment is important. Reporters give the President a hard time, but that's not a bad thing. That doesn't make them the enemy of the people. We need that for our democracy to work. So, I would put that in. I strongly suspect that President Trump would probably edit that out, but I would at least try.

And when it comes to jokes, I think the other thing that is useful for politicians, sometimes it's nice to be able to joke about things that aren't going so well. I mean, there were moments when our poll numbers were not great in the Obama White House, and we'd address it with a joke, trying to say, hey, you know, we get it, but we're going to get through this. And the only problem with that is if you're going to joke about subpar circumstances, you have to be willing to acknowledge that those circumstances exist.

So, I think that would actually be good for the White House politically, but again, I'm not sure that that would make it past the draft stage.

SANCHEZ: David Litt, thank you so much for joining us. I'll try to use my mentalist powers to guess what you're going to say next. Thank you.

LITT: All right. You -- you got, okay, you know what? Maybe you should be a ...

SANCHEZ: Here we go.

LITT: ... performing at the White House Correspondents' Dinner tomorrow. Thank you (INAUDIBLE) ...

SANCHEZ: I don't know. I don't know about that. We're on the right path. Thank you so much, David, appreciate you.

Coming up, why investigators believe a near $2 million armored truck heist in Philadelphia was an inside job. The details in just moments.

[15:19:53]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:24:32]

SANCHEZ: So, an armed robbery that took place in Philadelphia this week is now getting more and more intriguing. There's a chance it could have been an inside job. That's something that's being raised today after two suspects made off of nearly $2 million from a Brinks armored truck. Circumstances surrounding the theft have officials wondering whether the masked crew had help before it went down.

KEILAR: CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller is with us now. John, what are you learning about this?

[15:25:00]

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, Boris and Brianna, the FBI has taken the lead in this case. And one of the things that they're asking questions about is something unusual that day. This truck was carrying more money than the normal protocol, more money than it would have carried on a normal day. And that is how robbers got away with $1.8 million. They had five bags full in that vehicle.

So, the question that federal investigators are trying to get to the bottom of was, did they have that information? How did they know to target that truck on that day at its first stop when it would have the most amount of cash on hand? And one of the potential answers to that, the history of armored car robberies have -- robberies have shown us again and again and again, is the potential that they had inside information, either from a current or former employee who had access to sensitive data from Brinks.

SANCHEZ: And John, what is Brinks now saying about this?

MILLER: Well, Brinks is very careful not to comment on what amount of money it had or what the procedures were or anything like that. And they say that is because that is for the safety of their employees and operations. So, they're not saying anything other than they are working very closely with the FBI to solve this case.

Danny Freeman, our reporter in Philadelphia who covered this robbery himself, did mention that he interviewed a witness who said every day that car stops in front of the check cashing place and they load all that money in. And then, on this particular day, the individual he spoke to, a shopkeeper, said, I'd never seen them park across the street in the bus lane and walk all of that distance before.

So, there's a lot of angles they're going to be looking at. But there is a long history of armored car people, former employees, current employees being involved in these things, either supplying information or sometimes directly involved when you talk about the biggest robberies. One of the things they're looking at here is what other armored car robberies might this crew be behind? There have been a number where they've targeted smaller deliveries to ATM machines, but nothing on this level.

SANCHEZ: John Miller, thank you so much for that update.

So, there's been a striking announcement by the Department of Justice today. It is expanding the methods of execution for federal death penalty cases to include death by firing squad. Right now, five states allow death by firing squad for those convicted of the death penalty who have exhausted the appeal process. In March, a South Carolina man convicted of a double murder became the fourth person to be put to death by firing squad since the 1970s.

We're joined now by death penalty expert, Corinna -- Corinna Barrett Lain. She's the author of "Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection." Also, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Corinna, thanks so much for being with us.

What is your reaction to this news?

CORINNA BARRETT LAIN, DEATH PENALTY EXPERT: I mean, I think in part, it's a move of desperation. It's a reflection of how difficult executions are by lethal injection to get the drugs, to carry them out in some sort of competent manner. I think also though, it is a move towards explicit brutality. The one benefit of lethal injection is that people could tell themselves that these people are sort of drifting off to forever sleep. That will no longer be the case with execution by firing squad. The state's violence will be explicit.

SANCHEZ: Is there an argument to be made that a firing squad is perhaps a more humane method of execution because there have been repeatedly stories reported out about lethal injection, for example, not working the way that it's designed to?

LAIN: That's absolutely true. The -- the botch rate for lethal injection is somewhere between seven and 8 percent. It's double all of the other methods because it's so complicated. Firing squad, by contrast, is one of the simplest ways to execute. And, you know, as far as humane, I mean, I could say it's faster. I mean, it's -- you're being shot to death. You're being shot to death. So, I don't know about humane. I suppose it depends on how you define it, but definitely it would be faster than the average death by lethal injection, which is running now around 18 minutes, so -- so you have that. I think though, at the same time, it's more difficult for the executioners and for what we're asking them to do.

[15:29:53]

SANCHEZ: Yes, because there -- there's a burden on members of the firing squad and some of the states that have this as a method of execution take steps to try to limit the actual knowledge or awareness of those pulling the trigger about who actually committed the execution, right?