Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Comey Makes Brief Federal Court Appearance After New Indictment; Powell Says He'll Stay on Fed Board Once Chairmanship Ends; Supreme Court Limits Reach of Voting Rights Act Ahead of Midterms; Hegseth Testifies on Capitol Hill for 1st Time Since Iran War Began; Hegseth Rejects Dem Rep's Claim Iran War is a "Quagmire" 3- 3:30p ET

Aired April 29, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The suspect shoved the other victim against a sign before stabbing them multiple times. The Metropolitan Police say that the wounded men are ages 76 and 34.

And a new U.S. report finds 1.2 million people in Lebanon are now expected to face acute hunger because of the Iran war. That is nearly a quarter of the country's population. This is a report coming as Israel continues to carry out strikes in Lebanon despite a ceasefire.

And Liv Golf, postponing an event originally scheduled for this summer in New Orleans, moving it to later this year. The announcement coming amid growing speculation about the future of the Saudi-backed operation. Liv Golf told the Associated Press the move was a quote strategic decision. A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Comey back in court. The former FBI director surrendering to federal authorities and appearing in court. He's accused of threatening President Trump because of a photo of seashells he posted last year.

Plus, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have grilled on Capitol Hill, discussing the cost of the war $25 billion, he says, and counting questioning whether the Strait of Hormuz could be reopened.

And a blow to the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court throwing out one state's congressional map, a decision that could have big implications for all states and who will control Congress after the midterms.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

Breaking news to CNN, former FBI director James Comey appearing in federal court for the first time since getting indicted again by the Justice Department. Prosecutors are charging him with a new set of crimes because of a social media post they say threatened President Trump. Officials are pointing to this photo that Comey posted on Instagram last year, showing seashells on a beach spelling out 86 47. Prosecutors say that is a clear threat since Trump is the 47th president, 86 can refer to getting rid of something. Comey says he is innocent. President Trump does not agree. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You know, 86, you know, 86 it's a mob term for kill him, you know? You ever see in the movies, 86 him? The mobster says to one of his wonderful associates 86 him. That means kill him. It's -- I think of it as a mob term. I don't know if -- people think of it as something having to do with disappearing. But the mob uses that term to say when they want to kill somebody, they say 86 the son of a gun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: CNN Crime and Justice Correspondent Katelyn Polantz joins us now.

And Katelyn, you were just outside the courtroom when Comey surrendered to authorities. What are you hearing about what happened?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Boris, it only took about five minutes to get through this hearing today. It was an initial appearance against this new set of criminal charges. Two charges, one including threatening the life of the president with that seashell post on Instagram a year ago. There wasn't a pleading at this time for Comey. He was just facing his charges for the first time in the eastern district of Virginia court.

The case is going to move now to North Carolina, but we got a little taste of what that might be like. And guess what? It's going to be a redux in some ways of the case Comey was putting on as his defense like he didn't in the previous charges he faced, which were perjury counts. That case was ultimately dismissed out of EDVA a couple months ago.

What his defense lawyers told the judge today is they're going to file a motion saying that the Justice Department has singled him out unfairly and illegally in prosecuting him this time. They made that argument before saying that the only reason he was facing perjury charges was because Donald Trump really hated him. It ended up never getting ruled on because the case went away before that, but that is the plan again. That motion will come back into play here.

There's also an indication that Comey's team wants to make sure the Justice Department and the administration, the Trump administration, protects all of their records. There's been some changes legally that the Justice Department has made about how they maintain presidential records. We could see some really interesting arguments over that ...

SANCHEZ: Yes.

POLANTZ: ... as Comey fights this case, but this is going to be a different court ultimately, even though this court he was in today is one he had been in before. They even said at one point when the Justice Department spoke up and said, you know, we -- we want to put some bail terms on him to release him under bail conditions, and the judge said we don't need that. We've already been here before, but, Eastern District of North Carolina, New Bern, North Carolina, that courthouse, a very different bench, a very different set of judges, and potentially a very different jury pool if it gets to that.

[15:05:13]

SANCHEZ: We'll see it does get there. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: We have breaking news, Fed Chair Jerome Powell says he will stay on the Federal Reserve Board as a governor once he leaves the chairmanship in mid-May. Powell noted that his decision comes after the Justice Department dropped the criminal case against him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: I'm encouraged by recent developments and I'm watching the remaining steps in this process carefully. After my term as chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined. I plan to keep a low profile as a governor. There's only ever one chair of the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin Warsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will be that chair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: We're joined now by Rick Newman, business columnist and founder at The Pinpoint Press.

All right, Rick, how unusual is this? It's unusual.

RICK NEWMAN, BUSINESS COLUMNIST & FOUNDER, THE PINPOINT PRESS: I mean, if you're a Fed watcher, I think it's hard to figure out when was the last time this happened. And what Powell is basically doing, normally, he -- when he's done with being the chair, which his term expires on May 15, he would remain as a governor. In other words, one of the 12 policymaking people who votes on interest rates until President Trump replaces him. But he's saying he's not going to give up that seat, which is what the chair normally does when he retires.

Once the chair retires, he retires for good. He doesn't stay on in a lesser role. But Powell has a prerogative to do that and he's basically saying he's going to do that until it is 100 percent clear that Trump and his prosecutors are not going to pursue this case, which is clearly a bogus case, against him and against the Federal Reserve, which -- which pretty clearly Trump is just doing only because he wanted the Fed to cut interest rates more than they did during this last, call it, 15-month period.

So, Powell is basically saying when it's a hundred percent clear, that this case is gone and there's no chance that it -- that it is going to come back, then I will leave. And that's the point at which Trump will get to appoint his replacement. So\, the important thing for markets here is Powell is kind of a normie. I mean, the markets like Powell. He's not going to vote for any kind of crazy interest rate cuts when they shouldn't be happening. Trump's one appointee, Stephen Miran, he's already doing that. He's the only person on the board saying, hey, we should be cutting interest rates even though inflation is going up. None of the other -- other policymakers think that. So, Trump might get a chance to appoint another person who wants to

cut rates, but it will still not be close to a majority of that 12- member board.

KEILAR: Yes. What did you think about how he really went there saying the legal actions are unprecedented? These are ongoing threats. He worries they are, quote, battering the institution and putting at risk the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors. And do you think that his staying on will actually curb that?

NEWMAN: Powell was feisty. He -- he has not backed down. And he -- he has stood up to President Trump before this, basically saying these -- these -- these attacks are completely unwarranted. There's nothing to them. Markets believe that. I think most people looking at the situation say what -- what the Fed has done with regard to interest rates has been more or less appropriate during the last 15-month -- months.

And, you know, there's a cost overrun at a -- at a renovation project for a Federal Reserve project, just as there are with every Federal contract. I mean, you know, the Trump administration should try to prosecute every cost overrun, and then you'd run out of prosecutors. So, Powell went out feisty. And one notable thing is he didn't wait for reporters to ask him about this. He said it in his prepared remarks. And then, you know, this is sort of like reading -- reading the room.

So, then, when a reporter asked a follow-up question on that, Powell read from a statement. He had prepared a remark. And the reason he would do that is he wants -- he wants to answer correctly, but he wants to be sure he's not going to say anything off the cuff that might move markets in a way that he doesn't want to do. So, that tells you Powell thought a lot about this before this event took place today. And he's pushing back hard against Trump.

KEILAR: Yes, really deliberate, as we've seen him be before. Rick, great to have you. Thank you so much.

NEWMAN: Thanks, guys. See you.

KEILAR: Still to come in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court limits a civil rights era law in a way that could limit minority representation in Congress. After the break, we're asking the lawyer who argued the case, what this could mean for the future of voting rights.

Plus, Hegseth in the hot seat. We have more on the back and forth between Hegseth and members of Congress over the war with Iran.

And then later, call it the right place at the right time.

[15:10:00]

Two paramedics describe what it was like to deliver a baby thousands of feet in the air. That and much more coming up on CNN News Central.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:14:33]

SANCHEZ: We're following a major decision from the Supreme Court, one that alters the interpretation of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and could have a big impact on this year's midterm elections. The Court's conservative majority tossing out a congressional map that created Louisiana's second black majority and Democratic-led district in a state whose congressional delegation is overwhelmingly Republican. The decision will make it harder to prove discrimination in redistricting. Louisiana's governor praised the ruling.

[15:15:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN LUTHER KING III, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: This is certainly a tremendously tragic ruling and ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: That obviously is the wrong soundbite. Nevertheless, earlier we spoke with civil rights activist Martin Luther King III, who you saw there. The son of one of the key architects of the Voting Rights Act, and he said that today's ruling leaves the landmark legislation hanging by a thread. Let's discuss with Janai Nelson. She's the president of the Legal Defense Fund. She personally argued this case before the Supreme Court. Janai, thank you so much for being with us.

First, what is your reaction to this ruling? How do you see it affecting the future of the Voting Rights Act?

JANAI NELSON, PRESIDENT, LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: Well, this ruling is an abomination. We -- we knew that there was a strong possibility that the court would continue its march to destroy the Voting Rights Act. We hoped that better angels would prevail, and it would recognize that not only would this undermine the constitutional principles that undergird the Voting Rights Act, but it would also call into question the court's own credibility.

But nonetheless, a 6-3 majority effectively reversed a decision that it issued a mere three years ago, and it has destroyed one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation this country has ever known, the one that gave birth to our multiracial democracy. So, this is a devastating decision, and it's something that every American should take extremely seriously. It's not just about the Louisiana voters who courageously pursued this challenge. It's about all Americans who hope to vote on fair maps and who now have to worry about those maps being infected by race discrimination and compromising the very bodies that we elect to govern us.

SANCHEZ: Help us understand exactly how the court is reading Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, because that's at the center of this, the idea that a state, when it draws these districts, the intent of the state as Congress rewrote the bill in -- in the '80s, doesn't matter as much as the consequence, right? But here the Court is essentially undoing what Congress did in the 1980s.

NELSON: That's exactly right. So, when the Voting Rights Act was passed, it wasn't meant to address just intentional discrimination. We know that there are many ways to manipulate the electorate. There are many ways to discriminate where you can't prove intent, even though all the indicia may be there. And we also care about just the impact of different voters having different opportunities in our electoral system because of or on account of, which is what the Voting Rights Act says, their race.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

NELSON: That's anathema to a multiracial democracy that's based on the principles of equal protection and fairness. So, what the court did was not only trample on those sacrosanct principles, but it also trampled on Congress' powers, because Congress made it very clear in 1982, when it amended the Voting Rights Act, that intentional discrimination was not necessary in order to establish a claim under Section 2. And now, the Court has effectively resurrected that, violating Congress's authority and undermining this historic piece of legislation.

So, we should have ...

SANCHEZ: So ...

NELSON: ... grave concerns about the actions that the Court took today.

SANCHEZ: So, what would you say to Justice Alito when he argues that race cannot be used in government decision making without a compelling interest and that -- and that they didn't rewrite or -- or undo Section 2, that they just simply updated it?

NELSON: You know, I would say that not only is that statement disingenuous, it is very deceptive. What the Court did with -- with no pulling of punches, the court dealt a death blow to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. There may be a few cases that can still be litigated under Section 2. There is theoretical and -- and -- and academic ideas about ways that you could continue to use Section 2. But really, what the court did was take the Voting Rights Act, which was already a shredded shield, and turn it into scrap metal.

It has left the American electorate vulnerable to racial discrimination that will run as rampant as partisan gerrymandering has in overtaking our democracy. And that has all been at the invitation of the Supreme Court, from the Rucho versus Common Cause decision, which invited partisan gerrymandering, to this decision now, today, Louisiana versus Callais, which allows for rampant racial discrimination in the drawing of our electoral maps.

[15:20:02]

SANCHEZ: And -- and so, what recourse do minority voters now have? Is the only option now for Congress to, again, rework the Voting Rights Act? NELSON: Well, we still have our Constitution. We have the 14th and

15th Amendments, which we will continue to enforce vigorously. But I will note that because of Supreme Court doctrine, it is extremely difficult to win a claim under either of those two amendments directly. So, yes, right now, the solution is with the people. The power is still in our right to vote, which has been diminished. It has been denigrated, but it hasn't disappeared. We still own that right. We all can cast a ballot and help to elect representatives who care about our Constitution, who care about our multiracial democracy, and care about putting the necessary protections and guardrails that will ensure that every voter in this country has an equal -- has equal access to the ballot and has a vote that will be cast and counted and weighted equally. That's the democracy that we strive for, and that's what the Supreme Court has put in peril today.

SANCHEZ: Janai Nelson, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate you sharing your perspective.

NELSON: Thank you for having me.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still to come, a fiery hearing on Capitol Hill. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushing back on lawmakers calling the war with Iran a quagmire. More on that heated moment and others next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:26:18]

KEILAR: Right now, on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is appearing before the House Armed Services Committee. He's facing questions on a host of issues that include the Trump administration's stated reasons for launching the war with Iran, its endgame for the conflict and the rising cost to taxpayers. Listen to this fiery response from the secretary after Democratic Congressman John Garamendi called the war a quagmire that the U.S. is stuck in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Shame on you. Calling this a quagmire two months in. The effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield that could create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran and you call it a quagmire handing propaganda to our enemies. Shame on you for that statement. And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say I support the troops on one hand and then a two- month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivalation. Who are you cheering for here?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN Senior National Security Reporter Zachary Cohen is with us now. Zach, your biggest takeaways so far.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, just -- with that exchange with Congressman Garamendi, where -- it's a pretty consistent thing we've seen from Hegseth during these minimal public appearances he's had so far where he takes criticism of his policies as secretary of defense and tries to recast them as criticism of the troops, which are not the same thing. And Garamendi also went out of his way to compliment the U.S. service members who've been participating in these missions, say that they've been doing what their country needed them to do. So, but that's a distinction that Hegseth tries to sort of conjure as reality.

Another takeaway is really the cost figure here. This is one of the first times we've heard the Pentagon officially say what the war in Iran has cost so far, $25 billion. And that is roughly about a billion dollars a day, give or take. A lot more was spent in the beginning of the war. Obviously, we're in a period of ceasefire now. But still, that cost figure and the domestic impact of this conflict are really two things that Hegseth wanted to try to avoid talking about during this hearing. He was pushed by multiple members of the Democratic Party to really sort of acknowledge the price of gas increasing here for people at home.

Hegseth, again, tried to turn the attack back on the lawmakers, essentially calling some of them unpatriotic for questioning the President's decision making and his, ultimately, his decision to launch this conflict. And the other part of this is the timeline. We've been asking for some sort of a timeline about when this conflict will end. The President initially put it at four to six months. That was sort of the working model we had ...

KEILAR: Four to six weeks.

COHEN: ... four to six weeks ...

KEILAR: Yes.

COHEN: ... excuse me. That was sort of the working model at the -- at the front end. We are now over two months into this war. And Hegseth was unable to articulate what the timeline going forward might look like. And that kind of brings you to the last issue, which is, how could this get resolved? And we heard the President today and Hegseth both reiterating that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. But that highly enriched uranium remains underneath Iran's nuclear facilities, buried underground. There is no indication the Iranians are going to willingly give that up at this stage without some sort of compensation, at least.

And so, that is a really sticking point for the negotiators that are trying to reach a deal, but also the threat of military strikes, additional military strikes still is out there.

KEILAR: Yes. When they're not hitting their own mark, it would be so strange to not ask a question about it, right?

COHEN: Absolutely.

KEILAR: The questions that lawmakers are asking, we should also note, are the ones that service members cannot ask, right? They take orders. The press asks questions. Policymakers ask questions. COHEN: Absolutely. It's their constituents in a lot of cases. And we

heard that from Sara Jacobs, who represents a district with a lot of service members in it. And we've heard repeated questions on behalf of service members by lawmakers, Hegseth still not really willing to answer them.

[15:30:01]

KEILAR: Yes. She has so many deployed Marines from her district and also a lot who are on standby ...

COHEN: Absolutely.

KEILAR: ... in case they have to go. I think 10s of thousands of people ...