Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

King Charles Makes Historic Speech To Joint Meeting Of Congress; UAE Upends OPEC by Quitting Oil Production Cartel; Arrest Warrant Issued For James Comey After Latest Indictment; King Charles Makes Historic Speech To Joint Meeting Of Congress. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 28, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:09]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": The closing bell is ringing on Wall Street. 3M doing the business. You see from the

numbers the Dow, well, it is not been a terribly exciting day. In fact, we sort of tootle our way to the end. All the other indices are lower. Not

hugely. It is just one of those days.

And come along, sir. Bring trading to a close. Oh, Lord! He is pulling it out, and a one and a two and a one, two, three, four.

Trading is over. Much for us to talk about.

These are the events of the day: It was an extraordinary address by King Charles III as he reminded a Joint Meeting of Congress the importance of

NATO, the rule of law and the checks on executive power.

The U.S. Justice Department is indicting the former FBI director, James Comey again according to sources.

You're going to hear from the acting U.S. Attorney General any moment.

And Croatia's Prime Minister will be with me during the hour to discuss his push to reduce the region's reliance on Russian energy. The 3Cs initiative.

You and I, together for the next hour. I am live in New York. It is Tuesday, it is April the 28th. Richard Quest and I mean business.

Good evening.

Let me just advise you where were going. Shortly, the Acting U.S. Attorney General is going to speak, hopefully at that podium, where he will explain

why the Justice Department is, again indicting former FBI Director James Comey according to various leaks.

Apparently, it is all to do with this photo that Comey posted on Instagram last May. They are seashells spelling out 86 47, which according to

critics, means taking out or killing -- taking out or killing President Trump and that's what they say, we will discuss how and why.

This marks the second attempt to prosecute one of Donald Trump's largest political opponents.

But we will start tonight with the bonds between the U.S. and U.K. are unbreakable was the message from King Charles III speaking to a joint

session of Congress.

His address was met with bipartisan response. Both sides cheering and laughing at the various jokes His Majesty made.

The King highlighted the two countries shared democratic values and whilst of avoiding overt partisan subjects, he touched on the importance of NATO

supporting Ukraine and the limits of executive power.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES III, KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme

Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: It was a busy day. Their Majesties visited The White House for the formal, traditional arrival ceremony. They will return to The White House

later tonight for a State Dinner.

Kevin Liptak is at The White House. Bidisha Mamata is a Royal watcher and has been following the events.

I will start with you, Kevin. I was surprised at the -- not just the cerebral nature of this address -- democracy, the rule of law, Magna Carta

and onwards, but basically reminding everybody, don't forget who your friends are and the U.S. is important.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: I think that's exactly right.

I thought it was a remarkable speech, and you know, so often when you're talking about one of the Royals delivering a message, you have to have kind

of a careful ear to understand what they are saying and the point they're trying to make.

You didn't really need to listen that very, very closely to this speech to understand some of what he was saying and it was a message that I think was

targeted both to the Republicans in the room, but also to President Trump when he is talking about NATO and specifically talking about how it has

been the United States is the only country that has invoked Article V of that Charter after 9/11.

Of course, President Trump has spent the last several weeks saying that if it came to it, NATO would not be alongside the United States if they asked

for help. King Charles here is saying that that has already happened, and NATO was there for the United States and then, he is talking about Ukraine

as well, saying that that same unyielding resolve has to be there for Ukraine as it fights this battle with Russia at a moment when President

Trump could be questioning American support for that country.

[16:05:10]

So quite a pointed message in this speech and the response in the room was overwhelmingly positive, even among some of the President's closest allies,

which I think may be surprised King Charles, who is wondering if he delivered these lines that were so clearly intended to land in a way that

President Trump understood how they would respond, and it was an overwhelmingly positive response inside that room.

QUEST: Bidisha, not by accident, the King mentioned his naval service and let's not forget President Trump calling the U.K.'s carriers toys.

He also specifically mentioned a meeting that he had had with, "His Prime Minister," knowing, of course, the bad blood that there currently exists.

None of this is by accident, is it?

BIDISHA MAMATA, ROYAL WATCHER: Absolutely none of it is 100 percent by design, and I thought that was really quite a startingly direct side diss

to Keir Starmer, "My Prime Minister."

But in a weird way, if you take a centuries' long view, not untrue. I agree with the analysis we have heard of the King's speech so far. I do think it

was remarkably pointed. He was saying to President Trump and also to the rest of the world, no individual is above the law, no individual has enough

power to match what they think they would like in an ideal world, we live in the real world where community and alliances matter and where simple

things like laws and conventions matter.

Even his manner of address very self-controlled, very self-aware, quite low key and yet powerfully hitting the mark says something in itself and we

know from President Trump's earlier speech directed towards King Charles, that he admires Charles for his elegance and dapperness. So, I think they

landed.

QUEST: Kevin, the one thing -- as I was listening in my office, one thing I learned, it was a gentle reminder, but very direct to the United States

overall. He said, what you say matters in the world. It was a reminder to the U.S. that it is the leader and sort of the values that we've all shared

are worth fighting on for.

LIPTAK: Right and I think he was trying to instill in President Trump, who said earlier today that he would be watching this speech very closely, the

sense that he is a leader in the world and that there are attributes of leaders that he would do well to mirror. And I thought it was interesting

when he talked about the alliance and how it can't rest on past accomplishments or assume foundational principles simply endure, reminding

the President that all of this that he is talking about requires maintenance. It is not something that just upholds itself.

And also reminding the people in the room, you know, there have been so many questions about why Republicans, specifically in Congress, seem to

have abandoned some of their constitutional responsibilities, the separation of power, the checks and balances they seem to have allowed

President Trump extraordinarily wide leeway in going about some of these executive decisions that he has carried out.

I think that was a reminder to them as well as to the President of this responsibility that they hold. We will see how it goes over with President

Trump. You know, he has such affinity for King Charles, that I think even if some of these messages were very pointed, he does have relatively wide

leeway to make them just given what he knows about how President Trump feels about him.

QUEST: I am going to let you get back to your duties, Kevin. You get back to work. I am staying on with Bidisha because we are going to dig into the

Royal bits of it all.

This was very carefully constructed. The whole visit has been one of -- I mean, we've made a huge deal of the poor current relationship between the

two countries, but I got the impression that the King was carrying a much heavier responsibility today.

MAMATA: I think that that is absolutely right and what we saw today was pageantry times ten. It was Trump Camelot. I looked at it, I thought, my

goodness, how many flags can you fit on a patio? And then I realized that they had interspersed the Stars and Stripes with the Union Jack.

And as Trump's very skillfully written speech indicated, it was red, white and blue. So, it was constantly reiterating, here are our commonalities.

This is what we have that bind us together. Because maintaining that special relationship is not an easy task.

[16:10:07]

At the end of the day, America is a gigantic, continent-sized country, and Great Britain is relatively tiny. It might have a lot of heft because of

history or cultural power or soft power or whatever we are calling it, but it takes things like finesse and a sense of longevity to maintain that

relationship.

QUEST: And just briefly, I mean, we really saw 60 years of knowing how to do the job. The Prince of Wales, for all that length of time. I mean, the

nuance, the subtlety, all the things back home over the years, he has been derided and people have talked about, but we saw the King at his very best,

I thought -- I thought anyway.

MAMATA: I completely agree with you. Let's not forget, he served an extremely long apprenticeship underneath the master, Elizabeth II, so he

has listened and learned.

QUEST: Yes. Thank you. Good to see you. We will talk more again as this trip goes on. I am grateful.

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: The UAE, one of the largest oil producers in OPEC is leaving OPEC. Now, this came as a surprise at one level, but any OPEC

watcher will have been well aware that the UAE has been unhappy for a long time.

In a moment, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: The United Arab Emirates is leaving OPEC and in doing so, delivering a blow to the organization and some of the country's neighbors in the

Middle East.

The OPEC nations are roughly a third of the world's oil production. Then you've got OPEC+ by the way, which includes Russia and they coordinate

output to influence its price. It is a classic cartel.

The UAE is one of the cartel's largest producers, along with Saudi and Iraq. The three are now arguably in competition. The UAE's Energy Minister

explained to Becky the world simply needs more oil.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUHAIL AL MAZROUEI, UAE ENERGY MINISTER: Looking at what is happening as well to the Strait of Hormuz and the level of withdrawal from the strategic

reserve. This would require a different move. This would require us to look at the future with an eye on growth. And we need, as the whole world need

more energy, we need to be unconstrained.

[16:15:02]

We need to be looking at it from a perspective that serves not only the producers, but also looking at it from a perspective of looking at helping

the consuming nations.

Many of those nations, companies are investing with us and trusting to invest with us here in the --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: All right, Eleni is with me. Eleni Giokos joins me from Dubai.

Look, the UAE has been very unhappy with its quota, and in fact, they did get an increase in quota, but this leaving arguably throws the baby out

with the bathwater. Because if they do produce more, then obviously the price goes down and everybody suffers. So what is really going on here?

ELENI GIOKOS, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, it is unprecedented times an if you look at where oil prices right now currently

stand, and you've got around 700 million barrels of oil that has been removed from the market because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, it

is really no surprise that the UAE has taken this action.

And frankly, Richard, we have seen reports consistently over the last few years that the UAE has been unhappy with OPEC and the overall quotas that

have been given to the likes of the UAE.

But interestingly, in the announcement today, and I have to say this because this really gives you a sort of an idea of how the UAE feels about

quotas. They say: During our time in the organization, we made significant contributions and even greater sacrifices for the benefit of all.

Now, the UAE's quota is around 3.4 million barrels of oil per day. They've invested enormously to increase capacity to five million barrels of oil per

day, and they clearly wanted to see a move on quotas, and that has not happened.

But remember that even if they do get to five million barrels of oil per day, we are talking about a postwar scenario. We are talking about the

opening of the Strait of Hormuz and tanker traffic back to normal levels.

QUEST: Let me jump in, though. By doing what they are doing, you know, in the Arab World, in the Gulf World, they are always talking about my brother

and my brother and I will help you, my brother, my brother -- Habibi and on and on.

But what they've just done is pull the rug out from under the whole old thing.

GIOKOS: Exactly, they have. And now, this brings into question the fate of OPEC. You know, are other countries going to follow suit? Now, there is a

political undercurrent to this, absolutely, and you're right to say that.

Saudi Arabia is the de facto leader of OPEC. The UAE is around the third or fourth largest oil producing nation within OPEC.

This ends a 60-year relationship. This is an end of an era between OPEC and the UAE. Now, I've spoken to some analysts and also some oil producing

companies and they say that's the big fear. If the UAE is moving away, could others follow suit?

So I think politically, it is going to be interesting and I also have to say, a few years ago, President Trump said that OPEC is ripping off the

world. You mentioned OPEC+, that includes countries like Russia. That is apparently where the contention started coming in and there were really

major concerns about the control that OPEC had over supply, as well as the oil price.

So, how this is going to land is going to be really interesting. But everyone is watching very closely because frankly, Richard, this is a

bombshell announcement at a time where we are experiencing, you know, the largest energy crisis in the history of markets, and now, the very thing

that has frankly defined the oil price for decades is in question.

QUEST: Right.

GIOKOS: So, you know, the UAE says it wants to focus on its own local interests, so it is a big one.

QUEST: Thank you. Eleni Giokos in Dubai. Grateful.

Now, OPEC was formed in 1960. The significant role cannot be understated. Saudi Arabia is the most powerful member, it was one of the five founding

members. The UAE joined seven years later, and the group controls around a third of the supply.

It has been used and it is used as leverage, 1970s oil embargo, most famously, the Arab OPEC members cut production, banned exports to the U.S.,

Netherlands, Portugal and South Africa because of their support for Israel. It caused the most enormous crisis, and ever since then, OPEC has always --

also, they all cheat. I mean, all the OPEC members have cheating on their various quotas to a certain extent, the slippage and leakage, as they call

it.

The departure of the UAE is likely to diminish the group.

John Defterios is my former colleague with decades of experience. He knows OPEC more than his honest or healthy as our emerging markets editor, now

senior advisor with APCO, a communications and consultancy firm. John is in Lisbon.

John, why would the -- knowing that, you know, if they produce more, price goes down, but they're not happy with OPEC and with their quota. Why would

they do something so destructive to OPEC and in such a fashion like today?

JOHN DEFTERIOS, SENIOR ADVISOR, APCO: I don't think they see it, Richard, as destructive. I spoke to one senior adviser to the UAE in the last two

hours.

[16:20:10]

He said let's describe it as strategic autonomy, the ability to make its own decisions going forward. This has been in kind of the rumor mill for

the last three or four years and the UAE was actually considering making this decision beforehand.

For those of us who like to read the smoke signals, and I just came back from the region this morning, I was in the UAE and Riyadh for the last

week, I heard hints of a realignment by the UAE, and I would kind of lean in and suggest this may be the first of other decisions by the UAE going

forward.

I think the smoke signals were the fact that there was a GCC Summit in Jeddah today. The president of the UAE did not attend. He sent the Foreign

Minister/Deputy Prime Minister to that meeting. So many read a lot into that, that this decision was happening on the day of the GCC Summit and I

think, Richard, they feel handcuffed in this current situation, as Suhail Al Mazrouei was suggesting in his interview.

They've made a lot of contributions and a lot of sacrifice and being capped at 3.3 million to 3.4 million barrels a day. Just think about this number

here. At 3.3 million barrels a day, at $90.00 a barrel, they make a lot less than they would at five million barrels a day. In fact, it is a $50

billion difference between 3.3 and five million barrels a day. That's the bottom line.

QUEST: Okay, two things though, John. Firstly, I agree, the UAE has spent a great deal of money on its infrastructure and it has invested hugely and

wants to get a return, but its cost of production is relatively low, overall.

Getting that money back, isn't this about getting market share at the cost of other OPEC members by doing this? But the risk, of course, is that if

not a price collapse, you certainly have a downward pressure because of your pumping more.

DEFTERIOS: Well, actually, I think this fits into a very interesting discussion about how long oil demand will stay high before this conflict

that we saw in the Strait of Hormuz. Demand was projected at 104 million barrels a day.

I think this fits into the category of make hay while the sun is shining, Richard. The UAE sits on about nine percent of proven reserves. They see

demand holding up for at least until 2040, about a hundred million barrels a day. You see some projections that demand will drop to 80 million barrels

a day by 2050. So they are saying, let's frontload it right now, have the freedom to do so, and also, Richard, under the CEO, the group CEO of ADNOC,

Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, taking instructions from the President of the UAE, they wanted to invest billions of dollars not only in raw crude and having

a trading division, but to go downstream into petrochemicals where there are higher margins.

So they don't want to be constrained by OPEC or OPEC+ for that matter.

QUEST: Right. But ultimately, John, I mean that's a very interesting point you raise about front loading. As you say, make hay while the sun shines

now, but the U.S. becoming essentially the swing producer because it is so vast in its energy. You are essentially going to end up with internecine

warfare within the oil producing countries of the Gulf and everything that OPEC was originally designed to create is going to fall apart.

DEFTERIOS: Well, you raise a very interesting point. There have been strains within OPEC ever since the Shale Revolution taking place. So you

see the U.S. being the number one producer in the world. Last month, it was producing 13.5 million barrels a day. That's above Russia. It is above

Saudi Arabia, number two, number three in the world. That has profoundly changed the dynamics within OPEC right now and I know that the UAE position

has been, Richard, why are we sacrificing when the U.S. is getting more market share?

You talked about the low cost producer, onshore, we are looking at about $2.00 a barrel in the UAE. It is a low carbon producer as well in terms of

carbon capture and being efficient in that way and $4.00 offshore.

But I think their view is, why don't we have that independence right now? We also -- one other point here is they don't -- they are not really happy

at the pace the GCC is moving right now. They have a very different strategy, Richard and that is, for example, on free trade. The UAE has

signed 36 trade partnerships because the GCC hasn't moved fast enough.

So I think both with the GCC and the Arab League, we should start thinking differently of how the UAE sees that relationship and sees its future.

That's some of the discussions I've had over the last seven days.

QUEST: Right. John, good to see you, sir. Thank you very much. John Defterios with me, joining me tonight from Lisbon.

[16:25:05]

An arrest warrant has been issued by the Justice Department for the former FBI director, James Comey. It has got two accounts accusing him of making

threats to inflict bodily harm on President Trump.

It is all about this photograph of seashells arranged in the pattern of 86 47. It says a reasonable person familiar with the circumstances would

interpret the post as intent to do harm.

Gene Rossi is a former federal prosecutor. Even -- I mean, I am not totally familiar with the whole 86. I sort of know the slang version of it and why

it is, but this is -- this is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Richard, I am holding my tongue as a prosecutor for 27 years. I have to say this. I've seen a lot of bad

indictments. I've seen a lot of crazy indictments, but this one is at the top of the list, and it is exhibit one that Acting Attorney General Todd

Blanche is auditioning before a jury of one named Donald Trump.

I cannot believe that an indictment is based on, not words, not writings, but is in based on four numbers of seashells at a beach.

The whole world is just laughing at us right now because this is exhibit one of a vindictive prosecution, a selective prosecution and just an

example of the abuse of process that has now infested the hierarchy, not the line attorneys, but the hierarchy of the Department of Justice.

QUEST: Okay, all right, let me put the opposite point of view to you, bearing in mind that obviously intelligent men and women decided to do it.

Surely, we need to know what did Comey think he was doing when he posted that? Because obviously, there has to be intent. There has to be mens rea

as part of that.

And if he knew what that meant, you know, it means get rid of, get rid of, unavailable, throw out and then, you know, arguably there might be --

you're not buying that. You're not buying this, I can tell by the look on your face.

ROSSI: Richard, let me give you some law, okay? Because the law is important even in the United States. Brandenburg v Ohio, a 1969 case

involving the Ku Klux Klan and threats made against Congress, Black people, Jewish people, and Mr. Brandenburg made some vitriolic, vitriolic comments,

similar, I might add to the comments made by Donald Trump on January 6th of 2021 -- similar.

And what that case says is you have to have the intent to incite or produce imminent, imminent violence, that's number one. And number two, that your

comments will likely produce and incite imminent violence. Taking photos of seashells on a beach with four numbers that only about 10 percent of the

population know what they mean is not likely to cause any violence.

QUEST: And by the way -- by the way, because I've just asked ChatGPT to help me understand where this -- where it comes from and apparently there

is no real single definition, but it doesn't mean -- it just means to knock out, reject, or remove. It has got no connotation of violence per se.

Apparently, it goes back to speakeasies during prohibition, when they would say 86 and everybody would go out the back door or something like that.

So, the link to some weird concept of assassination is almost impossible to draw.

ROSSI: Well, Richard, guess what? You just gave the opening-closing for the defense team in this case that it is attenuated.

Listen, everybody, everybody on the planet in the United States, especially abhors violence and what that individual did last Saturday to take the life

of Donald Trump or attempt, I abhor that. That is intolerable. No president, any president should be subject to attempted assassination or be

killed. That is a nonstarter.

But to use seashells in a photo in an Instagram against the former director of the FBI, who voluntarily met with the FBI and was interviewed, to use

that as an indictment of two counts -- two counts -- that will take away his liberty because the president hates Jim Comey. That is categorically

wrong! Wrong!

QUEST: Gene, thank you for joining us. As we always say when we have a lawyer on the show, send the bill to the usual place. Thank you, sir. We

will take it on advisement.

As we continue tonight, just looking at that -- thank you, Gene -- just looking at that, I was thinking the old, what was it my grandmother used to

say, she sells seashells on the seashore. I am sure we can find something that we can put that to -- you get that idea.

It is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS tonight, what a busy day. So glad you're with us, our evening conversation on business economics, putting the world to

right if you will. Double energy shocks, diversifying, we will have the Prime Minister of Croatia who will be joining me. The Prime Minister Andrej

Plenkovic will tell me all about diversification of supply, in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:34:13]

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: President Trump, in the Eastern District of North Carolina where this case was indictment earlier today,

there are multiple threats cases very similar to this one including one where the defendant pled guilty recently to threatening former President

Biden, another one that's scheduled to go to trial this summer, another one indicted -- an individual was indicted for threatening Tom Homan.

I say that to say that while this case is unique, and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the

same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute.

I want to take a moment to thank the hardworking members of the FBI who investigated this case over the past 11 months or so.

[16:35:05]

The United States Secret Service who also assisted in this investigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of North

Carolina, led by United States Attorney Ellis Boyle, who's standing to my right.

This was an investigation that remains ongoing, that's been ongoing for about a year. And that's all we're going to say about it today. I will let

the U.S. Attorney Boyle speak now and then -- and after that, Director Patel. Thank you.

ELLIS BOYLE, U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Earlier today, a grand jury in the Eastern District

of North Carolina returned a true bill indicting Mr. James Comey with committing two felonies. Count one, he knowingly and willfully made a

threat to kill and to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 871(a). eight seven one a count two. He

knowingly and willfully transmitted in interstate and foreign commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill President Trump in violation

of 18 U.S.C. 875(c).

Mr. Comey will be given every form of due process all citizens are entitled to receive to include a trial by a jury of his peers. In the Eastern

District of North Carolina, it doesn't matter who you are. We take all threat cases seriously and prosecute anyone who violates federal law,

regardless of title or status. Thank you.

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Thank you. As you heard from the attorney general, the U.S. attorney, former FBI director James Comey, has now been

indicted for two felony counts. While many of you may read this indictment and view this matter as a simple investigation, it is the farthest thing

from that. Every single investigation this FBI and our partners at the Department of Justice undertake, especially those that involve the threats

to harm or hurt or even kill individuals, whether they hold public office or civilians in our country, are met with the same measure of investigative

prowess and tools and personnel and partnership with the Department of Justice, as anyone else.

As the U.S. attorney indicated, James Comey will be afforded every matter of due process under the United States Constitution. And as the attorney

general indicated, this has been a case that's been investigated over the past nine, 10, 11 months. These cases take time. Our investigators work

methodically. They are career agents, career prosecutors who work these matters. They call the balls and strikes in the field as they see fit

pursuant to the facts of the case and the law.

They took that information and made a presentment to a grand jury, a jury of their peers in the district in which the alleged crime took place, and

that grand jury spoke, and that grand jury returned a two-count indictment against James Comey. James Comey allegedly threatened the life of the

president of the United States. And as you all now know, shortly after posting that threat, he deleted that threat and then issued an apology.

All of that information was presented to the grand jury. And Mr. Comey will have his day in court and his ability to speak to a jury of his peers.

Thank you.

BLANCHE: Thank you. We'll just take a couple of questions.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. Attorney General, the Justice Department in this filing today also issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Comey. Is it your belief

that he is a continued public threat? And is there a request also for detention that you anticipate will be made in this case?

BLANCHE: So the Department of Justice does not issue arrest warrants. Grand juries do. And so the grand jury returned an indictment and arrest warrant.

I expect that there will be communication with Mr. Comey's counsel, and we'll go from there. This case will proceed like hundreds of others do

every year. There will be some sort of arraignment set by the judge or assigned to the magistrate judge. And when that happens, you'll know about

it.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But this is being handled differently from the last time he was indicted. That's my reference. In this case, the department

requested an arrest warrant. Right?

BLANCHE: Well, I don't think that it's public or clear what the department requested. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant. Go ahead. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sir, how will you prove intent when, as the director had acknowledged, Mr. Comey said he did not associate 86 with doing harm,

and he took it down promptly, said it was political speech, not an intent to harm the president.

[16:40:00]

BLANCHE: Well, it's not -- it's not -- this case was indicted today. This conduct occurred about a year ago, May 15th of last year. There has been a

tremendous amount of investigation. And how do you prove intent in any case? You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant

himself, to the extent -- to the extent it's appropriate. And that's how we'll prove intent in this and so I think that talking about talking about

what Mr. Comey will or will not do, if there's a trial, when there's a trial, is not -- is very premature for me to do that today.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: General Blanche, I want to ask you a quick question about, there's a number of other different types of conduct Comey has been

accused of over the past. One of them is abuse of FISA warrants. I wanted to ask if there's anything that we can talk about today with regards to

that. On a separate matter, can I ask anymore updates about the ballistics forensic analysis with the shooting that happened over the weekend?

BLANCHE: So on the first question, no. Nothing else to report about any investigations or anything involving Mr. Comey except the indictment that

was returned today by the grand jury. I don't have anything further to talk about with the ballistics that are still being analyzed. And I said it all

yesterday, and every law enforcement member who is speaking on this issue is saying the same thing as they should, which is that this is an ongoing

investigation with really, really smart experts trying to understand what happened in that shooting and where the bullets went and ended up and where

the bullets came from. And once that is at a place where we can definitively say, to the extent we can definitively say, we will -- we will

let you know.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Director Comey posted this almost a year ago. Why bring this case now? Did you always feel like this was a strong

prosecution, or did something change recently?

BLANCHE: This investigation just didn't come now. It's the result of a lot of work by law enforcement over the past year. We don't time when we bring

-- when we bring cases around anything other than when the investigation is at a place where we should go to the grand jury. And that's exactly what we

did in this case, as well.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: As a former FBI director, you may not agree with what he did. Should he be able to turn himself in as a former FBI director?

He's not a flight risk.

BLANCHE: I didn't say he can't turn himself in.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: He's not under arrest right now, and he may be able to --

BLANCHE: I don't know whether he's under arrest right now. I'm here talking to you. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant. I think that the way that

this happens is different in every case. It's fact intensive. It depends on, you're right, who the defendant is. It depends on whether he has

counsel. It depends on what the judge wants done. and so I don't -- I don't know when the judge will schedule an initial arraignment, if that will be

scheduled by the magistrate or the district court judge.

I am sure, I don't know if you want to speak to that, or if it's just something that will come up in the next coming days. You'll know when it

happens. As far as what Mr. Comey does between now and then, I'm going to leave that up to the line prosecutors in the Eastern District of North

Carolina, the FBI agents, and the work that they're doing. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why -- Director Patel, maybe you said that it's a

complicated thing. A lot of people might think it's an easy case. Why did it take so long? I know that you guys chose to go with this now, but to the

layman, just looking at this case or layperson looking at the case, it was an Instagram post. He apologized. Why did it take so long?

BLANCHE: Well, I'm not going to get into the details of the investigation itself, but a lot of these cases you can look at when the threats were made

and when charges are brought. They're not easy cases. And so we have to -- there's communication that's sent in allegedly in this case. and so that

means that we have to look at devices. Mr. Comey is a lawyer. He has lawyers. So to the extent that we're looking at materials that are

potentially privileged, we have to get a wall, set up a wall and let totally independent lawyers look at those.

And so that doesn't happen overnight or quickly. And the statute of limitations on this is five years. We brought it in under one year. So

that's really where we're at.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. Blanche, it's clear that you don't want to talk specifics today, but to the American public, can you at least give us a

sense of whether you have hard evidence or evidence that shows that Mr. Comey intended for President Trump to be harmed? And then secondarily, for

critics who say, where does free speech end and an actual threat of violence begin?

BLANCHE: I don't know what critics say that, especially today, but it's not a very difficult line to look at. And it's not, in my mind, a difficult

line for one to cross over one way or the other. We cannot, you are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America. That's

not my decision. That's Congress's decision in a statute that they passed that we charge multiple times a year.

And so whether there is a defense, as you just described, maybe, maybe there is, but the government will have evidence. I am not going to talk

about the evidence that we have. That's unfair to him. It's unfair to the prosecutors. But it's enough to say that the grand jury returned, returned

an indictment. I'm just going to take one more question.

[16:45:02]

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thank you, sir. Mary Margaret, with the "Daily Wire." Should we expect more indictments of this sort,? For example, in

2020 Gretchen Whitmer did a TV hit with "8645" on her desk in the background. Is that the kind of thing you would pursue? And then just

really quickly, should Comey expect to face more charges for his role in the Russia collusion investigations?

BLANCHE: I'm not going to comment on other investigations involving Mr. Comey. There's -- he was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia. That

was dismissed on procedural grounds because of the judge's finding regarding the U.S. attorney. So that case is under appeal. As far as other

investigations that are happening, it would not be appropriate or fair for me to comment on that time.

As far as other instances of threats against the president of the United States, those will be investigated. Every case is different. The facts are

different. Who makes the threat matters? What the threat says matters. You're right, the question about intent matters. And we have to prove that.

That's something that's our job and that's something that prosecutors will have to do in front of a jury at the right time. But you cannot compare.

It's not fair to the American people. It's not fair to the defendant, and it's certainly not fair to the prosecutors to compare, well, if you did it

here, why didn't you do it there?

Every case is different. But there's one thing that will never be different, which is that you cannot threaten to kill the president of the

United States. Full stop.

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We have been listening to the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, alongside the FBI director Kash Patel, and

the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. They were discussing the latest indictment of former FBI director James Comey.

We're joined now by our team. Katelyn Polantz has been standing by, as has Kristen Holmes, and we're also joined by former Trump attorney Bill

Brennan, and former federal prosecutor Barrett Burger.

Thank you all -- to all of you for being here.

Katelyn, let me start with you just in terms of how the acting attorney general presented this. He was pressed at some length, you know, after

explaining the nature of these charges as to the question of the arrest warrants that you pointed out before we went into that news conference, and

whether that would mean that there would be a scene where Comey would be arrested by authorities.

Can you walk us through what stood out to you from what the acting AG said there, as well as dig in a little bit on that point?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, the question here is how aggressive is the Justice Department going to be in

these moments after this grand jury has returned, the second indictment against Jim Comey. The first time around, they weren't that aggressive.

They let him come into court under summons. In this situation, there is an arrest warrant.

I'm looking at it right here. It has the U.S. attorney's name at the top of the letterhead, and it is requesting the court in the Eastern District of

North Carolina to issue an arrest warrant to put in the hands of the marshals, the indictment, to get it to Comey and to put him under arrest.

The question that our own Evan Perez asked at that press conference, and then others followed up about, is whether Comey is a danger to the public.

Is he a flight risk?

He's a former FBI director. When he was previously indicted, he was not in custody like this. And the question to Blanche has been, do you need to

arrest him? Blanche is clearly underlining in the press conference that any threat to the life of the president is enough for the Justice Department to

pursue a nine to 10-month investigation over and to potentially charge, as they have done here with Comey. He also says, though, that I expect there

will be communication with Mr. Comey's counsel and we'll go from there. He may be able to turn himself in, but right now we're watching a scramble

essentially on how the Justice Department is pursuing the next steps following this indictment, and then what Comey's team will do.

Is he going to be able to negotiate a surrender, or will there be something more aggressive toward --

QUEST: We'll continue talking about that. That's leaving our colleague at CNN USA.

Gene Rossi is with me, the former federal prosecutor.

From what you heard, and I mean, this idea of intent, we'll prove it, we'll prove it in any other case. To the question of, well, is it all of it

weird? The answer, well, no, a grand jury heard the evidence and decided to come forward with the indictment.

I'm sure you're about to scoff. I can see your lips curling even as I say it.

ROSSI: Richard, they're all saying you can indict a ham sandwich before a grand jury. Here, you don't even have any ham, you just have two pieces of

bread. That's point number one. What really disappoints me about acting, acting, Attorney General Todd Blanche is that he's auditioning to be the

attorney general and this is one box he's going to check because he's going after a big fish called James Comey.

[16:50:15]

What further bothers me is, the attorney general misspoke, whether it was accidental or intentional. The prosecutors when they present an indictment

to the grand jury and to the court, they have the discretion, the prosecutors, to ask for summons or an arrest warrant. Todd Blanche misspoke

when he said that the grand jury asked for that arrest warrant. That is wrong.

QUEST: All right.

ROSSI: That is false. The other thing I want to say is this. Mr. Comey has a tremendous argument that this is selective prosecution, or vindictive,

and if he gets a granting of that motion for discovery, there are memos, e- mails, text messages between the prosecutors and the agents, between Kash Patel and Todd Blanche and the White House that may be produceable.

QUEST: All right.

ROSSI: If a court, a judge, allows them to pursue the vindictive or selective prosecution claim. So if you pray hard enough, you may get it.

This indictment may be --

QUEST: All right, Gene --

ROSSI: -- the whole claim that the Department of Justice has done.

QUEST: I'm grateful. We'll talk more I promise you as this moves forward. Thank you, Gene. Put the extra on the bill as well.

We turn to our top story. King Charles held a joint -- told the joint meeting of Congress the bonds between the U.S. and U.K. are unbreakable.

Unfortunately the British ambassador thinks there's only one country that has a special relationship, and it isn't the U.K. Here's his recording of

the comments leaked to the FT.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANE TURNER, U.K. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Special relationship is a phrase I try not to utter because it's quite nostalgic, it's quite

backwards looking. And it has a lot of sort of baggage about it. I think there's probably one country that has a special relationship with the

United States, and that's probably Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Sir Nigel Sheinwald is with me, the former British ambassador to the U.S.

Embarrassing, yes, to sort of comment one makes. But do you think it does any -- any deeper damage?

NIGEL SHEINWALD, FORMER BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Well, I don't think so, Richard. And, you know, the story today is not what the ambassador said

two months ago, but what the king said to your Congress today. And of course, you know, there's a debate about the history of the relationship

between the U.K. and the U.S., and how it's changed over the years and the pressures on it and the differences between us occasionally.

But I think, you know, you've got a higher authority in the king. You've got to focus I think on that rather than -- rather than this (INAUDIBLE).

QUEST: The speech that the king gave was nuanced but it was direct. It talked -- it was almost reminding Americans what sort of made them special

in the first place. Particularly, for example, when you speak, we listen. You have views and we care. What did you make of that and some of the

comments like talking about the Navy, like talking about executive overreach were direct -- he was carrying his message across?

SHEINWALD: I think he -- I think there's a lot of substance there. I mean, he's a king. He's not going to speak the language of politics. But I think

he was speaking the language of alliances and the language of policy. And I think it's important that he does represent the U.K. spirit and the U.K.

attitude to the world in that way. So it was done delicately. It was done in, you know, in a clever way. But I -- but I think you're right.

There were some clear messages there, mainly about us, mainly about the U.K., that some of the things that people in that chamber might have heard

or said weren't true about the U.K. (INAUDIBLE), other people's view you need to show respect to those.

QUEST: Right.

SHEINWALD: Having served in both sides, armed services. The fact that NATO, and it's, you know, goes on to what he's going to be doing tomorrow. That

NATO did indeed Article Five of the charter after 9/11. I think he was trying to get a message of, that you've got to think long term, you've got

to think about the underlying strengths of two important countries, and that even a country as great and as powerful as America needs allies in the

world to operate in order that it does.

[16:55:03]

QUEST: OK. Now if you had still been an ambassador, watching the president this morning at the White House, knowing every opportunity, would you have

sort of had your head in your hands and been nervously biting your nails thinking, please, don't make some comments? Oh, please, just don't say

something that you think is funny that actually isn't?

SHEINWALD: Of course. You know, that's being the risk in this visit more than anything else, I think, right from the start. But you saw the way in

which it was carefully choreographed and managed today. And of course, whenever the president speaks, he will speak again this evening at the

banquet, he does speak both from the script and impromptu as we all know. But I think the president that we saw today was the (INAUDIBLE) president,

the respectful president, the careful president.

And that was the language that we heard on the White House lawn earlier. So that's what I would expect to hear as the occasion with our king. He's not

dealing with our prime minister or a political -- either a political ally or a political opponent. He's dealing with another head of state and

someone who does not get involved in the day-to-day.

QUEST: I'm grateful, sir. Thank you. Good to talk to you. We'll talk again.

SHEINWALD: Thank you.

QUEST: I'm grateful. Thank you, Nigel.

We will take a "Profitable Moment" after the break. What a busy hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: And tonight's "Profitable Moment," and I speak as a Briton, as an American citizen or both. We always say that one of the advantages of the

constitutional monarchy, at least (INAUDIBLE), is that this head of state doesn't get involved in politics. That they are able to put forward things

only for the best interest of the nation, however that head of state likely to find. And I think we saw that today when we talk about King Charles

addressed Congress.

It was measured. It was perhaps on parts it was funny and particularly when he referred to coming back and not as rare guard action to take back the

country. But more importantly he was able to gently remind his listeners that the U.S. has values, it has history, it has had a role for the last 70

odd years, and that you don't want to throw all that away, and go in different directions with all that might imply.

And his majesty did it in a way that maybe arguably some would say you could take umbrage at but frankly probably not, because the way in which

the constitutional monarch, remember, remember, remember, it is the right to advice, to warn, and to be heard. And that's what the king did today.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable. You and

me tomorrow when we have the king in New York.

END