Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Comey Vows To Fight Back Against Federal Indictment; Netanyahu Speaks Directly To Hostages, Hamas In U.N. Speech. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired September 26, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:22]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, pressure to prosecute. President Trump's Justice Department follows through on his push to go after his enemies, indicting Trump's one-time FBI director and political foe, James Comey. Comey is vowing to fight back, saying, and I'm quoting him now, "I'm innocent. So let's have a trial." And just moments ago, Trump said he expects more indictments against his opponents to follow.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Pamela Brown has the day off. And you're in The Situation Room.

BLITZER: And we begin this hour with the breaking news. The former FBI Director James Comey vowing to fight back against his federal indictment. It's worth noting it comes just days after President Trump publicly demanded that the U.S. Justice Department go after his political enemies. And those names included Comey. The grand jury indictment charges the former FBI head with lying to Congress during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2020. Let's listen to some of that exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point-blank, "have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?" You responded under oath, "never." He then asked you, "have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?" You responded again under oath, "no."

Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to "The Wall Street Journal" and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

CRUZ: So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth. Is that correct?

COMEY: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez will have much more on the indictment. He's standing by just a moment. But I want to start right now with CNN's Alayna Treene over at the White House. She has more on the President's latest comments just a few moments ago. Alayna?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right. The President spoke with reporters, Wolf, this morning as he was departing for the Ryder Cup. And essentially he suggested that the case against Comey will be, "pretty easy," arguing that essentially that the former FBI director that the President fired previously was lying when he gave that testimony that -- that you just played from that Senate hearing in 2020.

The President also claimed that the move was aimed at what he said was justice and not revenge. But one of the most interesting and notable moments that I took away from his comments this morning, Wolf, was when he suggested that Comey is likely only one of many opponents who could face prosecution from the Justice Department. CNN's Kevin Liptak asked him, who is on your list? Who could be next on your list for retribution? Listen to his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[11:05:00]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's not a list, but I think there'll be others. I mean, they're corrupt. These -- these were corrupt, radical left Democrats. No, there'll be others. Look, it was -- that's my opinion. They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they've done is terrible. And so I would -- I hope they're -- frankly, I hope there are others because you can't let this happen to a country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So he said he hopes there will be others. He didn't specify who those others are. But I would remind you that not only is it our reporting that we know that the President had been pushing Pam Bondi and others involved in this case to bring the indictment against Comey. He said it publicly over the weekend. He essentially said he wanted to see Comey as well as Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James, again, all opponents of the President, that he wanted to see them be prosecuted.

And one thing, Wolf, that I think is really important to keep in mind here is some of the context and reporting that we have. I know from my conversations with people in the White House, this is something the President has been wanting for a long time. He has said to those around him, you know, that he was prosecuted when he was out of office. He was served indictments and that these people deserve it, too.

So there'll be much more on this. But I think the President's comments saying that perhaps more are to come. Very notable this morning.

BLITZER: Very notable indeed. Alayna Treene at the White House, thank you very much. Evan Perez is here with me in The Situation Room. So what's next in this process?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: The next time we will deal with this case, Wolf, is on October 9th. That's the next scheduled date for Jim Comey's arraignment. And, you know, what we'll expect, we expect that we'll learn a lot more about what exactly this case is about. Because right now there is a very thin couple of pages here, which doesn't really say a lot.

But what we know from talking to sources and from talking to people in the government on the Justice Department side, is that this really goes back to that testimony in October of 2020, I'm sorry, September of 2020. And it really has to do with alleged leaks that the prosecutors say Comey lied about. These are leaks that -- that are related to the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation.

You know the President, as you heard from Alayna there, and -- and you see from some of the -- the social media posts of the President, Kash Patel, the FBI director and others, they -- they're -- they're saying that this is essentially retribution for what Comey did related to the Russia, "the Russia hoax."

But it really, according to this document, it really is about leaks related to the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. You remember that investigation went on from 2015 to 2016, and it had to do with her use of a private e-mail server. So we'll learn more about that and these two charges related to him lying to congressional testimony and also obstructing justice in that congressional testimony.

BLITZER: Presumably we will are. Thanks very much, Evan Perez, reporting for us. There's a lot to unfold right now. I want to discuss with the former federal prosecutor Berit Berger. Berit, thanks so much for joining us. As you know, the President has repeatedly publicly called on the Justice Department to go after his enemies, including Comey, of course.

And we've learned that the attorney general and even prosecutors on the case had serious reservations about its strength. The President removed the U.S. attorney from the Eastern District of Virginia from his office last week and installed a White House aide. What does all this tell you about the legal justification for this case?

BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I cannot stress highly enough how unusual it is and what a clear departure it is from Department of Justice norms, from our constitutional norms, to pick the defendant first and then find the charges. The idea that the President is directing the attorney general to find charges against Comey, against other of his political enemies, and that he found somebody who was willing to do that is really a very stark departure from how these things have been prosecuted in the past.

Now, the fact that you had seasoned lawyers, lawyers that were appointed by the President himself, including the former U.S. attorney from this very district, the Eastern District of Virginia, that looked at the evidence, that said, I don't think there's a case here, means that the President was putting incredible political pressure on the new appointee to bring these charges because he had already picked the target, not because the evidence was there.

BLITZER: The grand jury actually rejected a third charge against Comey of making a false statement. What does that tell you about the overall strength of this effort against Comey?

BERGER: Well, you have to understand, I mean, grand juries, it's not an adversarial process. So the only party that they're hearing from in the grand jury proceeding is the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets to choose what evidence to put before the grand jury. So we usually say there's an old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich in the grand jury.

[11:10:07]

Here, the fact that you had the grand jury reject one of the charges means that it was incredibly weak. The fact that they returned the charges on the two that they did, all right, not so surprising given that the prosecution got to put in whatever evidence they wanted to and they didn't get to hear from the defense. But the fact that the -- the grand jury could not agree, again, it doesn't have to be unanimous.

You only need 12 of them to agree on this, that they couldn't even agree to return a true bill or an indictment for that one means that the government really had very little -- little evidence of this to put before them.

BLITZER: Do you believe, Berit, that this -- this trial will actually go to -- there will be a real trial? There's pretty clear indications that the case is about political retribution against Comey.

BERGER: We'll see. So the Eastern District of Virginia is known for moving very quickly. They call it the rocket docket. I would not be surprised if there is pretty significant pretrial briefing in this case. My guess is Comey will have a pretty strong motion for vindictive or selective prosecution. These are very tricky motions to win. I cannot imagine a stronger motion than one where you have the President, you know, putting out on social media that he wants these charges to be brought against you.

That -- that seems to be pretty good basis for that. But let's say that they you know, these motions aren't successful. My guess is there will be a relatively quick trial in this case. The Eastern -- Eastern District of Virginia does move quickly. And I can't imagine that a federal judge is going to want this case languishing on his docket for longer than necessary. So I think there is a real likelihood that the public will get to see a lot of this evidence relatively quickly.

BLITZER: What is this indictment? It's a two page indictment. I have it right in front of me. Count one, false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the United States government. Count two, obstruction of a congressional proceeding. What does this indictment do to the credibility, do you think, Berit, of the U.S. Justice Department?

BERGER: I mean, this is a real hit to the Justice Department. I mean, again, historically, there has been this separation or at least supposed separation between the political forces and the Department of Justice. You've seen in the past guardrails set up to keep the political pressure out of decisions made by the Department of Justice -- Department of Justice. I don't think we can say those are there anymore.

I think we've now seen a complete erosion of any of those -- those guardrails. The other thing I'll say about the indictment is it is notable for how bare bones it really is. I mean, the entire purpose of an indictment is to give notice to the defendant of what they're charged with and what the underlying allegations are. Here, I mean, this very short, cursory indictment gives very little information to Comey, to the public, about the nature of these charges, what evidence the government has to support these.

My guess is that Comey would move for something that's called a bill of particulars, which is essentially saying, hey, you've got to give me more information. What specific statements are you talking about? Who were they made to? What's the evidence behind these? So the indictment is shocking for many things, both big and mundane.

BLITZER: Yes.

BERGER: But the fact that it is so bare bones is pretty startling to me.

BLITZER: Very few specifics in this two-page indictment. Berit Berger, thanks, as usual, for joining us. Appreciate it very much.

BERGER: Thanks.

BLITZER: And Comey's indictment is but the latest chapter in President Trump's long-running feud with the FBI and how it operates. CNN's Brian Todd brings us inside Trump's shifting relationship with the agency.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Donald Trump's contentious relationship with the FBI dates back to before he became president.

TRUMP: Please, FBI, please, go after Hillary.

TODD (voice-over): Those provocative days of the 2016 campaign, when Trump was relentless in his badgering of the FBI to investigate his opponent's handling of her e-mails.

TRUMP: The FBI did not act. I have such respect for the FBI. I am so disappointed. How did they let that happen? She was so guilty.

TODD (voice-over): Then from almost the moment he stepped in the White House, analysts say Trump seemed to view the FBI as his own personal instrument of power.

GARRETT GRAFF, FBI HISTORIAN: Donald Trump, you know, upended and tried to usurp the FBI in that spring of 2017, and that relationship has never been smooth since.

TRUMP: Oh, and there's -- he has become more famous than me.

TODD (voice-over): Soon after taking office, Trump pressured then FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation into former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. That's according to Comey himself, who claimed that Trump put the squeeze on him personally.

COMEY: I got the sense my job would be contingent upon how he felt I conducted myself and whether I demonstrated loyalty.

[11:15:04]

TODD (voice-over): Trump denied asking for Comey's loyalty but ended up firing Comey. Later saying that he was frustrated over the ongoing Russia probe.

JULIAN ZELIZER, HISTORIAN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: He wanted that investigation shut down. He saw it as a political problem and this was what Comey was up to.

TODD (voice-over): Throughout the Russia investigation and afterward, Trump continued to berate the FBI for how that investigation played out.

TRUMP: These were dirty, filthy cops at the top of the FBI.

TODD (voice-over): Trump complained that texts between two FBI employees investigating the Russia connection were biased against him.

TRUMP: Look at these horrible FBI people talking about, we got to get them out, insurance policies.

TODD (voice-over): But one analyst says Donald Trump wasn't alone among presidents who believed the FBI should be beholden to them.

GRAFF: That is something that has long frustrated presidents going back to Nixon and Johnson and even John F. Kennedy, that the FBI was not necessarily loyal to them personally.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And Brian Todd is joining us now here in The Situation Room. So, Brian, how is President Trump's relationship with the FBI changing in this, his second term? TODD: Well, clearly it's very different now, Wolf. He's got a loyalist, Kash Patel, at the helm, someone who has promised to do his bidding for him, and it seems like he -- in some cases he -- he might be doing that. Now, Kash Patel has been under his own pressures recently.

But we should also point out that even with all of this, despite the whims of some presidents, the core mission of the FBI has always been the same, to investigate the most serious crimes at the highest levels and to stay completely away from politics. That's the -- that's the Bureau's charge, to do that, to completely away from politics, and that's why an FBI director is appointed for a 10-year term, so he can skirt these administrations and stay completely away from politics. It seems like we're so far away from that right now.

BLITZER: Yes, good point. Brian Todd, excellent report. Thank you very much.

And still ahead, dozens of delegates leave the room just as the Israeli prime minister is beginning his fiery response, his speech at the U.N. General Assembly to growing global pressure and isolation over Israel's siege of Gaza.

And later, CNN's Jeremy Diamond sits down with a senior Hamas official and presses him on defending what he calls the high price of October 7th.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What gives you the right to decide that Palestinian women and children should be sacrificed on the altar of your resistance?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:21:58]

BLITZER: New this morning, President Trump says a deal on Gaza is, "very close." His words, very close. The comments coming just moments after the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrapped up his speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Scores of delegates walked out in protest, as Netanyahu defended Israel's military offensive in Gaza.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The final elements, the final remnants of Hamas, are holed up in Gaza City. They vow to repeat the atrocities of October 7th again and again and again, no matter how diminished their forces. That is why Israel must finish the job. Much of the world no longer remembers October 7th. But we remember. Israel remembers October 7th.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: I want to bring in CNN national security correspondent, Kylie Atwood, who's here with me in The Situation Room. Kylie, first of all, what are you hearing about where peace talks stand? Because I ask the question because Trump, in his remarks, said, I think we have a deal on Gaza, his words.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's what President Trump said this morning. The remarks that we saw from Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel at the United Nations gave no indication that he believes that that is where they are right now. It was incredibly defiant, very classic Netanyahu speech at the United Nations, making the case that he effectively doesn't believe that a diplomatic solution here with the Palestinians, with Hamas, is even possible because of the threat that they continue to pose to Israel, saying in that soundbite we just heard that Hamas is still holed up in Gaza City. That's why Israel needs to continue its military operation there.

And also saying to the countries in Europe, who have been saying that the Palestinian Authority can change its ways, it can drive towards a two-state solution, saying that he doesn't believe that is the case. He believes that the Palestinian Authority is, "corrupt to its core," and they have never lived up to the commitments that they have made. Listen to part of his message to Hamas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: So to the remaining Hamas leaders and to the jailers of our hostages, I now say, lay down your arms. Let my people go. Free the hostages. If you do, you will live. If you don't, Israel will hunt you down. If Hamas agrees to our demands, the war could end right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ATWOOD: Now, earlier this week, starting out the United Nations, there were many countries, including close allies of Israel and the United States, who said that they are now going to be recognizing a Palestinian state. We've talked about this over the course of the week, how it's really isolated the United States and Israel. And Netanyahu's message is that Israel is not going to allow those countries to, "shove a state of terror down our throats." He said the message to the Palestinians is that murdering Jews pays off.

[11:25:05]

Really harsh and, you know, direct language from him. So the questions as to whether there is actually possible an agreement between Israel and Hamas in the offing here, that is an open question. We know that the Trump administration is working on this. They did put together a new plan earlier this week that they presented to allies of -- in the Gulf. And so we'll watch and see where that goes because Netanyahu is going to be meeting here at the White House with President Trump on Monday.

BLITZER: We'll see what happens at that meeting. Kylie Atwood, thank you very, very much. Up next, President Trump's apparent 180 on Russia and Ukraine, spurring new hope of a potential end to the war. So how and when could the reversal impact U.S. policy? Stay with us. New information coming in. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)