Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Source Says, Comey to Surrender at Federal Court in Virginia; Trump Defense Chiefs Appear on Capitol Hill; Supreme Court Voids Majority Black Congressional District in Louisiana. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired April 29, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, James Comey indicted again. The former FBI director now facing charges tied to this photo he posted and then deleted. Officials say the post threatened President Trump's life. Comey is expected to turn himself in at any moment.

Also shocking attack, two Jewish people stabbed in London. The British prime minister says the anti-Semitic attack is utterly appalling. A 45-year-old suspect is now in custody.

Welcome to our viewers of the United States and around the world. I'm Pamela Brown, Wolf Blitzer is off today, and you're in The Situation Room.

And we are covering multiple breaking news stories this morning. At any moment, James Comey is expected to turn himself in at federal court. The former FBI director is facing charges for a social media post that officials say threatened President Trump's life.

Today, the Secret Service director briefs the House Oversight Committee on the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. And right now, a key Senate committee is meeting about President Trump's pick to lead the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh. At any moment, the Supreme Court will release opinions and we could get decisions on birthright citizenship, voting rights, and President Trump's firing of federal officials.

Also, both Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Dan Caine, are on the Hill. They're about to face questions from lawmakers for the first time since the war with Iran started two months ago.

And we begin with that breaking news. Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to turn himself in at any moment at this federal courthouse in Virginia on new charges for a social media post. Last May, the outspoken critic of President Trump took this photo right here of seashells he says he found on the beach. They spelled out 86 47, the 47 referring to Donald Trump as the 47th president, and the 86 commonly meaning to remove or delete. Prosecutors say that was a clear threat and Comey is now responding.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So, let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, Comey removed that picture the same day he posted it. He called it a political message, saying that he, quote, didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence and that he opposes violence of any kind.

The Justice Department first brought charges against Comey last September accusing him of lying to Congress about leaks to the press. That case was dismissed. Those charges came five days after the president publicly called on his attorney general at the time, Pam Bondi, to prosecute his political enemies, including Comey. The president fired Bondi earlier this month.

So, let's begin with CNN Crime and Justice Correspondent Katelyn Polantz. She is right outside that federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, where Comey will self-surrender. That's what we're expecting, right, Katelyn?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Pam. A day in court for James Comey, yet again the second time in under a year where he will be coming to this federal courthouse here in Northern Virginia to face a set of charges and indictment by a grand jury.

Now we're here in Virginia, even though this case is about seashells that Comey posted a photo of on Instagram, a photo he took a whole year ago. That photo would have been taken in North Carolina on the beach. We're several hundred miles from the beach. But this is the area where he lives, and so he will have to go before a judge today for his initial appearance.

What today will look like for James Comey, he is self-surrendering. So, this is a little bit different than the last time he was charged by the Trump administration and the Justice Department. He will come in here and be arrested. He will be processed and then he'll have to go before a magistrate judge.

[10:05:02]

That judge is a magistrate judge named William Fitzpatrick. And, previously, he was very, very critical, wrote a scathing opinion about the Justice Department's work in investigating and prosecuting Comey for perjury or making false statements to Congress previously. That case was dismissed.

But we know the Justice Department had wanted to continue to investigate Comey for other things. Yesterday in a press conference, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, said that Comey is being charged because he threatened the president. He faces two charges. One is that, indeed, threatening the life of the president or threatening a federal official. The other charge is about making that threat in a way that it's sent over state lines, interstate commerce, that's the Instagram post.

Now, Comey, does say that he took down that post, apologized, he never intended any harm, and there are a lot of groups out there already criticizing this, picking it apart, saying it's a weak case, it's a potentially unconstitutional case, that there are First Amendment protections. But all of those sorts of arguments, those come later today. It's the initial appearance here in the Eastern District of Virginia. Pam?

BROWN: All right. Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

And let's bring in CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Elie, the charges require proof that Comey, quote, knowingly and willfully made this threat to take the life of the president. You're a former federal prosecutor. How much of an uphill battle will it be to prove this case?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Pam, in terms of uphill battles, I would say straight, vertical, 90 degrees. I don't think DOJ can win this case. And the reason is quite simply the First Amendment. Even if we take it as a given, that Jim Comey's Instagram post was irresponsible, was stupid, even was menacing in some respect, that does not make it a federal felony of issuing a threat to the president. If you look at the law, it says that in order for it to be a crime to cross over, so it's outside of the First Amendment, it has to be a specific threat of physical violence or death to the person who's being threatened.

And so this is all going to turn on what is the definition of this term, 86. And no matter how anyone wants to spin this, yes, there are examples of people using that phrase to indicate death, and, yes, there are far more examples of people using that phrase, 86, in an innocuous sense. It is, at best, ambiguous, and you're never going to win a case like this as a prosecutor, where you have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt if the key phrase is ambiguous.

BROWN: So, how unusual is that to bring a case if you're a DOJ prosecutor that is this much of an uphill battle, as you laid out?

HONIG: Well, look, it is a well known, I think, saying that anyone can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. There is definitely some truth to that. If you are abusive of that process as a prosecutor, then, sure, you can get shaky cases through the grand jury.

However, DOJ's own internal guidance, and any responsible or ethical prosecutor will only charge a case, not just if they can get it through a grand jury. Anyone could do that with virtually anything. But if you believe you can ultimately prove your case to a trial jury and carry a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think that's one of the main areas of criticism here of DOJ.

Can you get it through a grand jury? Sure, they did, but that's still not the right way to do things unless you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a question really of prosecutorial discretion above all else, and I think that's why we've seen DOJ come in for such wide criticism, not just from people on the left, but Republicans. Earlier today, we had Republican Congressman Don Bacon on air who said he did not believe that this should be charged as a criminal case, and I think he's right.

BROWN: Well, Elie, Comey's social media post was also 11 months ago when Pam Bondi was the attorney general. She was fired weeks ago, as you know, and replaced by Todd Blanche as acting attorney general. So, this morning, he pushed back on critics who say he's prosecuting this case to win favor with the president. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: And so this narrative, this idea out there that somehow I'm auditioning, I've worked with President Trump for many, many years. I don't audition for this job. I've been the deputy attorney general for over a year, okay? This is not an audition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Do you view the timing of this as coincidental at all?

HONIG: I view the timing of this as very suspect. I am dubious of the claim that DOJ has been consistently investigating this since the posting, which was on May 15th, 2025. This is not the kind of case that takes a full year to investigate or anything close to it.

Let's look at what Todd Blanche's incentives are right now. There's no question he would like to be nominated as attorney general. There's no question he understands that the best way to please the person who makes that nomination, the president, is to give him some red meat. There's no question about the fact that Donald Trump wants Jim Comey prosecuted. He has posted about it on social media. He has made no secret about it.

And if you look at the incentives now, it's a little bit of a dangerous moment that Todd Blanche is in because he understands that an indictment happens, let's say, yesterday. This case, even if it does get thrown out, which I think is highly likely, that won't happen for several months down the line.

[10:10:04]

There has to be briefing. A judge has to consider it. And I think right now, Todd Blanche's incentives are just to get that quick rush of the indictment and hope that a nomination happens before anything can get dismissed, which will take some time.

BROWN: All right. Elie Honig, always great to have you on. Thanks so much. And happening today, the House Oversight Committee will hear from the Secret Service director, Sean Curran. Lawmakers will ask him about the agency's response to the White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting on Saturday night.

Let's go live now to Brian Todd here in The Situation Room. Brian, Curran and former Secret Service officials have told CNN that personnel issues have plagued the agency for years. What do we expect to hear today?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We're going to hear about those personnel issues, Pamela, because that's going to be a key factor in determining maybe what happened on Saturday night. This is going to be a very important closed door hearing with Sean Curran, the current director of the U.S. Secret Service.

The chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, has said that Curran has been, quote, very forthcoming in his briefing on Monday evening on what happened on Saturday night. But there's going to be pointed questions about personnel, as you mentioned, but also about the security perimeter at the Hilton Hotel, the Secret Services security perimeter, and their manpower.

Now, Curran has said that there were not any security lapses on Saturday night. In his words, quote, it was a massive security success story. Yes, there were layered protections there that did end up working, but there are questions about why the security perimeter wasn't pushed out further that maybe might've intercepted this man before he got past it.

Now, one source familiar with Secret Service operations tell CNN that pushing the security perimeter out would involve more staffing. That, of course, raises more pointed questions, which are really at the heart of what the Secret Service is facing right now with CNN this morning, citing multiple sources has been reporting on the Secret Service, essentially, according to our reporting, is massively understaffed with agents really overworked and burned out.

The Secret Service, according to our reporting in The Washington Post reporting in January, is trying to hire 4,000 new employees by 2028 to ease the burden on agents. That's apparently a, quote, aspirational hire. Hiring 4,000 employees, training them to ease that burden within a two-year period, especially now after all of this, after Butler, after the assassination attempt against President Trump in September of 2024, and then in this incident. This is -- the Secret Service is facing a lot of hurdles here, especially in manpower and training.

But there will also be other questions, Pamela, like securing a hotel like that for an event like that. What are they going to do differently next time? What lessons are they going to learn? Those are some of the answers that we hope to get from possible information coming out of this closed door briefing.

BROWN: All right. Brian Todd, thanks so much for the latest there.

Very busy day here in Washington because there's more breaking news on Capitol Hill right now. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine are testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. This is their first public appearance before Congress since the war with Iran began more than two months ago.

So, let's bring in CNN Senior National Security Reporter Zach Cohen here in The Situation Room. I mean, they're going to be under a lot of scrutiny by lawmakers about this war. This is the first time they're appearing before them where they have the opportunity to publicly answer questions.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Without a doubt, Pam. This is the first time, as you mentioned, since the war started. This is a hearing though about the $1.5 trillion that the Trump administration is asking for in defense spending for next year. But, again, most of these questions from lawmakers are going to be about the war in Iran. And there's really endless questions here because of the lack of information that's been coming from the Pentagon.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized Hegseth specifically for not being forthcoming about the state of things like the munition stockpile, the how many Tomahawk missiles, how many standoff weapons, these key missiles that the U.S. will rely on in a future war, how many of those are left now after about 60 days of war in Iran. So, you can bet you're going to hear a lot of questions about that.

You're also going to hear questions about that drone attack that killed six U.S. service members in Kuwait. We've obviously heard President Trump say repeatedly that he was surprised that Iran responded to joint U.S.-Israeli strikes by targeting us bases in a neighboring Gulf countries. We're going to hear lawmakers ask Hegseth if that is indeed true. Was he surprised that that's how Iran chose to retaliate?

We're also going to hear questions about sort of the just general apparent dysfunction within the Pentagon itself. Obviously, Hegseth recently firing the Navy secretary as the U.S. Navy is carrying out this blockade.

BROWN: All right. We have some important news from the Supreme Court. Thanks, Zach. I want to go to our Legal Analyst Joey Jackson,to learn more about what was just released, Joey. What can you tell us?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, we're finding out we're looking at it. We do know Pamela, right, the Supreme Court has been considering this decision. It falls out of Louisiana and what is the basis of the decision. There's a situation where you have a specific state, that is Louisiana, that has 33 percent African American population.

[10:15:03]

The issue concerns the issue of a minority majority district that happens to be African American. We know the Supreme Court has been assessing to determine whether having that majority minority district was acceptable with respect to the Supreme Court. What is the issue? The issue relates to the equal protection clause and whether or not you can have, under the law and if it's constitutional, to have a district that happens to be majority African American for the purpose of --

BROWN: I have to just get to Elie Honig really quick, Joey. Stand by for more analysis. But, Elie Honig, I think you actually have some new information about the ruling, right?

HONIG: Okay, yes, Pam. So, this is a collision between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, the 14th and 15th Amendment non- discrimination clause. So, there's a little bit of history here that people need to understand. So, Louisiana, as Joey said, has six Congressional districts and about one third of the state's population is black.

Now, after the 2020 census, Louisiana drafted a new Congressional map that had one majority black district. Now, that was challenged under the Voting Rights Act. Basically those plaintiffs said, well, there should be two because it's one third of the state. That then went up and was challenged in the courts and was struck down.

After that, Louisiana went back to the drawing board and came up with a map that had two majority black districts in an effort to remedy that. That was then challenged by a different group of plaintiffs, and now it ends up at the Supreme Court.

So, which is it going to be? And the Supreme Court tells us now that this two majority black district map is unconstitutional. It is an unconstitutional discrimination against -- based on race in Louisiana.

Now, this decision is a 6-3 opinion. It is something we've seen before. It's the six conservatives in the majority, it's the three liberals, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissenting. And the fundamental question is, well, what happens when you have a situation like this? The Voting Rights Act says you cannot deny or dilute the votes of any given person, but the 14th and 15th Amendment say you cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

So, where you have this second map where Louisiana has gone out of its way to try to draw two of the six districts as being majority black, is that constitutional or not? And the answer is no, it is not constitutional because it discriminates on the basis of race.

So, in that collision between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendment, according to this decision, the 14th and 15th Amendment do prevail.

BROWN: So, this really tests how far states can go with using race to comply with the Voting Rights Act, right, Elie?

HNIG: Yes, exactly right. So, the Voting Rights Act traditionally has been understood to say, well, we should try to draw state maps so that they give fairly equal representation, essentially concomitant with whatever the racial makeup of that state is. But the Supreme Court is now saying, no, you cannot consider race when you're drawing your maps. You cannot go out of your way to create minority majority black districts.

So, that's the bottom line of all this, Louisiana's effort to create that second majority black district has been struck down as an unconstitutionally discriminatory map.

BROWN: Right. And we've seen the redrawing of maps in many different states ahead of the upcoming midterms, Joey. How might this impact other states who are right now in the process of redrawing their maps?

JACKSON: Yes, Pam, I think in a very significant way, when you have, as Elie noted, this tension between the Voting Rights Act and what is the purpose of that, right? You want to ensure that there's not discrimination predicated upon race and voting, and that's a very important imperative. But then you have the 14th protection -- equal protection clause, and that talks about discrimination based on race.

Now, when you have that very briefly, Pam, you have something called strict scrutiny, right? And what that means in English is if you're going to do something predicated upon race, there has to be a compelling reason. And it's always been thought, right, when you do things that are based specifically when you're trying to address racial discrimination and perhaps disparities in voting, that that would meet the standard of a compelling objective.

But you see, based upon this 6-3 conservative majority, that that is no more. I think you have a Supreme Court that's interpreting that to be more really colorblind. And so I think an answer to your question, you're going to see very aggressive redistricting. And it may have, and I think it will have an impact specifically on the African American community in terms of diluting power if you're not allowed to affirmatively, as a state legislature, create districts that a majority minority districts. And that's so problematic, I think, would be the answer to the question.

BROWN: And it's interesting, Elie, because in other cases where you had the redrawing of maps, the Supreme Court has said, look, this is a political question, we're not going to get into this, right? There have been examples of that. But in this case, the Supreme Court is saying, no, actually this is race-based and therefore a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

[10:20:01]

Tell us historically how this stacks up against prior cases that are similar.

HONIG: So, back in 2019, Pam, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that basically said, we are now out of the business of reviewing gerrymandering. It's an inherently political exercise. We're going to leave it up to the political bodies. We're only going to get involved, however, they said, if it involves unconstitutional discrimination, and we can see them doing that here today. And with respect to the Voting Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act has been slowly chipped away at by the Supreme Court over the last decade or so. First, it got rid of what was known as the pre-clearance provision, which basically required certain states, certain jurisdictions, to go to DOJ in advance to get clearance for the fact that their districts were not unconstitutionally discriminatory. The Supreme Court struck that down several years ago.

And now what's left of the Voting Rights Act has been substantially undermined by this case, which again tells us that if a state says, well, we need to draw an additional majority black district to reflect our population, and they're drawing that district with race in mind, according to today's opinion, according to today's 6-3 opinion, that is unconstitutional and that cannot stand.

BROWN: All right. Elie, Joey, thank you so much for helping us understand this very impactful ruling that just came from the Supreme Court. We appreciate it.

And still ahead, a tornado devastates a Texas town this morning. People are seeing the scope of the damage. You see it right here. We're live on the ground. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

BROWN: Happening now, utter devastation after a tornado flattened parts of a Texas town. Take a look right here. This is what the twister did to Mineral Wells. That's about an hour from Dallas. Drone video shows you the damage in one neighborhood, one home had its entire second floor ripped off, a big chunk of the town's industrial areas also in ruins, several people were injured, but officials say there are no reports of any deaths, fortunately.

CNN's Ed Lavandera is in Mineral Wells where recovery efforts were already underway. Bring us there, Ed.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Pamela. Well, the devastating destruction is what residents here in Mineral Wells are waking up to this morning, already crews out and about trying to assess the damage and begin the cleanup. This is a -- we're on the eastern side of this city of Mineral Wells, a city of about 16,000 people.

This is an old military installation, Fort Wolters that was -- dates back to the World War II era. It's since been deactivated. But, you know, this is kind of like a historic part of this city. These were old barracks that were used back during the World War II era. All of that destroyed, no one was in those.

But you can just see the extent of it here on this eastern edge of the city where so much of the destruction has taken place. And we know that crews are going through and assessing, city officials say they're going to be driving through neighborhoods, getting a sense in the scope of the destruction that was left behind in the wake of this storm.

National Weather Service teams will also be on the ground trying to assess just how strong or whether or not this was a tornado. That classification hasn't been made yet. But whether it was straight line winds or a strong tornado, it doesn't really matter at this point because the destruction is rather intense. But as you mentioned, the stunning news here, no fatalities, only two injuries reported, and those injuries, we are told, are not severe. So, that is the very good news in all of this.

But the assessment continues. We've seen power crews in the neighborhood already bringing in power lines to replace the ones that have been shredded here in this storm, so that cleanup process really intensifying here this morning. Pamela?

BROWN: I mean, it's just incredible when you look at everything flattened behind you, Ed, that there were no deaths. Wow.

Ed Lavandera, thank you so much for bringing us the latest from Mineral Wells, Texas.

And coming up here in The Situation Room, breaking news from London, police are investigating a knife attack in a mostly Jewish neighborhood. We are live from the scene straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]