Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: James Comey Appears in Court; Trump and Putin Discuss Iran War in Call; Top U.S. Military Officials Face Questions from House Committee; King Charles and Queen Camilla Visit New York City; Powell to Remain at the Central Bank After Term is Up; Ceasefire in Lebanon; WSJ: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Voting Rights Case; Saudi Arabia to Pull Funding from LIV Golf. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired April 29, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You're
watching "The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, former FBI director James Comey appears in court over an alleged threat against President Trump. The Fed chair Jerome Powell
confirms he will remain with the central bank after his term as chairman is up. And Saudi Arabia is reportedly pulling funding for its much touted at
the time, LIV Golf.
Well, the former FBI director James Comey appeared briefly in court today after surrendering to law enforcement. He was indicted Tuesday on charges
of making a threat against U.S. President Donald Trump. The judge allowed him to leave today's hearing with no release conditions.
The case stems from this photo Comey posted on social media last year showing shells on a beach arranged in the numbers 86 and 47. 47 apparently
or allegedly a reference to Donald Trump as the 47th president. 86 is slang as defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary for a move to eject, ban or
remove. The president has his own definition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: 86, you know, it's a mob term for kill him, you know. You ever see the movies? 86 him. The mobster says to one of his
wonderful associates, 86 him. That means kill him. People like Comey have created tremendous danger, I think, for politicians and others.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Comey's lawyers say they plan to file motions accusing the Justice Department of selective and vindictive prosecution. Evan Perez
joins me now. Evan, of course, we were talking yesterday about that unusual request for an arrest warrant for that perp walk. Perp walk didn't happen.
He did show up in court today, but the judge let him go. Do we have Evan Perez?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR U.S. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I'm here.
SCIUTTO: There we go. Sorry, I'm seeing James Comey, but I'm talking to Evan Perez. The judge did let him go. So, it seems like the judge didn't
see an imminent threat from him.
PEREZ: Right, exactly. And what the judge said is that the prosecutors and the court in North Carolina, which is where this case is actually filed,
they're going to notify Comey when he needs to show up down there to face these charges.
But you raise a very good point, which is that the question of whether this is a vindictive or selective prosecution, which is something that Comey's
lawyers say that they intend to raise once this court actually gets going. And there's a reason for that, Jim, because we have seen, we've all seen on
Twitter, on X, on other social media platforms where you have people who are on the right side of the political spectrum, right-wing activists who
have said things like 86-46, which is a reference supposedly to Joe Biden. Those people have not been prosecuted.
As a matter of fact, just a couple hours ago I was up in the attorney general's, the acting attorney general's conference room, and one of the
reporters asked the question, do you plan to go after people who write these types of threats? And he said every case is different. We're not
going to make any judgment calls just on that.
And so, it is going to be an interesting part of this case, Jim. Why? This case, is it just because the president has animus towards James Comey,
which is what everyone on his team believes, or is there something else that precipitated this case to be brought against Comey? So, that is the
big question, because we certainly have not seen other prosecutions of people who have written those numbers in reference to Joe Biden, for
instance.
SCIUTTO: Fair point. No question. Of course, there is that tweet, which I guess there's some speculation might have been meant to be a private
message to Pam Bondi from President Trump on X, pushing for Comey's prosecution.
[18:05:00]
PEREZ: Right, exactly. And not only that, we know that one reason why he fired Pam Bondi just a few weeks ago was because of his displeasure at the
slow pace of bringing prosecutions like this one. Now, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, has said he told us this week in one of three press
conferences we've had with him that this case was being investigated thoroughly by the FBI, that these shells, I guess, were the subject of
intense FBI investigation since last May when Comey posted them on social media.
The question that I think we all have is what exactly went into that investigation? Did they find the person who actually put those shells,
arranged those shells on the beach? Because Comey, according to the testimony he provided to the Secret Service, he said he found them that way
and he took a photograph. So, it's not -- technically, it's not his threat per se. That is one of the big questions that is going to be asked in this
case.
SCIUTTO: Not to mention, perhaps an unusual medium for delivering a threat, seashells on the beach, but I'm sure his lawyers might bring that
up as well. Evan Perez, thanks so much.
PEREZ: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: President Trump and his Russian counterpart discussed the ceasefire with Iran during a lengthy phone call today. The Kremlin says
Vladimir Putin warned of dire consequences for Iran and beyond if the U.S. and Israel were to use force again. On Capitol Hill, U.S. Defense Secretary
Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair General Dan Caine faced lawmakers in public for the first time since the war began. Hegseth sparred with
Democrats over his assessment of Iran's nuclear threat, which you'll remember was used by this administration to justify the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Nuclear facilities have been obliterated. Underground, they're buried and we're watching them 24/7. So,
we know where any nuclear material could be --
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA), RANKING MEMBER, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Reclaiming my time --
HEGSETH: -- we're watching it.
SMITH: We had to start this war, you just said, 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now, you're saying that it was
completely obliterated?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Pakistan mediators are expecting fresh proposals from Tehran in the next several days. President Trump says continuing a U.S. blockade of
the Strait of Hormuz will force Iran back to the negotiating table. Hasn't happened yet. He responded to the deadlock on social media with a mocked-up
image of himself holding a gun before explosions on a hillside.
Joining me now, Democratic Congressman John Garamendi. He was in that room in that hearing today with the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Good to have
you. Thanks for taking the time.
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA), U.S. HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Nice to be with you.
SCIUTTO: As you listen to the Defense Secretary today and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, did you hear any more clarity on the administration's
next steps in this war?
GARAMENDI: No, not at all. What we did hear was, once again, multiple reasons why we went to war. Let's be very, very clear about that. This is a
war of choice. This was the President and Hegseth's opinion that we needed to attack Iran.
Iran's a bad actor, there's no doubt about that. Whether we should go to war with them, that's a completely different question. The result of that
war is an international economic chaos. We have an economic situation in the United States where gasoline has gone up, inflation is going to be
very, very high in the months and days ahead as that price of fuel goes through, and the rest of the world is similarly reeling from the shut off
of 20 percent of the world's oil supply.
Bottom line is, this war of choice in which Hegseth presumably advised the president, I would say incorrectly, to go to war, the result of it is
economic chaos, the loss of 13 American lives, thousands of people killed by America and by Iran over the last two months. And why? For what purpose?
The regime stays in place. Obviously, we have new leaders who are every bit as radical and dangerous as the old leadership. Iran still has its nuclear
material, some 1,000 pounds of it. Could they build a nuclear weapon? Well, that's a possibility.
But let's go back to 2017, when the Obama administration had in place a process in which Iran could not build a nuclear weapon, it could not have
the highly enriched uranium which it now has. Trump in 2017 tore that up, and Iran then proceeded to enrich even more uranium. The bottom line of
this is, this is a very serious problem that has been put forth by Trump under the leadership of Hegseth.
[18:10:00]
And when called out in the committee today, he just plain got upset. Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, but you own this war. This is your war. This is
the president's war. Unnecessary, expensive, and whatever you thought you were achieving, it has not happened and is not likely to do so.
SCIUTTO: In response to your calling this war a quagmire, Hegseth accused you of being reckless. And he also went so far as to say that Democratic
lawmakers, and he said some Republicans who criticize the progress of the war, are the biggest adversary here. What was your reaction to hearing
those words?
GARAMENDI: Well, those are very serious words. The bottom line is that we're not the adversaries. We are representatives of the American people.
The American people, 60 percent of them think this war is a bad mistake. And that's where I am on the issue of the war. Quagmire, absolutely. The
president and Hegseth have pushed America into a quagmire. He doesn't want to hear that, but that's a fact. Extricating America from this war is not
simple.
We have seriously lost our standing around the world. Our allies are staying away from this. They don't want any part of what Trump and Hegseth
are doing in the Middle East. And they're wise about it. They don't want to get into this any -- well, they don't want to get into it. The bottom line
of it is, why are we there? Is it for the nuclear? Well, that's one reason. But every day, they seem to put out a different reason of why we went to
war. It's not clear. And it's certainly not clear how we're going to extricate ourselves from this war.
SCIUTTO: Well, one more thing is, going forward is the status of a possible war powers vote. As you know, there have been multiple attempts to
get this through. Is this a lost cause in your view at this point? I'm just wondering what's changing. Are you seeing any more Republican support for
it? I haven't seen it.
GARAMENDI: Well, the war powers resolution is, at the moment, a messaging resolution. Yes, it's been on the floor. We were short of votes. But we're
going to continue to try. We have a plan in place that we will put forth a war powers resolution every day or every other day in the days ahead, so
that the American public knows that there is a way in which this war can be brought to an end. It's very, very clear that the president doesn't intend
to do that.
Today, he's talking about doubling down, about more strikes, about taking out a couple of rubber boats, I suppose. However, the Congress has a vote
here. The president did not come to Congress when he started the war. He has, since that time, recognized that his war is in jeopardy because of the
war powers resolution. The Senate and the House Democrats and a few Republicans are determined to hold the president to account, to literally
force an end to this war.
And it's very clear from today's hearing that Hegseth has no intention of bringing this to a close anytime soon. He refused to give us a date about
when they might end the war because he can't. He doesn't know.
SCIUTTO: Yes, keep in mind that Iran has president doesn't know either. But before we go, just because there's some news a short time ago,
president Trump posted on Truth Social that he's considering reducing the number of U.S. forces in Germany, studying and reviewing. As you know, he
has often threatened European allies and allies in Asia with just such steps when he doesn't believe the allies are being friendly enough to him.
What's your reaction to that to that post?
GARAMENDI: Well, he clearly now knows that our allies have been on the sidelines and have no intention of getting involved in this war. What he is
also doing is moving troops into the theater into the Iran theater. About a third of the total number of ships that we need in the Pacific to push back
on China have been diverted to the Iran war. They're no longer in the Pacific. They're in the Gulf -- in the area south of Iran.
Similarly, we have burned through an enormous number of very, very critical and sophisticated weapons that are not available. Our arsenal is depleted.
It's going to take billions of dollars, and it's going to take years before we're able to rebuild those arsenals.
The bottom line of this is this has been a total disaster from the get go, and we are still going to be plagued by it in the days, months ahead, as
the president is unable to get out of this war with any of his with any pride. He's going to be on the downside of this, and that's not easy for
this president to be a loser.
[18:15:00]
But the fact of the matter is, by entering this war, as he did, he set himself up as a loser. Iran is already considered to be the winner going
in. That's not good. That's not good for America. It's not good for anybody in that region because Iran is a very nasty, dangerous country.
There is a way that this could have been handled, and that was through negotiations that were terminated in the view of many people that were
watching it closely, terminated prematurely so that we could -- so that Trump could begin this war. Hegseth was giving bad advice at the best and
probably egging the president on, go, go, go. Well, here we are.
SCIUTTO: Well, Congressman John Garamendi, we appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Thanks so much for joining.
GARAMENDI: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Well, Britain's Queen Camilla and King Charles continuing their state visit here. They spent most of today in New York City on day three of
their visit. They visited the 9/11 Memorial in Lower Manhattan, meeting with first responders as well as families of victims. A couple also
attended a trade event and a cultural reception at New York's Rockefeller Center.
Max Foster joins me now. So, Max, are we beyond now the political aspects of this visit, those strong messages we saw from the king, for instance,
before Congress and now into more, well, more of a friendly, a friendly tour?
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: You could say that, but similar themes really emerging. Obviously, many Brits died in 9/11 as well, but I
think part of the message there was something that came out of the speech yesterday. Britain supported America in Afghanistan in its reaction to
9/11. president Trump has said that British troops held back. You can tell us more about that, Jim, than I know, but they caused huge offence of the
U.K., and that's why many MPs wanted this whole trip cancelled. So, this is about remembering victims primarily, but also showing that Britain is
shoulder to shoulder, despite what some of the things that president Trump has said over the years.
Also, it was interesting there to see the mayor, Mamdani, there. He said that if he got a chance to speak to the king, he would ask for the Koh-i-
Noor diamond to be returned to India, which is a centerpiece of the British crown jewels. India desperately wants it back, says it was stolen during
colonialism. We did see them talking. We don't know what the conversation was, but that was, again, pretty political, something that he can't really
do, give away the crown jewels, but it's something that the government would have to do. So, you know, it keeps following him, this separation he
has from the executive of the U.K.
SCIUTTO: No question. One, to your point, listen, British forces fought and died in Afghanistan and also in Iraq, as you well know. Max Foster,
thanks so much for joining us.
FOSTER: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, a big change at the Federal Reserve. Jerome Powell presided over his last policy meeting as Fed chair, but he's not going to
leave the central bank, as is traditional. He's going to stay on. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back. Jerome Powell held what is likely to be his last news conference as Chairman of the Fed today. Powell discussed the Fed's
decision to keep interest rates steady today for a third straight policy meeting. He said he plans to continue his term as governor, which extends
into the year 2028. He cited ongoing threats to Fed independence for what is an unusual move.
The Fed's policy decision today was a contentious one. Four out of 12 Fed governors dissented. That is the most dissenters since 1992. One voted in
favor of a rate cut. The other three were opposed to the Fed's policy bias going forward towards lower rates given the inflationary pressures.
Also, today, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance president Trump's pick to replace Powell, Kevin Warsh. Warsh still has to be
confirmed by the full Senate.
Joining us now, Josh Schafer. He's the editor of Barron's Investor Circle newsletter. John, good to have you.
JOSH SCHAFER, NEWSLETTER EDITOR, BARRON'S INVESTOR CIRCLE AND AUTHOR, "SEARCHING FOR SIGNALS WITH BARRON'S SUBSTACK": Appreciate you having me,
Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, first, just on the state of the current economy, low job growth, GDP growth, a little cool, still high inflation. Was this the right
call, keeping rates steady?
SCHAFER: I believe it was the right call at this point in time. So, really what the Fed is watching at this point, Jim, is inflationary shocks that
could be coming down the pipelines. If you look at core PCs, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, we're actually going to get a reading on that
Thursday morning. Expectations are for that to clock in at 3.2 percent. That is quite a long way from the Fed's goal of 2 percent.
So, the argument of cutting because inflation is headed back down to 2 percent isn't quite there right now. And that's, of course, we're only
starting to see the impacts of the energy shock from the Iran war. You still have tariff inflation feeding through, and then you have some further
inflation from fertilizer prices that could come over the next 12 to 18 months. So, the inflation outlook right now isn't ideal for the Fed to be
cutting.
And then you take a look at the labor market. You mentioned some weak payroll growth. But really what the Fed looks at a lot is that unemployment
rate, the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.3 percent, historically pretty low. There isn't much of a case to be cutting rates because the
labor market is significantly weakening.
So, it seems like the Fed overall just remains in wait and see mode, which I do think is the right call as of now.
SCIUTTO: Tell us what we know about the Fed going forward, because there have been quite severe questions about its independence, giving the
president's attacks on it. And by the way, the Fed chair, I mean, he said, the outgoing Fed chair, Powell, said quite explicitly he's staying on as
governor in part to help defend the Fed's independence in the face of political attacks. So, he's going to stay. You have Warsh coming in. Based
on his testimony, Powell's decision to stay, but also the split over future posture.
Where do you see this Fed? What kind of bias do you think it's going to have going forward?
SCHAFER: I think it's going to be tough for Kevin Warsh to come in and immediately cut rates, as many think he would, because president Trump, who
clearly wants rates lower, appointed him. Because you do have three officials coming out today saying they didn't want an easing bias from the
Fed right now, meaning the Fed's next move would very likely be a cut. So, Warsh himself cannot just decide where rates go. It is a committee. So, you
need the committee to have consensus around that decision. So, you're going to need to move quite a bit to get consensus on that.
On Powell staying, I thought it was interesting that Jerome Powell said today, overall, he wanted to leave when he was done with being a Fed chair.
He said that was always the plan. He felt like the Justice Department dropping their investigation was a step in the right direction.
But he wants to see how things play out in the near term. I don't think you'll see Powell, based on what he said today, stay all the way until
2028. It seems he just wants to stay on for a little bit longer and make sure these investigations are fully closed, because there is a chance that
the investigation specifically that had to do with the Fed construction could open back up, or any other investigation. So, he certainly feels like
Fed independence is a little bit under pressure at this point.
But for now, I think Powell just wants to hang around for a little bit longer. I don't think he's going to hang around until 2028.
[18:25:00]
SCIUTTO: Yes, the D.C. prosecutor, Jeanine Pirro, as she dropped the case, said, well, I might be able to bring him back up again. Josh Schafer,
thanks so much for joining.
SCHAFER: Appreciate it.
SCIUTTO: We'll call it a case of tech earnings overload. Four heavy hitters have just released closely watched quarterly results. Shares are
mixed in afterhours trading. Meta and Alphabet both raised their A.I. spending forecast. They're already spending a heck of a lot. Microsoft and
Amazon reported strong results from their cloud computing units.
Clare Duffy joins me now. Do we have an indicator from these earnings? Where are they pointing?
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Well, Jim, the question coming into this earnings report was the question that we have been hearing a lot about
these big tech companies, which is when are investors going to see a greater return on the massive A.I. infrastructure and data center
investments that these companies are making? And that was especially important heading into today's print, given that this is the first earnings
report we are seeing from these companies since the Iran war kicked off. The surge in oil prices contributes to higher operational costs for these
data centers.
And I think that's likely part of the reason you're seeing Alphabet and Meta raise their capex estimates for this year. But it's interesting to
watch the different reactions from shareholders, in particular to Alphabet and Meta. When you look at Meta, I think investors are asking much harder
questions about what this return is going to look like because that company doesn't have a cloud computing business where it potentially could rent out
all of this data center space that it is investing in.
They are seeing benefits to their core advertising business from A.I., but I think investors are saying, what else is there? What else are you going
to do with all of this data center space? By comparison, Google is already seeing massive returns on that A.I. investment because there's huge demand
for its cloud computing business. You saw cloud revenues growing 63 percent backlog. The customers who would like to be on Google Cloud, who there's
just not capacity for that yet, currently at $460 billion.
And then you have Amazon and Microsoft both came in sort of in the middle here. They're seeing fairly strong growth for their cloud computing
businesses. Again, all of these companies are those three, Apple -- excuse me, Amazon, Alphabet and Microsoft are seeing a boost because they are
serving A.I. companies on those cloud computing businesses.
SCIUTTO: So, much money going to A.I. Let's see where it all leads. Clare Duffy, thanks so much for joining.
Just ahead, what Israel's military chief has to say about the ceasefire in Lebanon. Is it a ceasefire? Plus, my conversation with an advisor to
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.
Former FBI Director James Comey surrendered to authorities in Virginia earlier, charged with making a threat against the U.S. president. The case
stems from a photo of seashells taken and posted by Comey. Those seashells spell out 86 and 47. Comey maintains his innocence. He was allowed to leave
court with no conditions on his release.
In London, two Jewish men were stabbed in broad daylight in what police are calling a terrorist attack. It happened in the Golders Green area, a 45-
year-old man arrested by police on suspicion of attempted murder. Multiple attacks targeting synagogues and other Jewish community buildings have
taken place in recent weeks.
Well, King Charles and Queen Camilla are in New York now for the third day of their state visit to the U.S. They dropped by the 9/11 memorial in
recognition of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The king also visited an urban farming community in Harlem. King, very supportive of
sustainable farming.
Now, to Lebanon, where Israel's military chief told troops that they will continue to operate an attack inside Lebanese territory. Lieutenant General
Eyal Zamir told his soldiers, quote, "On the front lines, we are not ceasing fire." Israel has extended what it calls a ceasefire with Lebanon,
but continues to trade attacks with Hezbollah inside Lebanon.
Ophir Falk is foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I began by asking him, is there a ceasefire or not in Lebanon?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
OPHIR FALK, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER TO THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, the Hezbollah is breaching the ceasefire. That's not surprising. And we're
hitting them back. We're hitting them back very hard. In essence, we had a ceasefire in November 24, and Hezbollah breached the ceasefire. And that's
why we had to go back to war.
We've taken out 6,000 Hezbollah terrorists. And we want to forge peace with Lebanon. We have mutual interests of having peace. Lebanon and Israel have
a mutual interest of dismantling Hezbollah and to forge peace.
Now, what's changed since November 24? The main thing that's changed is that Hezbollah has been degraded. We've degraded Hezbollah significantly.
The IDF has. And that will enable, hopefully, that will hopefully enable the Lebanese government and Lebanon to step up to the plate and to take
their country back and to take out Hezbollah. It's about time to have their country back. And that's --
SCIUTTO: OK. It sounds like you're saying that Israel and Hezbollah are still at war. So, that would seem to indicate there is no ceasefire.
FALK: Hezbollah breached the ceasefire. They're shooting missiles into our city centers, cluster bombs against civilians. And we're hitting them back.
We're hitting the terrorists. Hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization, a proxy of Iran, has taken Lebanon hostage for the past decade or so -- the
past couple of decades actually.
And they target civilians and we target Hezbollah terrorists. That's the main difference between us. And we have to dismantle them. That's a mutual
interest of the Lebanese government and of Israel. And that's going to happen.
SCIUTTO: OK. On the Iran war, when we last spoke, when I was in Tel Aviv, you told me that for Israel to say the war is won, that it would need to
fully remove Iran's nuclear capabilities. That hasn't happened. So, from Israel's perspective, is the war not won?
FALK: Again, our main objectives in Operation Rising Lion and Roaring Lion was to remove the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime. That
includes the nuclear threat, the ballistic missile threat, and to create the conditions for the Iranian people to do the right thing and to take
their freedom, to grasp their freedom. Now, what we did in this operation, along with president Trump and the American armed forces.
[18:35:00]
We've degraded their nuclear capabilities significantly. We've taken out thousands of their ballistic missiles. We've taken out their first-tier
leadership, most of their second-tier leadership. And now, the United States is negotiating with actually a D-League of the leadership that has
been left.
Can we obtain the -- or can we reach the objectives, our mutual objectives, both the United States and Israel's mutual objectives by means of
negotiations? Great. And if not, as the president said, and as Secretary Pete Hegseth has said, and as the prime minister has said, we'll do it by
other means.
SCIUTTO: OK. I just wonder, you say there is no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, but president Trump has declared the war won. But if you and
other Israeli officials are telling me that the war will not be won until Iran's nuclear capabilities are removed, it strikes me that the war's chief
objective hasn't been met.
FALK: Again, the prime minister and the president have said not only for the past 50 days, but I think for the past few decades, that Iran cannot be
nuclear. The president has made that crystal clear, as has our prime minister. There's no daylight between the two leaders. I actually think
there's never been more cooperation and coordination between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, or between the armed
forces -- the American and Israeli armed forces. There's never been such cooperation and coordination.
We've had incredible success on the battlefield, and we'll reach all our objectives, either by negotiations or by other means. But we will reach all
our objectives.
SCIUTTO: Well, there's another issue where there seems to be at least some daylight, because president Trump has said that a naval blockade of Iran is
more effective than a bombing campaign. As you know, though, Iran is still managing to get some ships through that blockade, still managing to some of
its oil.
Does Israel see a blockade as equivalent to military strikes on Iran on that issue? Would you be happy with Iran still, well, managing to get some
through there, or at least the U.S. focusing entirely on the blockade and no longer on further military strikes?
FALK: We see the blockade as being very effective. I think the Iranian regime's economy has been hit tremendously. They lost about $300 billion in
this military operation. And the blockade is not mutually exclusive with anything else. But if the blockade and negotiations does the job, great. If
not, then we'll have to do some more things, as the president and the prime minister have made clear.
SCIUTTO: Are you worried at all that the U.S. president might accept more in terms of Iran's nuclear capabilities going forward than Israel is
willing to accept? Because you and others have said you want no nuclear program whatsoever. Is there a complete agreement on the way forward?
FALK: Actually, the president has also said that, and I would not question the president's resolve, and I would never bet against president Trump or
against Prime Minister Netanyahu. They're very adamant about the fact that Iran cannot have nuclear capabilities, and that's what's going to happen.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, Iran's military has of course stated it does not target journalists. The killing of Amal Khalil, killed just last week, the
fourth media worker killed in Lebanon by Israeli strikes. Can you tell us the status of the IDF review of that killing? And if it is found that she
was wrongly killed, will there be consequences?
FALK: Sure. So, what I can say is that we look at every single incident, we investigate every single incident, and we're looking into this incident.
What I can tell you 100 percent for sure, 100 percent, is that Israel does not target civilians, it does not target journalists. To the contrary,
there is no military on earth. According to the head of urban warfare at West Point, there is no military on earth that goes to the measures that
the IDF goes to mitigate the threat and the risk to civilians. Both our civilians and the enemy's civilians.
That's the exact opposite of what Hezbollah does. Hezbollah premeditatedly targets our civilians. They shoot cluster bombs into our city centers,
purposely trying to kill civilians. And they hide behind the civilians and behind journalists in Lebanon. They cannot have immunity, obviously, and we
will hit Hezbollah as hard as we can in order to protect Israel, in order for Hezbollah to not be able to target our civilians in the future.
SCIUTTO: I'm aware of John Spencer's analysis, but the fact is there are others who disagree with his analysis. I just want to ask you again, if
fault is found with the killing of Amal Khalil, will there be consequences for those involved?
FALK: Well, first of all, I do agree with John Spencer's analysis, as I do agree with Colonel Richard Kemp's analysis, and a number of other experts
who have actually been to the battlefield, as have I -- as I have studied this as well, and we have the lowest, Israel has the lowest combatant to
non-combatant kill ratio. So, I think on that point, we're second to none on that point.
[18:40:00]
As for your question, yes, obviously, we do investigations to see if anything has been done wrong, and if something has been done wrong, we try
to correct it, and for mistakes not to happen in the future, of course.
SCIUTTO: Ophir Falk, we appreciate you joining the program. Thanks so much for taking the time.
FALK: Thank you, Jim. Thank you very much.
SCIUTTO: All right.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Coming up, the U.S. Supreme Court tosses out a key part of America's voting rights acts passed back in the 1960s, what it means, not
just ahead of the midterm elections, but future elections, and for representation among minority voters. We'll take a look, coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: The U.S. Supreme Court today dealt a major blow to minority representation in the U.S. Congress with implications, not just for this
year's midterm elections, but future elections. The conservative dominated court tossed a congressional map for the state of Louisiana that had
produced an extra district dominated by black voters.
The 6-3 decision will make it much harder to challenge congressional maps in the future. Experts say it could lead to major changes to those maps in
the southern states, in particular, giving a significant boost to Republicans there.
Joining me now to discuss the broad legal ramifications of this Stanford law professor, Nate Persily. Nate, good to have you on.
NATE PERSILY, LAW PROFESSOR, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Good to be here.
SCIUTTO: So, the court is in effect creating a much harder test, as I understand it, to prove discrimination in the drawing of congressional
maps, to then prove that it's intentional. From a legal perspective, how high is that bar?
PERSILY: It is very difficult to satisfy that standard. This cannot be overstated. This is one of the most significant election law decisions the
Supreme Court has ever issued. By gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it has taken out one of the major protections against discrimination
in the redistricting process.
[18:45:00]
This provision of the Voting Rights Act is responsible for the creation of many of the districts, not just in Congress, but in state legislatures down
to the school boards many of these districts that are where minorities are able to elect their candidates of choice.
SCIUTTO: The court has often, this conservative court, leaned on Congress to create solutions to major issues in this country. Didn't Congress do so
with the Voting Rights Act?
PERSILY: Exactly. And this particular provision, which the court gutted today, was in response to a court decision in the early 1980s. And so,
Congress passed a law in an amendment to the Voting Rights Act in 1982 that was signed by president Reagan and was overwhelmingly approved by both
Democrats and Republicans. And it is that provision which the court is effectively gutting today.
SCIUTTO: Can you speak to not just the future of the Voting Rights Act, but also the Civil Rights Act? Because as I understand it, there's concern
about this conservative court gutting, in effect, the premier civil rights legislation of the 1960s whole -- across the board, in effect.
PERSILY: I think there is concern that all civil rights laws are potentially vulnerable if one says that intent is the touchstone for all of
these inquiries. And that's because if you think about your kind of classic civil rights or employment discrimination case, often we have what are
called disparate impact tests as opposed to disparate treatment tests like the one that the court came up with today.
And so, a disparate impact test says, well, something fishy might be going on if, for example, an employer only hires white employees. You can't prove
what was in their head as to whether that was motivated by racial animus. But the Civil Rights Act comes in and says, look, you've got to do a better
job of justifying that kind of test or that kind of hiring decision.
And so, to the extent the court is forcing an intent requirement on all kinds of state action that would affect people on the basis of race, then
it does potentially have greater implications beyond even the voting realm.
SCIUTTO: Is there a potential congressional response to this? Certainly not with the current Republican-controlled Congress, but in future
Congresses, or does this put its thumb on the scale, in effect?
PERSILY: Well, it seems like it's going to be very difficult for Congress or state legislatures to adopt redistricting criteria that explicitly leads
to line drawers taking race into account when they draw maps. And so, that -- if Congress were to try to remedy this decision that way, then that
would be a problem.
There are ways that you might sort of force non-race specific remedies, for example, adopting different kinds of representational systems. But it
doesn't seem that that Congress is racing to do that. The single member district system that we have here, as opposed to the, you know, forms of
government they have in Europe, would be a sort of long way away.
SCIUTTO: Now, in terms of the political implications of this, in the recent quite unusual, as you know, mid-decade redistricting that we saw in
Texas, other Republican states, where Democratic states or blue states in California, Virginia have responded by flipping the maps themselves. Can we
see -- might we see some reaction to this in blue states where they respond to this by trying to counterbalance that gain of Republican seats and
decline in minority seats?
PERSILY: Well, for the most part, the Democrats have maxed out in terms of the number of seats that they can squeeze out of the redistricting process.
I mean, there's a possibility that if somehow New York were to come through and redraw lines, but there aren't that many places where they can redraw
lines.
Now, the question is, will Republican states take advantage of this decision to dismantle some of the majority minority districts that we see
around the country? And already today, we've seen politicians in Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia suggest that we should redraw their lines for the
upcoming election.
SCIUTTO: I mean, is there any reason they wouldn't? I mean, is there anything holding them back?
PERSILY: Well, there's nothing in this decision that's holding them back. It caused some chaos in the administration of an election right before
candidates are qualifying for the ballot. In some of these states, you've actually had candidates who've already filed to run in a particular
district. And so, redrawing those lines could cause a lot of disruption.
But as you suggested, we're in a kind of tit for tat war between Democrats and Republicans over redistricting. And this throws another curveball into
the game here so that then you may see some states that weren't going to go down the road of Texas, California and Virginia, that they might take
advantage of the ruling in order to redraw their lines.
SCIUTTO: And maybe not in time for 2026, but 2028 and beyond. Nate Persily, thanks so much.
PERSILY: Thanks for having me.
[18:50:00]
SCIUTTO: Coming up on "The Brief," the future of the Breakaway LIV Golf League. Now, well, very much in doubt amid concerns about lack of future
funding. Where does that leave the players who left for all that money and the fans? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: The breakaway LIV Golf League facing an existential threat. The Wall Street Journal reports that Saudi backers are expected to pull their
funding as early as Thursday. The upstart league has been dealing with serious difficulties of late. It launched back in 2022 and made headlines
by poaching top players around the world with gigantic amounts of money. Golfers who joined the league were forced to leave the PGA Tour. Just a few
years later, the LIV Golf's existence in serious danger.
Don Riddell is in Atlanta. So, first question, why? It seems like the Saudi investment fund decided its money was better spent elsewhere.
DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Well, or maybe they just had a bit less money to play with, Jim. I mean, they have spent and arguably lost billions
and billions of dollars on the LIV project. And, of course, the world, especially in the Middle East, has been turned on its head in the last few
months with the war in Iran and the impact on the global oil market. And, of course, that's where the Saudis make all of their money.
So, it has prompted them into a bit of a rethink. And it would appear that they have decided this is not something that they want to spend their money
on anymore. Of course, it was the Saudis public investment fund that came up with the idea of LIV Golf and ran it for these years. But cracks have
been appearing recently.
And I mean, even before the war began, towards the end of last year, we had Brooks Koepke leaving earlier this year. We had Patrick Reed leaving LIV
behind. So, perhaps those guys were beginning to see the writing on the wall.
And if this does come to fruition, if this is it, it's not necessarily the last nail in the coffin for live because live would try to find another
backer. But even if they find somebody else, they're surely not going to be pouring the amount of money that has gone into LIV, as we have seen.
I mean, they were playing for tournament purses of some $30 million. It seems unlikely that that will happen again. And if the purse is reduced, is
it going to be attractive to those big stars? And if not, well, what are they going to do about it?
SCIUTTO: Yes. And so, now the stars, as I understand it, aren't exactly being welcomed back immediately by the PGA because they certainly weren't
happy to see them go those years ago.
RIDDELL: No. And remember, it was really, really contentious. I mean, this was described at the time as a civil war in the game of men's professional
golf. And a lot of things were said. A lot of feelings were hurt. I mean, lawsuits were thrown around. Some of the players that might be trying to
return to the PGA Tour tried to sue the PGA Tour. So, you can't imagine the red carpet is going to be rolled out for them.
I think the PGA Tour would say, look, if any of those golfers are the kind of players that we think can enhance our product. Well -- and that's not
going to be all of them.
[18:55:00]
But for would match that criteria, perhaps they would figure out a way to get them back. But it's not going to be easy and it's not going to be
cheap.
Brooks Koepka, who, as I mentioned, he left LIV at the end of last year and he's trying to figure his way back. In fact, he already is on the PGA Tour.
It's cost him about $90 million, according to reports, to get back onto the tour. Patrick Reed is doing it a different way. He's gone to play on the DP
World Tour. He's already won a couple of events. That should mean he gets his PGA Tour card back next season. There's going to be a different story
for all of these guys.
SCIUTTO: Well, they certainly went where the money was for a time.
RIDDELL: For a time.
SCIUTTO: Don Riddell, thanks so much. In today's Good Brief, coming soon to an airport near you. You're looking at robot baggage handlers at Tokyo's
Haneda Airport. This was just a media demonstration. Japan Airlines is starting a two-year trial where humanoid robots will help with cargo, even
in cleaning aircraft cabins. Japan faces twin challenges of an aging and shrinking workforce at a time when tourism is booming. I wonder if they'll
handle my suitcase any better.
Thanks so much for joining. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
