Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Sources: DOJ Nearing Decision Whether To Charge Comey; Kimmel Returns To Late Night After ABC Lifts Suspension. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 24, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: It's likely that they'll start interviewing people that know him. They'll want to talk to him. I'm sure his lawyers will make a decision on whether or not he does that.
He'll have to get a group of attorneys at some great expense to him, I'm sure. Certainly, it would be an expensive thing if somebody brought us in. And, you know, that's part of the price he's paid for giving some service to the country at this point. And that is that he got on the wrong side of somebody who has liked to slam his hands down on the scales of justice when it's -- when it doesn't suit him.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Michael Moore, thank you so much for being with us. Really appreciate it.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: We have breaking news just in here to CNN.
Sources say the Justice Department is nearing a decision about whether to charge former FBI Director James Comey with perjury. That decision and any indictment is expected in the coming days. Sources say that the federal investigation into Comey is probing his 2020 congressional testimony about the FBI investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.
With us now with more on this reporting, CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz, CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, and CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller. We're also joined by CNN's senior legal analyst, Elie Honig.
Katelyn, this is your reporting. What are we learning?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, the clock is ticking for the Justice Department here. And there is an open investigation that could be put before a grand jury for a possible indictment of the former FBI director, Jim Comey, someone who has been a political foe of Donald Trump, the president, for many, many years since he served in that position.
Kasie, what they are looking at is testimony that Jim Comey gave under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30th of 2020. So that's -- next Tuesday will be five years to the day of that. That means -- that's essentially the last date that we understand through our sources that an indictment against Comey related to that congressional testimony could be brought.
And so, what the Justice Department is doing right now, what federal investigators are doing is looking at whether they have the case and potentially taking it before a grand jury. Our understanding is this would be in the eastern district of Virginia. So that is northern Virginia, Richmond, the tidewater area of Virginia, in a federal court, potentially.
Comey has not been charged yet. However, Kasie, and what we do understand, too, is that he stands by his testimony, both from 2017 after he was fired by Donald Trump as president and also in 2020, when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was standing by his earlier testimony and that he wasn't leaking to the media.
We do think that there's a possibility this could relate to a leak investigation, but at the end of the day, what our understanding is right now is that Jim Comey is potentially facing an indictment or a possible indictment related to perjury or making false statements to Congress in 2020.
HUNT: Katelyn, thank you very much for that. I know you're going to stand by for us.
Kristen Holmes, I want to ask you about this newly appointed prosecutor in the eastern district of Virginia. If you could just give us some background about who she is and how long she's held the job and why.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And really quickly, Kasie, I do want to note that this was one of the cases that President Trump was so angry about, that the eastern district of Virginia, Virginia eastern district had not brought charges in the case against Comey and why he wanted Lindsey Halligan, who is now in that office, to actually go to that office, because he believed that the person who was in charge, the U.S. attorney Erik Siebert, was not bringing the charges against his political enemies. One of them again being Comey. I do want to read you this post that President Trump wrote while all of this was unfolding after Erik Siebert was pushed out of office.
He wrote, Pam, speaking to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially same old story as last time all talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam shifty Schiff and Letitia? They are all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.
Then shortly afterwards, he made it public that he wanted Lindsey Halligan to take over. Lindsey Halligan is a personal attorney of President Trump, so amplifying another personal attorney to a high- ranking position there. She was an insurance attorney, and she has been by his side for quite some time. She is known as a loyalist. At one point, she was actually at Mar-a-
Lago or went to Mar-a-Lago after that raid was occurring, or that search was occurring by the FBI years ago. She has been in the president's orbit for some time. She had taken over the Smithsonian review. Now, of course, she is in this office in eastern Virginia. And this case would likely fall under her. And again, this is one of the cases that President Trump wanted to be brought.
HUNT: So, Elie Honig that kind of tosses it into your court.
[16:05:02]
What does it say to you that we are now staring this potential charge -- charging decision in this case, after the president has changed the prosecutor?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, so -- first of all, it's important to keep in mind that it's really hard to bring and prove a false statements or perjury case. People sometimes sort of say that casually, but you have to prove a couple things. First of all, you have to prove that the statement made, the testimony in this case given to Congress was false, and that it was intentionally false, that the person who made the statements gave the testimony, lied on purpose.
Now, it's real easy to get an indictment. It's not automatic, but all you have to do is go into a grand jury, convince a majority, not unanimous, but a majority of grand jurors that you have probable cause. That's a low standard. That's much different than what you'll need to prove someone's guilt at trial eventually.
But the timing here, Kasie, as you alluded to, is so important because just days ago, Donald Trump replaced the prosecutor in this office and said specifically in his post because he wants Jim Comey, among others, to be prosecuted. So that's something that if there's an indictment, I promise you, Jim Comey's legal team will use that to argue that these cases are politically motivated and should be thrown out.
HUNT: Very interesting.
And so, to that point, John Miller, you know, James Comey, you have worked around with James Comey over the years. What can you tell us about whether he was expecting this and what it may mean for him personally?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, I think he was expecting this from the moment that the president of the United States fired the sitting U.S. attorney who had determined there was not enough to go forward and advised the attorney general to get Comey and to do it quickly, along with a couple of others. So there's -- you know, a lot of the times in the backgrounds of these things, there's a hidden agenda behind certain prosecutions, or at least the allegation.
In this case, the agenda is not really hidden. The president has been crystal clear. I want to get my enemies. I'm mad at them for a bunch of things, and I want them charged. So that's kind of out there.
And as Elie Honig suggested this case, if it is ever brought and it's likely it will be, comes with a lot of baggage and not carry-on baggage. This is, you know, the potential that former members of the Department of Justice may be called to testify as to why they thought there was no case here. They do have referrals from Congress, you know, referrals to the Justice Department alleging perjury, but the referrals are built around what they call inconsistencies in his testimony about certain aspects of the Russia influence investigation in the Trump election.
And as Elie Honig will likely agree, perjury has to be a clear, proven, intentional lie on the part of a witness under oath. When you have multiple members of Congress questioning one witness about multiple different things at different times and alleging inconsistencies, that's much more of an uphill battle, especially in a case that looks nakedly political, which is this is how this one's coming in.
HUNT: Elie, your name was invoked. Do you agree?
HONIG: I do, and it's important to understand, you know, let's wait and see, A, if there's an indictment and if so, they're going to have to quote, they're going to have to go back to the transcripts. Prosecutors are going to have to do this and say, here exactly is where we say James Comey lied. And as John correctly said, inconsistencies or testimony that's vague or hedged or even testimony about recollection is not going to do it.
As I said initially, it's really, really hard to make perjury cases. I think way harder than people think. So, they're going to have to show a straight up lie by Jim Comey. They're going to have to show that it is, in fact, a lie, and that he knew it, that he didn't get crossed up, that he wasn't asked a confusing or a vague question.
So, when, if and when there's an indictment, that's the first thing I'm going to be looking at. What exactly -- what testimony are they talking about here?
HUNT: Members of Congress never ask confusing questions that are focused on them more than the witness. That never happens. I've never seen it before.
Katelyn, you've got some new reporting. I mean, one of the reasons this new U.S. attorney was brought in, the president was frustrated that there had been no movement on several cases against people, not just Comey, that he defines as enemies. Do we know anything about how that relates to this?
POLANTZ: Yeah. Well, we know that this investigation had been ongoing both under the previous U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, as well as the new person, Trump's former personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who just was sworn in this week.
Kasie, there has been consistent scrutiny of James Comey since essentially, the Russia probe was ending under special counsel Robert Mueller. And after Jim Comey left the FBI. So, it has been many, many years of scrutinizing Jim Comey and the possibility of some sort of case like this potentially being looked at or found by prosecutors.
[16:10:08]
And then right now, what's so unusual about this, and notable is that the deadline is so close and there's this massive hiccup happening in the eastern district of Virginia, where Erik Siebert has to leave. Our sources are telling us that Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney who exited last week from the eastern district of Virginia, he had fewer hesitations over bringing charges in the Comey investigation than he did related to Letitia James in New York.
But now, it will be Lindsey Halligan decision, and it will be something on her doorstep. On getting this through a grand jury. And that, too, is a process that we have seen in cases like this, including one that the previous Trump administration tried to bring against the deputy director for Jim Comey, Andy McCabe. A case there was unable to get through a grand jury.
So we are going to have to watch very closely what happens to in court behind closed doors with a grand jury, if they are presented an indictment in the coming just couple of days, and how the justice department manages the clock ticking to the end of the day, September 30th, 2025.
HUNT: John Miller, I see you're nodding along. I'm interested in your thoughts on Katelyn's reporting and analysis here, especially, you know, in light of the realities of how -- we've mentioned how difficult this is to prove. Katelyn notes that a grand jury didn't return an indictment against Andy McCabe.
We've seen juries in D.C. reject a number of cases related to Donald Trump. It's sort of been the people have sort of not wanted to go along with it. How do you think that's going to factor in here?
MILLER: Complicated, because, as Katelyn points out, it's not just that the U.S. attorney decides to indict him. They have to go into the grand jury room, which is done in secret. That's not a public affair.
And they have to present evidence to 23 grand jurors who are going to have to say, we see in that evidence reasonable belief, probable cause, reasonable belief to see a crime was committed there. And we think it should go to trial. So that's one hurdle.
And I mean, you know, the saying, you can indict a ham sandwich, but there have been cases where prosecutors have not been able to indict a ham sandwich because grand jurors just looked at it and said, I don't see it. So that's one factor.
The second factor, and this is really interesting, is James Comey could be given the opportunity to testify in that grand jury. And if he comes in and tells his story, that's a different way to convince grand jurors. There's no case there. Most defendants don't do that because of the legal peril of making statements that can be used against you. And the third thing is there's a whole lot of other material outside
this case. There's the Mueller report that says all of this stuff happened. There is the attorney general. Attorney General Barr, from the Trump administration the first time who said all this stuff happened. But the president, you know, was not found to be colluding, nor was his campaign. So it's going -- there are going to be a lot of obstacles to say that James Comey was making things up. And as Elie points out, they're really going to have to be surgical with what testimony they say he was lying about and that they can prove that was a lie that he told deliberately.
HUNT: Significant hill to climb. Looks like we're going to have to find out if they're going to try to climb it.
Kristen Holmes, Katelyn Polantz, John Miller, Elie Honig. Thank you all so much for jumping in on this breaking news.
And coming up, our panel is going to be here to weigh in on all of these breaking news developments.
Also, this hour, were going to talk with the famed Hollywood director Rob Reiner and comedian Sheryl Underwood will join our panel right here live in THE ARENA as news just comes in on how many people watched Jimmy Kimmel's return to late night and what one of the TV giants not airing the show is now saying about the future of their boycott.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!": I'm not sure who had a weirder 48 hours. Me or the CEO of Tylenol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:18:37]
HUNT: Welcome back to THE ARENA. My panel is here.
CNN's senior political commentator, the former Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger; the host of "The Chucktodd Cast", Chuck Todd, CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa, and the former speaker pro tempore of the House of Representatives, Patrick McHenry.
Welcome to all of you. Honestly, there's not a group I would rather talk to about this breaking story with James Comey.
Chuck Todd, big picture, I'll start with you. There is not a person on in any party in Washington who loves Jim Comey anymore. He has managed to anger everyone on all sides of the political spectrum.
CHUCK TODD, HOST, "CHUCK TODDCAST": That is a fact. Right.
HUNT: But this is a very direct it seems, focus from the president on someone that is an enemy of his. What does it say about where we are? TODD: Well, look, he spent arguably the last six years convincing his
supporters not to believe anything out of the Justice Department or out of any law enforcement. Agency that was targeting him. And so now, he's in charge of these agencies. He's going to blatantly politicize them. In his mind, he's doing what he thinks the other side did to him.
But what's the result? Instead of half the country not believing what's coming out of the Department of Justice, we're going to have the entire country not believing what's coming out of the Department of Justice. I do think they'll have a hard time getting a grand jury, because that's the other thing. Trump doesn't hide what he's doing. If Trump hadn't blared out his plan, I'm firing this person doing this. You might have grand jury grand jurors who weren't aware of what he's up to.
But some of them are likely to have seen his tweets and know that he is blatantly trying to -- all he wants notice in that tweet what he says, all he wants is them charge. He just wants to cost them money, right? He just wants the headline.
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's the whole -- I'm glad you brought that up. That is the entire thing. I don't know if Donald Trump believes he's going to get any convictions at all. This is about burying people, which he's always done his entire life, even, he buries people in legal paperwork, legal minutia. They end up crying uncle, because they run out of money.
Here's the other thing. It's important for people to remember -- Comey is probably a big reason why Donald Trump was ever elected president. Remember a few weeks --
HUNT: Yeah.
KINZINGER: -- before the election, he came out and said they were reopening the investigation on Hillary Clinton. And you saw Clinton's numbers drop in that.
We are ten years out --
HUNT: The aforementioned everyone in Washington. Jim Comey, yes.
TODD: And he better have a dog. It's the only friend.
KINZINGER: That's right, that's right. But now, ten years later, Donald Trump is still obsessed with this. And all he all he wants is the indictment, I hope, and I don't think he's going to get it. But we'll see.
HUNT: What do you think? Is this -- I mean, what is Trump doing here? And does it represent --
PATRICK MCHENRY, FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Let's step back.
HUNT: Yeah.
MCHENRY: Chuck said, you know, this guy has spent six years and you went through this whole line of against justice and everything else.
I wasn't sure if you were thinking Trump or Comey, because what Jim Comey has done is bring ill repute upon the FBI, and not just how he handled Hillary Clinton. But remember, at the beginning of that, he said, that's fine. Like the -- her handling of classified information.
TODD: Made himself judge and jury. Yeah.
MCHENRY: Right. And punted it. And then only with the realization through massive scandal, a sex scandal, in fact, that a laptop becomes public, did he get forced into a situation that then did Hillary Clinton in.
So, let's get the whole story here. At the end of the day, no one is saying Jim Comey is not a liar. That is not what this discussion is about, is about the president and the president's activities.
Jim Comey is a liar. The FBI's IG said this going back to 2019. We remember the social media posts where he is making himself even more political by inserting himself into politics, saying there is no wiretapping, there's no targeting of Trump, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The 8647 on Instagram.
These are astronomically partisan and worse than that --
TODD: Being bad at politics --
MCHENRY: But worse than that --
TODD: -- he indicted for?
MCHENRY: Stupid, completely stupid. Which then brings ill repute upon the FBI, which is very important that we have a law enforcement agency and a justice system that is beyond ill repute.
But the substance of this is lying before Congress. That is a serious charge. That is not often policed, and it needs to be policed.
HUNT: All right. So there is this question here, right? And we're still working on reporting this out. Obviously, we have not seen any indictment. Our reporting right now is that this is a decision that is in the works with a deadline of next Tuesday, but there are some places in this testimony that have been disputed, and we can show you at least one of them.
We're working on the second one, but one of them here is whether or not Comey authorized a deputy of his, Andy McCabe, to provide information to reporters that that perhaps should not have been provided.
But either way, the question is, did he lie about providing that information or did he not? Let's watch that exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): 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?
JIM COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Xochitl Hinojosa, you worked at the Department of Justice for our viewers who don't know.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
HUNT: Obviously, the Democratic Department of Justice.
HINOJOSA: Yes.
HUNT: What do you see in that moment?
HINOJOSA: So first of all, I need to see all the context. But the reality is, is that this happened. The whole reason why we're in this situation, the reason that there's this reporting, is because the statute of limitations are about to run.
It's been five years since that testimony. The Justice Department has about one week to bring charges if they want to bring charges. There were four other years that the Justice Department, if they believed that there was criminal wrongdoing and that the FBI felt that there was enough evidence there to prosecute Comey that they could have done that.
HUNT: But let's be fair, prosecution decisions are judgment calls.
HINOJOSA: They are judgment calls. But you know what? And this is the difference between decades of precedent -- precedent at the Justice Department and what has happened in the last nine months. Those decisions often happen by Justice Department officials who have been there for a very long time, have prosecuted these types of cases, understand the law, whether or not they can actually bring an indictment to a grand jury and a grand jury will indict this person.
And it's all and some of them are close calls. Some of them are not. Some of them there is not enough evidence. They don't believe they're going to be successful in a case.
That -- those are the judgment calls. The problem with the last nine months is the judgment calls are everything is being based and the decisions are being made by the political appointees.
[16:25:03]
And Comey actually has -- if this case has brought Comey has, I wouldn't be surprised if this is thrown out just for Donald Trump's tweet alone that talks about Comey himself and how he was -- Donald Trump was impeached twice, indicted five times over nothing. And justice must be served now. That is a clear indication that this is a wrongful prosecution. And this is just retribution. So, Comey's case right now is pretty strong if charges were brought.
And the reality is, is that it's not just this case. It is over the last few months, the FBI has been acting political. You can bring the Adams case, for example. You can bring the investigation into Tish James. You can bring the investigation into Jack Smith.
They're claiming right now there's an investigation in him. And whether he acted appropriately, these are all people who are Trump's political opponents. What about Republicans who have committed crimes? There is reporting about James Homan potentially pocketing 50,000 --
HUNT: Tom Homan.
HINOJOSA: Sorry, Tom Homan.
(CROSSTALK)
MCHENRY: I understand if that is --
HINOJOSA: There is --
MCHENRY: This is the testimony in question, it's December of 2020. So that meant that the Trump administration would have had three weeks in the -- in in the end of the administration to indict him. And then obviously, the Biden administration was not interested in --
HINOJOSA: It's not that the Biden -- no, no, no, it's the career employees that look at it. It is not the political leadership, which means that over four years, career employees decided not to prosecute him. And the political appointees at the direction of Donald Trump have decided to move forward.
MCHENRY: So, understand this. None of -- none of us are debating about whether James Comey is a good person or is not a liar. So, we're talking about Trump's response here. We're not actually talking about the underlying thing.
If we're talking about James Comey -- good luck. Good luck finding somebody beyond his dog that that will speak well of that.
HINOJOSA: But this is about a crime. And this isn't about liking the guy. It's about a crime. And those are two different things.
(CROSSTALK)
MCHENRY: Punished for the actions he's taken.
KINZINGER: It's sad to me that for -- and if we could say nine months or four years and nine months, but we've been talking about the Justice Department as partisan, which I never in my life remember thinking of it as partisan. I think that's a big, important point to make.
The other thing is, if we're going to start going after anybody that was dishonest or seemingly dishonest in front of Congress, that's all the Justice Department is going to be doing, is prosecuting people who have been dishonest in Congress.
MCHENRY: I think the larger point is that we're not turning down the temperature on a damn thing right now. This is only making things so much more divided. And I think that --
TODD: Right, and you're ruining -- and more importantly, you're ruining the reputation of the Department of Justice. And the -- look, I think we have to scrap the entire way that it is appointed. We got to figure out how to make it more like the Federal Reserve, assuming -- they're independent.
HUNT: Well --
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: Assuming, I know, I know, the minute -- I said it out of my mouth, you're like trying to reel it back in but if -- assuming it holds.
HUNT: All right, all right.
Coming up next, Jimmy Kimmel's return to late night marked with a new threat from President Trump and a new update on the future of the boycott in several TV markets. The famed director, Rob Reiner, will be here live in THE ARENA, joined by comedian Sheryl Underwood. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!": A lot of people have been asking me if there are conditions for my return to the air, and there is one. Disney has asked me to read the following statement.
To reactivate your Disney+ and Hulu account. Open --
(LAUGHTER)
KIMMEL: Open the Disney+ app on your smart TV or TV connected device.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jimmy Kimmel making a defiant return to TV last night after he was yanked from ABC's air over comments that he had made in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination.
In his opening monologue last night, Kimmel assailed President Trump's, quote/unquote, un-American attacks on free speech, and he became emotional while offering this explanation of his controversial remarks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIMMEL: It was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man. I don't --
(APPLAUSE)
KIMMEL: I don't think there's anything funny about it. I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed, sending love to his family and asking for compassion. And I meant it. And I still do.
Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what -- it was, obviously, a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make.
But I understand that to some, that felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both. I don't think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone. This was a sick person who believed violence was a solution. And it isn't. It -- ever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So just within the past hour, Nexstar, which is, of course, one of the TV companies boycotting Kimmel's show, they've put out a statement. They say that they're engaged in talks with Disney about the show's future. They're focused on, quote, ensuring the program reflects and respects the diverse interests of the communities we serve.
All right. Joining us now to kick off this conversation, the actor and director Rob Reiner.
Sir, thanks so much for joining us. I really appreciate it.
What is your reaction to what Kimmel did last night, how he came back on stage?
ROB REINER, DIRECTOR & ACTOR: I thought he was pitch perfect.
I thought that he didn't -- didn't hit a false note. He did what any, you know, right thinking human being would do.
[16:35:03]
And he pointed out some things that I thought were very important to point out, which is, mentioning that Charlie Kirk's wife was, you know, forgiving and that this was the Christian way. Jimmys a Christian. And I thought that was, you know, it was the right thing to do.
And he also was funny, which is what Jimmy is. So, I thought he was absolutely pitch perfect.
HUNT: What introspection do you think is required for people who, you know, perhaps oppose this president's policies, who disagree with him, who don't -- who wish he wasn't president, considering that we have seen a series of politically violent acts that in some cases, the motive has been, you know, against the right or against the president or similar. That's not, of course, to say that you don't also see these acts coming from people who are attacking Democrats. But I'm just wondering what kind of introspection you think people should be doing about what we're seeing.
REINER: Well, as Jimmy pointed out, it's -- violence is never the answer. And if you want to, persuade somebody to come to your way of thinking, killing somebody is not the way to do it, because it just inflames things. I believe it's incumbent upon leaders, the president and other elected officials to calm the waters when something like this happens, not to stoke, the fire of violence.
And I thought it was unfortunate that President Trump, right after, Charlie Kirk's wife did offer this, you know, thoughts of forgiveness and all that, that he came out and said, I don't forgive my enemies and I don't forgive them. And I want -- you know, want bad to come to my enemies.
That, to me, is not -- it's not the right thing for anybody to say. And it's particularly not right for the president of the United States to say something like that.
HUNT: Rob, I want to show you something that Kimmel posted right before this return that he had last night. And that's a picture of him with Norman Lear the great Norman Lear. What do you think he was trying to say here?
REINER: Well, he loved Norman as I did. And do still you know, I've -- I've often said Norman was like a second father to me and Norman, you know, Norman flew 52 bombing missions over Nazi Germany. He did what he could do to make sure that we'd never have, an authoritarian government on our -- on our soil.
And, Norman was very upset when he started people for the American Way because he felt that there was a blurring of church and state, and he, as rightly so in the Constitution, there are three significant mentions of a separation of church and state. He saw those lines getting blurred, and that's why he started people for the American Way, because the Constitution clearly says we have a separation of church and state, just as the Constitution clearly says, we have the right to free speech. And when we saw that, the FCC chair put pressure on ABC and Disney to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air, that goes directly in violation of the United States Constitution.
So, Jimmy respected Norman, I respect Norman. You know, you may not agree with his points of view on certain things, but the one thing we all have to agree on is that we honor the Constitution and we honor the First Amendment.
HUNT: Sir, I'm going to open our conversation up to the panel here.
Sheryl Underwood is standing by. She's going to weigh in on this as well. But before we do that, I do want to ask you about some brass tacks politics, because you, of course, have been a donor to the Democratic Party. I've interviewed you before talking about politics.
And Kamala Harris actually, in her new book, which has been quite candid, relayed a moment where she says that you were talking with her husband, Doug Emhoff, at a -- at a watch party. It's described as with Hollywood donors, there you go. And this is, of course, watching Joe Biden's debate stage performance.
And she writes this: Rob Reiner had screamed at him, at Doug Emhoff, quote, "We are going to lose our F-ing democracy, and it's your fault."
So, sir, I'm just wondering, did this happen as it's -- as it's described here?
[16:40:00]
And what was going through your mind at the time?
REINER: No, it didn't happen that way. I was upset, along with everybody in that room, including J.B. Pritzker and Andy Beshear, and Gretchen Whitmer. They were all at this gathering. It wasn't just Hollywood people. It was a political gathering. And we were all appalled by the debate performance by Joe Biden.
And I screamed out those words F-word. I threw it out there. I -- and I said, we're F-ing dead. You know, to me it was like, put a nail in the coffin. We were dead. I was screaming at everybody and yes, I used the F-word many times in that rant. I would use them now if allowed to use them on this -- on this channel. But were not allowed to but --
HUNT: We're not regulated by FCC. But yes.
(LAUGHTER)
REINER: Yeah. Never, never in a million years would I ever accuse Doug Emhoff, right, of ruining --
HUNT: I think the implication was that it was Harris and Biden's fault, presumably because Harris was aware of what was going on with the president.
REINER: Well, that may have been the case. I was -- I certainly wasn't aware of that at that point. I had no idea who knew what state Biden's mental acuity or his health was. I had no idea. But I certainly wouldn't have accused Doug Emhoff of that. I had no idea.
I'm fairly politically sophisticated. I'd be an idiot to blame Doug Emhoff for what Biden did at that debate. But yes, I was very angry, and I was ranting at the world.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough.
REINER: And I -- yeah.
HUNT: All right. I want to bring in to our panel the actress, comedian and the former co-host of "The Talk", Sheryl Underwood. We're also going to be joined here by THE ARENA text chain. If you've been following along the last week or so, you'll remember they will be chatting away on the left side of your screen with additional analysis. Sheryl, I'm so grateful to see you. Thank you so much for being here.
SHERYL UNDERWOOD, COMEDIAN AND TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you for having me.
HUNT: You're a lifelong Republican.
UNDERWOOD: Yes, I am.
HUNT: What did you see in what happened with Jimmy Kimmel and ABC News? And was it acceptable for the FCC chair to do what he did?
UNDERWOOD: Well, I can't speak to that because I don't know what's in his mind. But I will say that Jimmy made us proud as comedians, as Americans. He -- first of all, if they had had that conversation earlier, we could have gotten to the grace and the healing.
So, if everybody is hollering about being a Christian, why don't you really act like being a Christian and give people forgiveness? I'm a Republican. I don't want Democrats to fail. I don't want independents to fail. I want people to come together, have a dialogue, and truly make this country better.
And when Jimmy Kimmel got up last night and he talked about what he did not mean to do, it showed more grace and more humanity than all the people that are involved. And they need to pull this rhetoric down. And let's truly bring people together.
And I'm proud of him. I know him personally. He's a really good man, and I love the fact that he talked about the hundreds of people who work on these shows that need their jobs. Let's care about that.
HUNT: Yeah, it's -- absolutely. It was one of my first thoughts, actually, when I heard that this had happened, was the hundreds of people that it takes.
That's right. To put on a TV show. What do you think should be next or might be next for ABC? Because we have seen the president continue to talk about it the way that he is. I mean, what should -- these media companies, they pay for the work of so many people. They produce all kinds of things.
UNDERWOOD: Yes.
HUNT: That's incredible power. And they clearly are afraid.
UNDERWOOD: Well, I would love to see these corporations really go to the legal discussion. I want them to show courage. That's what America needs.
We're not saying that the president can't do and say what he wants to do, but once he does something, if it is adverse to the Constitution, if it's a violation of the First Amendment, I think somebody needs to advise the president.
I think here's a person that had something happen to him. Thank God you survived that. Now do better with what you're doing.
A lot of us have met Donald Trump. I remember when he came on "The Talk". He wasn't what he was now.
HUNT: He was in show business.
UNDERWOOD: That's right. That's right. But can't he remember why he ran? What this is truly all about?
I know a lot of people that didn't like George Bush, the baby, the son, and now he's giving peppermint to Michelle Obama. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's at the black church. You got to have peppermint and butterscotch, and look how everybody's getting along.
See what I really want Americans to start doing? We need to get out of our little silos and our groups and start remembering that we are the United States of America. We can agree to disagree without tearing somebody apart.
HUNT: Preach. Absolutely.
UNDERWOOD: I'll be running for Senate myself.
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: There you go. You approve this message?
UNDERWOOD: That's right. That's right.
[16:45:01]
HUNT: Sheryl Underwood, thank you very much for being with us.
Rob Reiner, thanks to you as well. He may -- he may not be with us anymore.
I also want to thank our panel for -- David Urban and Jeff Zeleny and Ashley Allison, who have been contributing to our show as well. Thanks to everybody.
All right. Coming up, we are going to talk with a top White House adviser as the country gets closer to a government shutdown and no closer to a deal.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
We are continuing to follow the breaking news that the Justice Department is nearing a decision about whether to charge former FBI Director James Comey with perjury. Sources say the federal investigation into Comey is probing his 2020 congressional testimony about the FBI investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.
[16:50:06] Now, joining us to discuss is a top White House economic adviser, Peter Navarro. He is the author of the new book, "I Went To Prison So You Won't Have To".
Sir, thanks very much for being here.
PETER NAVARRO, SENIOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING ADVISER, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Great to be with you. And it is kind of funny. I mean, I did go to prison. I did go to prison for honoring the Constitution. And I'm the only one.
And meanwhile, there's a lot of people out there who should be in prison, in my judgment. And I think in the judgment of many people in the Trump administration, James Comey is the top of that list.
Now, I don't have any inside knowledge --
HUNT: Is James -- is what's going on with James Comey, how is it not basically the same thing that you're saying happened to you?
NAVARRO: Because he broke the law and I didn't. Simple as that.
Let me lay this out for you. The big picture here. And again, I don't know --
HUNT: But you were convicted --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: I don't know what he would be charged with. Theres so many things --
HUNT: Our reporting is perjury.
NAVARRO: There's so many things. But I will tell you this. He was the architect and mastermind of what's come to be known as the Russia hoax. And it started with the Steele dossier.
And the Steele dossier, we agree that was something that the Clinton campaign paid for was a fake dossier designed to falsely tie Donald Trump to Russia. We know that now. What's interesting about that is the guy and I went to prison, so you won't have to in the first chapter, you put me in leg irons in an armed takedown at Reagan when they could have just called me up.
Walter Giardina, he was the guy who read the Steele dossier, according to whistleblowers, and said it was correct and that then told me --
HUNT: I have --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Hang on, let me finish it. Comey signed the FISA warrants based on what he must have known was false or spurious information. And that in and of itself, he broke the law. That alone, never mind all the lying. HUNT: Let's circle back to --
NAVARRO: Sure.
HUNT: -- what is here in this book because, look, the reality is, there were a lot of people who were involved in, you know, were called up to testify to Congress. There were people who didn't answer subpoenas, who didn't land in prison. Could the president of the United States now have -- not have easily gotten you off the hook?
You and Steve Bannon were both found yourselves in prison. There were others that members of Congress, including Republicans, who were protected in these proceedings. So why not you?
NAVARRO: Okay, so let's talk about it. There's one guy who was on your set. He's sitting right across from me. He was the only Republican, along with Liz Cheney, who put me in prison. He's responsible.
But everybody else was a Democrat. So right off the bat, it was a Democrat majority. It was a Democrat attorney general. It was a Democrat prosecutor, a Democrat judge.
And the thing is, I was the first senior White House adviser ever charged with this alleged crime, when for 50 years, the Department of Justice says that if I got a subpoena as a senior White House adviser, it was my duty -- my duty to refuse that subpoena.
So how did I wind up in prison? It was pure weaponized injustice. And I drew the short straw. There were other people who went up the Hill. They pleaded the Fifth or they testified. I was the one who upheld principle. And it was strictly my duty to the Constitution. Full stop. My case is over.
HUNT: But if you'd been closer to President Trump, could you not have gotten --
NAVARRO: No, no. How would you do that?
HUNT: Because he could have written a letter and said that it was privileged.
NAVARRO: At that time, he was out of -- look, nowhere, Kasie, in the law, in statutes, in anywhere, in court decisions does it say you had to have a letter for executive privilege. That's one of the things the courts will do. It's a presumed privilege. It says so right in Supreme Court dicta.
So, what happened was it's like they never asked for a letter. Congress never asked for a letter. I repeatedly asked them to ask President Trump to waive the privilege.
HUNT: The issue is the court, not Congress.
NAVARRO: And they never asked. Then I get out and they say, well, you don't -- you don't -- didn't properly invoke executive privilege. Really?
Okay. What are you telling me this now? And then, I had an evidentiary hearing. I proved it five times over. It was a witch hunt and a kangaroo court. And I spent four months of my life in prison.
HUNT: And you think it's different than -- I mean, and considering what you believe happened to you.
NAVARRO: Yes.
HUNT: We've obviously gone back and forth about it. But you believe that this happened to you. We now are learning that this attorney that was installed by President Trump after the Eastern District of New York was not going to pursue an indictment against Comey. The president puts in his person and suddenly they're going to pursue it. That's okay with you considering your experience?
NAVARRO: I have been saying consistently since at least 2021 that Comey, Clapper, Page, Strzok, all over the FBI, Schiff, among others, should be investigated for crimes that they committed. They broke the law.
Nobody disputes that Comey lied. He lied to Congress. He leaked. That's all true. He signed those FISA warrants.
I want to emphasize to your viewers, okay, look, CNN is not going to be receptive to this kind of thing.
[16:55:02]
But the Russia hoax was a hoax. We know that. And Comey was the guy who set all of that in motion with the help of the FBI agent who put me in leg irons. I mean, imagine that, Kasie. They put me in leg irons when all they had to do was call me on the phone. Was that not partisan circus arrest?
So, Comey, there's --
HUNT: I'm just here to talk about it, sir. I'm not --
NAVARRO: -- just a long list of people. What's that?
HUNT: I'm just here to talk to you about your book. And we are unfortunately out of time. But I do want to say thank you very much for coming, and I appreciate when you come on to talk about the economic issues.
NAVARRO: I'm glad you at CNN, viewers know this --
HUNT: The book is "I Went To Prison So You Wont Have To".
NAVARRO: This book is here.
HUNT: You can pick it up on bookshelves everywhere.
Peter Navarro, thank you. NAVARRO: Don't just pick it up.
HUNT: We'll be right back.
NAVARRO: Don't throw it at the wall.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks for joining us on THE ARENA today.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
