Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Sources: DOJ Preparing To Seek Indictment Of Ex-FBI Chief James Comey; Trump Demands Investigation Into Alleged "Triple Sabotage" At The United Nations; Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) On White House Budget Office Threat Of Mass Firings If Government Shuts Down. Aired 7:30-8a ET
Aired September 25, 2025 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:30:33]
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: This morning sources to CNN saying a U.S. attorney handpicked by President Trump is close to asking a grand jury to indict former FBI director James Comey on perjury charges. It centers around what Comey told Congress in 2020 when he testified about the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Nearly a week ago the president fired U.S. attorney Erik Seibert who was overseeing the Comey case. President Trump then appointed his former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan as the acting U.S. attorney.
And joining us now is our CNN senior legal analyst and the former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig. Sorry -- I don't know, it felt like --
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: The best intro from you.
SIDNER: -- the basketball reference.
HONIG: This is awesome.
SIDNER: But anyhoo, look, what kind of case does the DOJ have? I mean, what is this based on?
HONIG: So we don't yet but I do want to flag this. Perjury cases are tougher to make than one might believe. You have to show, first of all, that the witness -- in this case, I guess, potentially, Jim Comey -- lied -- straight-up lied. Not just gave an ambiguous answer, not just had the -- has a different recollection of an event that somebody else has.
SIDNER: Hmm.
HONIG: A lot of times the question can actually sink a perjury case. The question that the person is asked has to be very clear. You have to prove that they lied and that they lied intentionally --
SIDNER: Right.
HONIG: -- not out of some sort of mistake or not out of some sort of negligence or just lack of memory.
So it's much harder to make these cases than you would think. We need to wait and see if there's an indictment. If there is an indictment, Sara, it will have to specify exactly what testimony quoted they say is perjury and why.
SIDNER: OK.
So look, since the Trump administration has gone after so many people who he deems his political enemies -- we're talking about New York A.G. Letitia James; Adam Schiff, a representative from California -- a Democrat.
Is Comey just the latest in a string of people that Donald Trump is going after because he is on a revenge tour, or should people reserve judgment and wait to see what the details are in this case?
HONIG: So I'm going to say both. We do have to look at each of these indictments on its own. But I do think we have an important indicator as to the strength, at least, of the potential Comey and Letitia James indictments, which is the career prosecutors who worked on these cases objected. They said we don't think there's enough there to charge.
And really importantly, the reporting is that Todd Blanche, the deputy U.S. attorney general -- the number two person at DOJ who we know is an ardent Trump loyalist -- he, too, according to the reporting has objected internally.
So we do have to look at each set of facts on its own. But also, we should not and cannot ignore that Donald Trump is targeting these people. That's not an opinion. Just look at his social media posts.
SIDNER: Right.
HONIG: He posted Pam -- to Pam Bondi --
SIDNER: Right.
HONIG: I want you to go after -- he names three people. And he says, you know, Comey, Schiff, and Letitia James. I want you to target these people.
So, yes, that's part of this and yes, that will factor into the legal case as well.
SIDNER: And so often the Trump administration had complained when Biden was in office of using the DOJ politically. And now that is exactly what appears -- that he appears to be doing when he calls out Bondi over and over again to go after people.
I do want to ask you about Lindsey Halligan. No experience as a prosecutor?
HONIG: No. She has four days' experience. She started on Monday and now it's Thursday.
SIDNER: Excuse me, four days of experience as a prosecutor?
HONIG: Yeah.
SIDNER: Um, and his former personal attorney putting that person -- I mean, what kind of message is this sending?
HONIG: Yeah. You take out a person, Erik Siebert -- the person who was put in there, by the way. A longtime DOJ veteran, leans conservative, leans Republican, was put in that job by Donald Trump himself and then he throws this guy out because Seibert, who has -- who has the judgment and the experience to make these decisions looked at the case -- the James or Comey case, or both, and said I don't see it.
So what's the solution? Get rid of that guy and bring in this person who has never been a prosecutor before who is a longtime loyalist. She used to defend Donald Trump in his civil cases and criminal cases.
I don't think any person -- I think back to my fourth day as a prosecutor. I would not have had the judgment and experience to make a call like this one.
SIDNER: I don't know.
HONIG: No. I was 29 years old -- trust me.
SIDNER: You're really good, you. You're good. You're, like, but not that good. Not that good.
Elie Honig, it is always a pleasure.
HONIG: Thank you, Sara.
SIDNER: Thank you so much.
All right, John.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Four days experience -- I don't think I'd ever heard Elie Honig shade before, but we got some this morning.
All right. This morning President Trump demanding an investigation into what he is calling "triple sabotage" during his visit to the United Nations. In a social media post he wrote, in part, "A real disgrace took place at the U.N. yesterday -- not one, not two, but three very sinister events."
[07:35:05]
The sinister events he is referencing involved a stopped escalator, a broken teleprompter, and audio issues.
Here now, CNN senior White House reporter Betsy Klein. So Betsy, you know, what's the goal here with these so-called sinister events?
BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: John, these are petty grievances, but it really underscores President Trump's broader complaints about the United Nations and its capacity to solve some of the world's most intractable global conflicts. And we heard that in the president's speech on Tuesday as he questioned the purpose of the United Nations and he went on to say all they seem to do is write a strongly-worded letter and never follow up.
But these technical difficulties were still clearly top of the president's mind more than 24 hours after that speech. The president taking to social media to lay out in great detail what had happened here, unable to just let it go and move on.
He said in that post, "First, the escalator. It's amazing that Melania and I didn't fall forward on to the sharp edges of these steel steps face first." He goes on to say, "This was absolutely sabotage" and pointed to a story in Monday's London Times that U.N. workers had joked about turning off the escalator.
He goes on to say, "Then, as I stood before a television crowd of millions of people all over the world and important leaders in the hall, my teleprompter didn't work. It was stone-cold dark." He says, "I was told that the sound was completely off in the auditorium where the speech was made. That world leaders, unless they used the interpreter's earpieces, couldn't hear a thing."
He goes on to say, "This wasn't a coincidence. This was triple sabotage at the U.N."
The president then demanding an immediate investigation and saying that Secret Service was going to be involved with that.
But the United Nations, for their part, are trying to prove that they are taking this extremely seriously. They say that a safety mechanism was responsible for that escalator stopping. There is also some dispute over whether the United Nations or the White House was responsible for that issue with the teleprompter.
But we heard from the United secretary -- United National secretary- general through a spokesperson that he had already ordered a thorough investigation and he conveyed "...that the U.N. is ready to cooperate in full transparency with relevant U.S. authorities on this matter."
But this whole episode comes as President Trump has really reimagined alliances on the world stage and transformed the role of the U.S. in the world. Clearly here, something he is taking a look at, John.
BERMAN: All right, Betsy Klein. Stay on top of this for us. Thank you so much.
And Kate.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: I'll take it.
This morning there is stepped up security at ICE facilities across the country now a day after the deadly sniper attack at a Dallas field office. One detainee inside was killed. Two others were injured.
The motive behind this tragedy is still being sort out. FBI Director Kash Patel -- he did post this -- this photo of shell casings he says were found at the scene with "anti-ICE" written on one.
President Trump drew his own conclusions, calling this the work of "radical left terrorists."
But law enforcement is still investigating the motive. Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem says the gunman was firing indiscriminately.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: And it wasn't just targeted at one specific area or through a window that he showered the building with bullets and was very much focused on hitting anyone that he could inside and making sure that they were victims of this attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Joining me right now is CNN law enforcement analyst and former Secret Service agent Jonathan Wackrow. Jonathan, it's great that you're here.
One of the things -- and maybe I'm taking this out of order, but one of the things that I, myself, have been kind of fixated on is the dynamics of the shooting and how they're describing this.
JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Um-hum.
BOLDUAN: There are similarities to this rooftop elevated angle to what we saw so recently in the tragedy in Utah.
Is that notable? Is -- could that be a coincidence? With your background does that make your ears perk up?
WACKROW: Well listen, what we're seeing right now is these attackers are learning from previous attacks and they're looking at what was successful. So if we look back to Butler, we look at the Charlie Kirk assassination, and now this one, the similarities of an elevated rooftop position, engaging in a long-range attack against really little defenses, right, because they're outside of that security envelope, you start seeing this recipe for success.
And those models are propagated online. People are researching it, and law enforcement knows that. They -- when they start going back and looking at the digital history of these attackers, they are seeing that they previously researched other successful attacks.
BOLDUAN: You have said that this shooting illustrates what you call assassination culture. Can you explain -- 1) that makes me so sad; 2) explain it to us why it might make this attack maybe less surprising.
[07:40:00]
WACKROW: Yeah. Well listen, first of all, it should be very surprising and very shocking and scary, and here's why.
Typically, we see attackers -- and when we talk about attackers after the fact --
BOLDUAN: Uh-huh.
WACKROW: -- we say hey, wow -- there were a lot of these missed red flags.
BOLDUAN: Right.
WACKROW: There's warning signs. There are behavioral anomalies.
Well, think back to Butler. Think back to the most recent assassination attempts or successful assassinations. We're not seeing those early red flags.
BOLDUAN: Um-hum.
WACKROW: So we're seeing this rapid radicalization of individuals and what it's coming down to is really this assassination culture, which is formed in really digital domains --
BOLDUAN: Yeah.
WACKROW: -- and online. And what it is is individuals that start off with a grievance and they tie that grievance to some sort of ideology. And then that's coupled with this sense of moral absolutism, right? I am right, so my target is wrong.
You take all of that and you couple it with previous attacks --
BOLDUAN: Yeah.
WACKROW: -- you start justifying violent acts, but more to the point you justify the act of killing. And that is a rapid progression that should be scaring every law enforcement entity that's out there right now because this isn't an abstract concept. This is now the fourth direct incident that we've seen of the consequence of assassination culture.
BOLDUAN: Fold in two things then, and they have -- it's all interconnected, right? How, let's just say, ICE and DHS needs to reassess their security posture. But also, it could extend to even private companies now with kind of the way they're being targeted and the reaction right afterward. The words that -- the hot takes.
WACKROW: Um-hum.
BOLDUAN: The quick-to-blame no matter where it's going to end up after an investigation.
WACKROW: Right.
BOLDUAN: How does that fold into this?
WACKROW: So rhetoric matters, right? So let's just take, you know, the online rhetoric --
BOLDUAN: Yeah.
WACKROW: -- of anti-government, anti-agency, anti-ICE -- all of that language. When that metastasizes online what happens is it creates this real permissive environment for individuals to align to that, and it gives them a justification to engage in violent acts. In this case, violent acts against law enforcement and specifically, ICE facilities.
So rightfully so, what is law enforcement doing? They have to bolster the security around these detention facilities, processing centers, and everything to ensure that these attacks don't, you know, continue to happen.
But unfortunately, Kate, this environment -- this threat environment --
BOLDUAN: Yeah.
WACKROW: -- is -- we're in a tailspin. This -- it has metastasizing right before our eyes.
BOLDUAN: Yes.
WACKROW: So I -- there will be another attack, unfortunately. And the issue is right now for law enforcement is how do we bolster the security to ensure that no one else gets harmed.
BOLDUAN: When the radicalization is happening it's such a faster clip.
WACKROW: Exactly.
BOLDUAN: So catching them ahead of time is going to be that more difficult. It's a scary time.
WACKROW: Yes.
BOLDUAN: Thank you, Jonathan.
WACKROW: Thanks.
BOLDUAN: It's really good to see you.
WACKROW: Yes.
BOLDUAN: Sara.
SIDNER: All right.
Teachers, of course, have one of the most important jobs but they make a lot less money than other professionals with the same education.
CNN's Matt Egan broke down the numbers and he shows us now. Matt, how long has this gap been widening for teachers' pay?
MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah, Sara. Look, when it comes to pay, teachers have just been left in the dust by the rest of the workforce. The teacher pay gap has never been worse.
So public school teachers are making 27 percent less than other people who have similar levels of education in other jobs. That is an all- time high going back to the late 1970s. And it's even worse for men. Men making 36 percent less as teachers than their peers in other jobs. And that's significant because it makes it even harder to get men to work in schools -- which, of course, means even fewer male role models.
Now the troubling thing here is that this is a trend that is actually getting worse. When you look back to 1979, the pay gap was about seven percent. Now -- look at this -- it's all the way down to 27 percent.
Now all of this is based on an analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which is a labor thinktank, and the Economic Policy Institute, which is a left-leaning thinktank.
And it's true, of course, that teachers -- they do have some other benefits. Their health insurance tends to be better.
SIDNER: (INAUDIBLE).
EGAN: They often have pensions, although some state pension funds are kind of a mess.
SIDNER: Yeah.
EGAN: But the researchers found that even if you adjust for those better benefits their compensation is just not keeping up. And the problem is that their wages have not kept up with the cost of living. If you adjust for inflation teachers are actually making a little bit less -- $46.00 less per week than they did a decade ago.
SIDNER: Wow.
EGAN: Whereas the rest of the workforce is making more than $200 more when you adjust for inflation.
So the bottom line here is yes, there's a lot of frustration with the public education system with test scores, but it's hard to see how you're going to attract the best and the brightest teachers without closing this massive pay gap.
[07:45:05]
SIDNER: It's really disturbing. It's about a third of what other people with the same education are making, and these are the people that are responsible for helping to raise children. I mean, that is literally what they're doing is educating kids so that they can have better lives.
We will see what happens with this, but this is a really disturbing report.
Matt, thank you.
EGAN: It is. Thank you, Sara.
SIDNER: So can you give us a sense -- oh, sorry. Come back, Matt. Come back, Matt. Where is the biggest gap? Like --
EGAN: Yeah. Well, you know, I'm glad you asked that. This is -- like a lot of things, it kind of varies, right, state by state.
Some of the smallest gaps are actually Rhode Island. Relatively speaking, the pay gap there, 10 percent. New Jersey, where my wife is a special ed teacher at a public school --
SIDNER: Yeah.
EGAN: -- it's 13 percent. So that's kind of on the relative better scale.
But then on the opposite end of the spectrum you have a pay gap of more than 30 percent for teachers in a number of different states -- Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama. The worst is Colorado at almost --
SIDNER: Wow.
EGAN: -- 40 percent.
And I talked to a teacher in Alabama -- a 33-year-old teacher who said that it's basically impossible to get by on a teacher's salary. He said he felt like this was his calling, but it's actually been more of a punishment. And he said he wants to buy a house, but he said they're literally competing with rocket scientists in Huntsville, Alabama, which has this aerospace and NASA-heavy presence. And so he said he fears that he might have to just leave the teaching profession altogether to be able to afford to buy a house.
SIDNER: These are really important stories, and these are some really disturbing numbers.
Matt Egan --
EGAN: Thanks, Sara.
SIDNER: -- thank you for sticking around.
EGAN: Thank you.
SIDNER: All right. Ahead, a possible government shutdown just days away and now the White House budget office is telling federal agencies prepare for mass firings if they cannot push a budget through Congress.
And rapper Cardi B's new gig has her speaking to a million commuters every single day. You will hear that voice if you commute here in New York.
(COMMERCIAL)
[07:51:50] BERMAN: Breaking overnight the Trump administration unleashed a fairly unprecedented threat of mass firings if lawmakers fail to get a funding deal done before the September 30 deadline. Thousands of federal employees could permanently lose their jobs in just days.
In a new memo from the Office of Management and Budget, agencies were told to submit their proposed reduction in force plans and to issue notices to employees.
OMB wrote in part, "Programs that did not benefit from an infusion of mandatory appropriations will bear the brunt of a shutdown."
With us now is Congressman Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York. Congressman, great to see you this morning.
You've got a new op-ed in the New York Post out this morning while you -- where you say you "reject political gamesmanship that hurts the very people we were elected to serve."
So what do you think of this new letter from OMB? Does that constitute gamesmanship?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, let's be clear about where we are. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution last week to keep the government funded and open. Senate Democrats, of which it will require at least seven to vote with the 53 Republicans to keep the government funded and pass a bill through the Senate, refused to actually do that.
Now, Chuck Schumer, who served as Senate Majority Leader for the prior four years, said repeatedly on loop that we cannot shut the government down. That it would be destructive to the American people. That it would cut off Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits. That we cannot try to hold the American people hostage. That no president could pound the table and demand they get their way. And yet, that's exactly what Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are doing.
It is fundamentally wrong. I reject it when Republicans do it and I reject it when Democrats do it.
I have voted for every continuing resolution for a reason because no one wins in a government shutdown. The American people are the ones that lose. The economy loses. It is wrong. We end up spending more money because of the interest we have to pay on the money that is frozen.
So at the end of the day here, we need to pass a continuing resolution. The speaker has put forth a bill that does that -- that keeps the government funded through November 21 so that we can finished our appropriations work.
BERMAN: Well, Congressman --
LAWLER: There is not one legitimate reason that Democrats should not support a continuing resolution. They have voted for it every time when Joe Biden and Barack Obama were president. The only reason I could think of is they just don't want to support a continuing resolution with Donald Trump as president.
BERMAN: So, back to my question.
LAWLER: It's truly outrageous when you look at what we have to deal with.
BERMAN: So back to my question, Congressman. Do you support the OMB letter? If there is a shutdown, do you support the idea of using it for mass firings at the agencies?
LAWLER: Well, what happens every time we've had a shutdown is that the Executive Branch has to make determinations as to what is essential and what is not. Barack Obama did that in 2013 -- shut down numerous agencies and departments for well over a month creating --
[07:55:07]
BERMAN: These are permanent. This is a call -- this is a call for permanent -- this is --
LAWLER: -- havoc.
BERMAN: This is a call -- Congressman, this is different.
LAWLER: The fact is we need to keep the --
BERMAN: Congressman, can I get my question in?
LAWLER: -- government open and funded.
So John, there's a very simple solution to this.
BERMAN: This is a call for permanent firings. I'm just asking if there is a shutdown --
LAWLER: Senate Democrats should joins Senate Republicans and pass the continuing resolution.
What exactly is Chuck Schumer's basis for not passing a clean C.R.? By the way --
BERMAN: Congressman --
LAWLER: -- these are Biden's spending levels --
BERMAN: I'm not sure the audio is working, Congressman, because I'm trying to ask you --
LAWLER: -- and Biden policy buyers (PH) in the clean C.R. Trump's spending levels were (INAUDIBLE).
BERMAN: I'm just trying to ask you about the OMB letter. I'm just trying to ask you --
LAWLER: There is absolutely zero justification on the Democratic side to oppose a clean C.R. BERMAN: I was asking about the OMB letter. I'll try one more time. I think you can hear me.
If there is a shutdown, do you support permanent layoffs at federal agencies? Do you support this move, yes or no?
LAWLER: No, I don't -- OK. Again, John, no, I don't support permanent layoffs at these agencies, but that is not the issue here.
BERMAN: OK.
LAWLER: The issue here is that we actually have a bill to keep the government funded and open. And you should be asking Chuck Schumer what is the valid and legal justification that he has not to pass a clean C.R.
Go look at my op-ed. I quoted Chuck Schumer. I quoted Nancy Pelosi. I quoted Hakeem Jeffries. Every time there was a clean C.R. on the table, they lectured Republicans and America about the need to keep the government funded and open.
I'm simply saying we have a bill to do that. House Republicans have done that. We can avoid all these layoffs that you're concerned about, John, by passing a clean C.R. to keep the government funded and open.
BERMAN: I was asking -- I was about your view -- I was asking about your view of OMB, and I do appreciate you answering that question specifically.
You had a tweet about Ukraine yesterday after President Trump came out and said that Ukraine may be able to get all of its land back.
You said, "Agreed, Mr. President. Vladimir Putin is not our friend. He's a vile dictator and thug. We must stand with Ukraine and our European allies in their time of need. Russia, be warned. Stop f-ing around or you'll find out."
Love the phrase "f around and you'll find out." One of my favorites.
But my question is what will they find out and from whom? Because I don't think President Trump has issued --
LAWLER: Yeah.
BERMAN: -- any new promise of American involvement.
LAWLER: So what the president said the other day obviously is the importance of continuing to fund NATO -- our NATO allies -- and continue to provide them with the weapons needed.
As we've seen, Russia has had incursions into NATO airspace. The president has said our NATO allies should shoot down those Russian planes and/or drones that come into NATO airspace.
I have been very clear on this war from the beginning. The failure here was early on. The Biden administration should have put in place secondary sanctions on Russia.
And as I have repeatedly said, and the president said again yesterday, our European allies need to stop purchasing Russian gas. You cannot stop a war that you are helping fund.
We need to cripple Russia's economy. We need to cut off their funding sources so that they cannot continue to fund this war -- certainly not at the levels that they have. And we need to enact secondary sanctions that cripple the economies of anyone doing business with Russia.
The fact is Russia is the aggressor here. Vladimir Putin is a vile dictator and thug. And everything he has done, along with his allies in Iran and China, have sought to undermine and destabilize the United States, Europe, Israel, and the free world.
We need to lead in this moment. I have been very clear on that from the start of this war. And from my vantage point it is time to enact secondary sanctions. It is time for Europe to stop purchasing Russian gas. And it is time for NATO to take action.
BERMAN: Congressman Mike Lawler, appreciate your time this morning. Thank you -- Sara.
SIDNER: All right. Thank you, John.
New this morning we could have the third hurricane of the season by Saturday. Tropical Storm Humberto formed in the Atlantic northeast of the Caribbean. It's expected to strengthen to hurricane status in just the next few days.
Let's get right to CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar. What are you tracking because this isn't the only storm that is out there?
ALLISON CHINCHAR, AMS METEOROLOGIST: No. Apparently, two is not enough. So we're keeping an eye on what could become a potential third.
So here you can kind of see all of the systems we're watching. You've got Gabriel, you've got Humberto, and then you also have what's referred to a 94L. This is the next potential storm. But there's lot of uncertainty here with this one and a lot of that lies with Humberto itself because where Humberto may end up going and how strong it may end up becoming will certainly impact a lot of where 94L goes.
So here is a look at Tropical Storm Humberto's path. Again, we do anticipate that it will become a hurricane this weekend -- potentially even becoming a major hurricane by the time we get to late Sunday as it continues to slide up to the north and then just west of Bermuda.
