Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Former FBI Director Comey Pleads Not Guilty to Federal Charges; Study: Most Boys Regularly See Content on Digital Masculinity; CNN Reporters Test Their Chemical Exposure and Get Dire Results. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired October 08, 2025 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A trial date has been set for former FBI Director James Comey, January 5th. But during his initial court appearance this morning, Comey's attorneys made clear they don't intend for the case to ever make it that far. We now have learned that Comey's defense team plans to file at least five motions to get the case dismissed, including one alleging outrageous government conduct.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Arguments over those motions are set to begin next month. Joining us now, former Trump administration official Miles Taylor and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. It's nice to see both you.

Miles, I have to say, when I learned that you were at the courthouse this morning, a lot of people, myself included, were thinking, why? Why did you -- why did you want to be there?

MILES TAYLOR, FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, well, my wife asked me the same question, which was, you know, I'm not sure in this environment, with this volume of political violence, you want to go show up at a place like that. But look, I showed up because, agree or disagree with James Comey's decisions over the years, to me, this is so obviously a case of selective and vindictive prosecution and sets an extraordinary precedent. Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't say, I think that precedent probably affects my fate as well.

I'm on the president's enemies list. I think that there's a coin flip chance he tries to put me in the same shoes as James Comey, charge me with something that's obscure. But more importantly, I think that a violation of James Comey's rights is a violation of anyone's rights.

[14:35:00]

And I think it was important for people to go up there, including former Trump officials like myself, to be there at the courthouse and to point out that this is, again, a vindictive prosecution. And I think Comey's team is likely going to prevail on those grounds if it even gets to trial.

SANCHEZ: So the question of whether it does, Eli, what do you make of the defense argument that this is a targeted prosecution because of Comey's past experiences with Trump? ELI HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, exhibit A is going to be Donald Trump's social media posts, right? I mean, I do think there's a good chance, not guaranteed, but a far better chance than normal that Jim Comey's defense team succeeds and convinces this judge to dismiss the case based on some variation of either vindictive prosecution or selective prosecution or outrageous government conduct. There's very fine nuanced differences, but they all essentially amount to, I was picked out for political reasons for retribution.

And ordinarily, that's a borderline impossible showing to make because you're not going to have a smoking gun, right? People don't, if, even if someone is being targeted, you're not going to see a document certifying that. Here, just look at the true social feed.

I mean, as Miles said, Donald Trump is not even putting up any pretense or pretext about this. The September 20th post, he essentially says, what about Comey and Letitia James and Adam Schiff? They need to be gone after, too.

So I give him a reasonable shot at winning, and if he does win, by the way, that will mean there's not even a trial. This is Jim Comey's team asking the judge to throw this case out before it gets to a jury.

HILL: There's also, the defense is expected to file this separate motion that involves the appointment of Lindsey Halligan in this case, right? But this is going to be heard in a separate court by a different judge.

HONIG: Right, so it's an interesting, nuanced argument here. The person who was the U.S. Attorney up until a few weeks ago, Erik Siebert, he was put in in an acting, in a temporary capacity. He hadn't yet gotten through the Senate.

There's a 120-day limit on that. If you lose that person, and we know he resigned under pressure, the argument we don't actually know. The argument is, you can't keep putting these temporaries for 120 days, then 120 days.

At a certain point, you just have to let the natural line of succession within the office play out and let your people who are already there move up. And so the argument is going to be that technically, she is not qualified. I don't mean in terms of resume, just not technically permitted to be the U.S. Attorney, and hence this indictment is invalid. The response will be it doesn't really matter who signs the indictment. It's all done under the authority of the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and so the name is sort of immaterial.

SANCHEZ: Interesting. Miles, I wonder, given that, you know, you famously wrote about some of the guardrails that were in place during the first Trump administration, that kept the President from pursuing some of the things that he clearly wanted to pursue, that he now is, given the fact that this second administration lacks anyone that was willing to try to limit his reach with executive power. I wonder what you think when you hear about these firings and attorneys basically being let go, removed, because they won't prosecute his foes. TAYLOR: Well look, I think if this thing went all the way, and Elie's the lawyer, I'm just cosplaying as one here, but I think if this thing went all the way, we would have a finding that this was an unconstitutional persecution of James Comey, a violation of his 14th and 5th Amendment rights when combined, because of how selective and how vindictive this was. I think that's ultimately where this would shake out. What's alarming is that the President was so easily able to bring this to fruition, and I think we've learned two things about the rule of law in the United States this year.

One, I learned very personally, which is in April, the President signed an investigative order against me with the stroke of a pen. We've never seen a President order an investigation into one of his critics for First Amendment-protected speech with his own signature. The President has now shown he can do that, and any successor President can do that unless the courts hem him in.

The second thing we learned was with James Comey, with a social media post, the President can coerce a prosecution of one of his adversaries. That's a pretty low bar. Those aren't really guardrails.

That's a low bar that any President could hypothetically use unless the courts say they cannot, and I will say there's something fitting about the trial date, if this again does go to trial, of January 5th. This will be on the eve of the five-year anniversary of the January 6th insurrection, which Trump and his allies claim resulted in their persecution at the hands of their political opponents.

HILL: Elie, one of the other things that struck me is what we heard from the judge today. Judge Nachmanoff basically saying, we are not going to slow roll this here, and any attempt to do so, I am not going to look favorably upon.

HONIG: The judge is anticipating the usual delay tactics --

HILL: Yes.

HONIG: -- or just obstructions that come up. He said, we're not going to mess around with discovery, government, prosecutors. You need to turn over all your evidence ASAP.

We're not going to drag that out. We're not going to get caught up on technicalities around classified documents. There's really not classified documents.

Just to a point Miles made, which I think is very well stated, it's also a reminder of the enormous unilateral power that prosecutors have, right? There's very, very little. Now Jim Comey can fight.

He's at the defense table. He's got good defense lawyer by his side, but there's really nothing you can do to stop a prosecutor from indicting you, and there's an enormous cost in that.

[14:40:00]

Yes, there's grand jury, but grand jury is very easy to convince to indict. It's a one-sided process. There's no defense lawyer. It's a low burden of proof, and so to Miles's point, we vest enormous power in the executive branch and, in particular, in prosecutors in the Justice Department.

We were taught you're the only people who have the authority to strip someone of their liberty. You need to treat that and handle that with with care and respect that it deserves.

SANCHEZ: Do you think a dismissal or an acquittal of Comey's case would give the president pause before going after some of the other folks that he's talked about going after?

TAYLOR: No, because I think with the announcement of charges, he's achieved the goal that he wants to achieve, putting someone in perpetuity on that blacklist. James Comey will never, ever, ever be introduced in a news segment ever again without, in some way, shape, or form, this being mentioned. It sticks with him for the rest of his life.

Now, he's prepared to handle that, but is the next person who stands in the president's way prepared to handle that? I think not. And what was so striking to me today outside of the courthouse was not the fact that protesters showed up. I thought that was great that protesters showed up. It was the normalcy of it all.

It felt like any other big case that goes in front of one of those courts when I would have expected 10,000 people to be outside that courtroom, because I think this is one of the most significant cases in America's 249-year history. A president of the United States directed that one of his opponents be prosecuted because he didn't like that individual. He didn't like that individual's criticism. That to me is extraordinary. It's a moment where Rubicon has been crossed.

And let me add one more thing. Keep in mind that the reason they're prosecuting James Comey is they're alleging he facilitated the leaks of information about sensitive FBI cases. The irony is not lost on me that this DOJ and FBI are leaking about the James Comey investigation, a sensitive FBI case. They are effectively doing the thing that they are prosecuting him for.

HILL: Miles Taylor, Elie Honig, appreciate it.

Still ahead here, how teenage boys are being sold digital masculinity on social media and the toll it's taking on their mental health. That's next.

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Did you know exactly what your teenage son may be seeing on social media? You may be shocked to find out a new survey finds 73 percent of boys are regularly seeing content about what's known as digital masculinity. Things like fighting, building muscles, making money. And it may also suggest a number of those posts troubling things and ideas about women and girls. And the boys who see this also tend to have a higher risk of feeling lonely and lower self esteem.

SANCHEZ: Now, researchers say that most boys don't go online looking for this content either. They say it just starts showing up in their feeds because the algorithms have learned they are a receptive group.

We're joined now by Jim Steyer. He's the CEO and founder of Common Sense Media, which is behind this survey. James, thanks so much for being with us.

So the survey finds that three and four boys between the ages of 11 and 17 regularly encounter masculinity related posts. Talk to us about what these posts entail and and who is largely making them.

JAMES P. STEYER, CEO AND FOUNDER, COMMON SENSE MEDIA: Well, that's a great question, Boris. And the truth is this, this is shaping young boys, young men's image here across the country. And the images are everything from fighting to body image, to being tough, to making money, sort of very outdated stereotypes in many cases.

And as you mentioned, also some very negative stereotypes of women. Most of the posts are coming not because young boys and men are looking for this and teenagers look for this because it's actually just being sent to them directly by the big social media platforms in order to make money. We have a youth mental health crisis in this country, but also a crisis among boys and young men.

And so this research just hits home very strongly to all parents.

HILL: You talk about the crisis, the mental health crisis. It's also that boys who encountered these posts tend to be lonelier. Your survey found they tend to be less likely to express their feelings.

How do you actually measure that in terms of the answers that you're getting?

STEYER: So this is a really comprehensive research study, Erica, and it went into details with the individual boys and also in online conversations with them through focus groups about their self image. So actually, it really did show that this was affecting their basic self image and psyche, as you said, the way they view themselves. This is an era, you know, a point when we all know, as parents, a major self discovery, self image formation.

These are really troubling findings for boys. We're very concerned about the fact that many of them now also are worried that they won't be able to have a good job when they get out of high school or college. You see this in just general studies, also a boy's self esteem these days, and their concerns about not making the grade.

So this is something that we as a country and as parents in particular need to pay a lot of attention to and hold those social media platforms accountable for. SANCHEZ: When you talk about the tech companies pushing this content to these boys, is it because they have been found to engage with that kind of content more? I wonder why they're specifically being targeted.

STEYER: They're being targeted, Boris, in order to make money. The way you make money when social media is to keep the viewers on their platform, right?

[14:50:00]

And so let's say you're a sports fan. So you've been toggling back and forth with your favorite football or baseball or soccer team. Well, that then puts you in the category of the algorithms that would be sent male and masculinity oriented algorithmic content. Not necessarily because you want that, because they figure out who you are and how old you are, and they know you're susceptible to this.

You also see this on sort of the big social media platforms that can tell you're a boy, they can tell that what you're interested in could be sports, could be body image, whatever.

So it's really unwitting. And the problem is, it can really hit hard on teenage kids and make them feel inadequate, insecure, not living up. And also it tells them a lot of times the content will say, you don't -- be tough, don't express emotion, don't be vulnerable, really negative messages.

And the truth is, it's being sent by social media platforms to make money.

HILL: And there's also a victim story and a lot of those messages --

STEYER: Absolutely, absolutely.

HILL: -- that are being sent out that make them that make them right for or prime them right to be taken advantage of. I wonder if we get your take on this. I was struck by some comments from the prime minister of Denmark announcing plans yesterday that they want to put forth a ban for social media for kids under 15.

I mean, look, that sounds good.

STEYER: Yes.

HILL: We saw what happened in Australia not long ago. The reality is, as the parent of two teenage boys, they can get around anything.

How realistic is something like a social media ban?

STEYER: Well, Erica, a great question. First of all, I was just in Denmark meeting with those folks, and we were in Australia recently with the folks. I agree with you that kids and your kids and mine teenagers can get around most things, but it sends a powerful message to them about the kind of content they're being exposed to and what it's doing to their mental health. So I would agree with you that your teenagers and probably mine and many other viewers can get around some of those bands, right? But actually, I think it's a very powerful public education message to the boys themselves and to kids in general, but also to their parents and educators.

We need hold it -- we need to hold these platforms accountable. There is a tremendous amount of mental health crisis going on in this country, boys and girls, and quite frankly, for adults that relates to the social media platforms. So we need to pass regulations like that.

The ones that you're mentioning in Denmark and Australia are examples, but there's critical bills sitting on Governor Gavin Newsom's desk in California on the same topics. So this is an issue that all Americans care about. It's not a political issue, Republican or Democrat, conservative, liberal.

It's a family issue, a teenager issue, and the platforms have been getting away with some really offensive and inappropriate algorithmic content for years. It's about time they were held accountable. Period.

SANCHEZ: Jim Steyer, thanks so much for joining us.

STEYER: Great to see you guys.

SANCHEZ: Ahead, have you ever wondered what chemicals you might be exposed to on a daily basis? We tracked three of our CNN reporters on three different continents, and the results are alarming.

[14:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: You've probably been hearing more and more about how plastic is everywhere and the chemicals it contains can release and permeate the air we breathe, the food we eat. So we wanted to understand that better. Three CNN reporters, including our chief climate correspondent Bill Weir, wore special bracelets to measure exposure to these chemicals, and what they learned is alarming.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAURA PADDISON, CNN SENIOR CLIMATE REPORTER: Just cycling to the local grocery store.

BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is our colleague, Laura, in London.

PADDISON: It's a cold Wednesday morning.

JESSIE YEUNG, CNN SENIOR NEWS DESK REPORTER: It is hot. It's humid.

WEIR (voice-over): This is Jessie in Hong Kong.

YEUNG: It is a very busy Monday morning here in Hong Kong.

WEIR (voice-over): And that's me, Bill, on my New York City commute.

WEIR: Who knows what kind of fume exposure I'm getting on a daily basis.

WEIR (voice-over): Together --

PADDISON: The wristbands finally arrived.

WEIR (voice-over): -- we are guinea pigs on three continents.

YEUNG: Here's the wristbands.

WEIR (voice-over): And with the help of these special wristbands and an international team of pollution experts -- I'm just heating up some food.

YEUNG: I'm just heating up some food. I have a gas stove at home, which is quite common in Hong Kong.

WEIR (voice-over): We'll spend five days measuring our exposure to the dozens of different chemicals --

PADDISON:

I'm just going to put a little bit of makeup on before work.

WEIR (voice-over): -- that come from living on a planet made of plastic.

BJORN BEELER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL POLLUTANTS ELIMINATION NETWORK: Studies have shown there's over 16,000 chemicals and plastics. Of that, about 25 percent are known to be hazardous chemicals. And the vast majority of other chemicals, there's been not enough scientific data to show if it's safe or not.

WEIR: Thanks to my better half, Kelly, we really try to avoid chemicals, all natural cleaning products, if we can. We filter our water, drink out of glass. We have an air quality monitor here as well.

And for the better part of the last five days, I've either been at home or at the office. I haven't had to get on an airplane. That's rare.

So this is somewhat of a controlled environment to just see how clean my immediate surroundings are.

PADDISON: Every time I walked into a cafe or a restaurant or down a really busy road, a grocery store, you know, got on the train to go to work. But perhaps the place that I've most thought about it is when it comes to what I'm actually putting on my body.

So, you know, perfume or lotions, also cleaning products and what I'm using to clean the house.

YEUNG: I became quite aware when I was going through my daily life and, you know, at dinners or just walking around on the street, I'd wonder like, oh, I wonder what around me is potentially putting chemical pollutants in the air, whether that's my gas stove or things from a construction site. It made me realize how many construction sites I pass through on a daily basis.

WEIR: What do we pick up?

BEELER: Easily you had a lot of chemical exposure, unfortunately.

WEIR: Really?

BEELER: Everything that we looked for, we found.

WEIR (voice-over): All of our samples included flame retardants and UV ...

END