Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Arguments in Comey Case Today; Tyler Pager and Stef Kight are Interviewed about the Epstein Bill, Lawsuit Provision, and Texas Congressional Maps; Immigration Raids Expand in North Carolina; Jury Selection Resumes in Brian Walshe Trial. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired November 19, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Today could be the day the president signs the bill forcing the release of the Epstein files. Congress passed the bill with only one no vote, but what will the DOJ do once it's signed?

And we're learning new details about a new investigation into Sean Combs. Authorities now looking into sexual battery allegations against the disgraced music mogul. Could this mean new charges ahead.

And a miraculous rescue in the Pacific Ocean after a fishing boat sinks. One man loses consciousness. Others are clinging to rafts. How they manage to survive this.

I'm Sara Sidner, with John Berman and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: We begin in Virginia this hour with the former FBI director, James Comey, and his fight to get the federal case against him thrown out. Next hour, a judge is going to hear the first arguments on a motion to dismiss the indictment against him. Comey's attorneys are arguing that this is a case of vindictive and selective prosecution, and they're using social media posts from the president himself to try to back up their argument. That includes that recent and now infamous "Pam post" directed at Attorney General Pam Bondi. The post where the president specifically calls on her to prosecute Comey and other perceived political enemies.

Let's get over to CNN's Katelyn Polantz, live outside of court in Alexandria.

What is expected to happen today, Katelyn?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, we are waiting for James Comey's defense team to go very hard in arguing to the judge today that James Comey has been prosecuted unfairly. That the choices the Justice Department made to bring this case should not have been made because, they're going to argue, that all of this is because Donald Trump wanted a case against someone he very much dislikes.

In legal speak, what today is, is called a selective and vindictive prosecution motion. On the vindictiveness side, the argument is going to be that the Justice Department only brought this case because Donald Trump hates Comey so much and the Justice Department was taking that direction from the president rather than making legal decisions that would be sound to prosecute the case. The selectiveness argument, that's an argument saying that James Comey was singled out in a way that anyone else who would have been testifying to Congress and answered the way that he did may not have been facing charges like this.

They're going to be arguing that James Comey's rights are being deprived. And the way that Comey's defense team is going to look at this is that they're going to say to the judge, look at all of these years of tweets from Donald Trump mentioning James Comey, saying that they want him to be prosecuted, including when Trump tweeted at the attorney general in September saying that Comey should be facing justice and now was the time.

However, the Justice Department, they're going to have a chance to argue as well. And they say Donald Trump's just speaking his mind, quote, from one of their arguments already written to the judge. "The president does not harbor vindictive animus against the defendant," James Comey, "in the relevant sense." Trump's social media "posts reflect the president's view that the defendant has committed crimes that should be met with prosecution. They may even suggest that the president disfavors the defendant, but they are not direct evidence of a vindictive motive." That's very much what we're going to be hearing in court today in these arguments.

And we're not expecting a ruling from the bench today. That's not usually how these things go. It's also very hard to win an argument around this sort of motion, selective and vindictive prosecution, for any criminal defendant. But these are strange times. So, we'll see what happens in court.

And there are many other things that are happening around this case. Questions about the grand jury proceedings. Questions about the handling of evidence. And also a direct challenge to the prosecutor of -- Lindsey Halligan, the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. attorney. All of that is going to be shading what happens in court today.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Katelyn, thank you so much. It's all about to happen.

These are strange times. The story of 2025.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I mean, there's a lot going on here. So much that I need legal advice, which is why we're going to turn to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Counselor, great to see you tomorrow.

Katelyn just laid out what selective and vindictive prosecution is. And she mentioned these are hard cases to win. How hard? How unusual is it to win a case like the one that Comey's team is making? And what makes his case a particularly strong or weak one? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, John, it's almost unheard

of to win on these selective and vindictive prosecutions. As Katelyn correctly laid out what the legal standard are, you essentially have to show that you've been chosen, singled out for prosecution, either because of your political views or because somebody in the government, in this case the president, hates you.

Now, I've seen plenty of motions brought along these lines. They're almost always rejected by judges.

[09:05:00]

However, the case that Jim Comey has here is really the strongest one that I've seen in recent history for dismissal based on selective or vindictive prosecution. He's got the infamous Trump Truth Social post from back in September, where he specifically told Pam Bondi, the A.G., I want to see Jim Comey, and others, Letitia James and Adam Schiff, prosecuted.

And, John, if you look at Jim Comey's memo that he submitted, there is a 59-page appendix that just lists hundreds and hundreds of public statements made, both ways, by Donald Trump and. Jim Comey, showing that there are years of bad blood between these two. I've never seen an exhibit quite like that one.

So, you can never predict that somebody is going to win on these motions, John, because they're always long shots, but Comey's got as good or better chances as anyone I've ever seen.

BERMAN: You know, and for those of us who didn't go to law school, there are people who look at just the tweet alone or the social media posts where Donald Trump says, basically, Pam Bondi, you know, it's time to go look at Jim Comey here. And they say, well, wait a second, isn't that by definition a selective or pointing out someone for prosecution?

So, if you did work for DOJ, as you once did, I should note, how would you defend against this, Elie?

HONIG: Yes. It was a slightly different DOJ back then. But, yes, look, that's about as good as an Exhibit A as anyone could have in making this kind of motion. But if you do read DOJ's response, and I just read it this morning, again, it basically says, look, Donald Trump was saying that Jim Comey committed a crime. In fact, if you look at the timeline, Donald Trump started calling for the prosecution of Jim Comey back in 2017. That was actually before Jim Comey had ever made any public criticisms of Donald Trump. And so, DOJ's argument essentially is, the president is allowed to say, hey, I think I see something criminal. I'd like DOJ to look at it and prosecute it. And they argue that actually predated any bad blood between Comey and Trump.

And the other thing DOJ points out is that the legal bar here is so high. And basically the defendants, Jim Comey, has to show that he's being prosecuted solely. If you look at the case law, it says solely because of the vindictive nature coming from the president. BERMAN: So, Elie, it's my job to keep track of the status of these

cases and what happens next. And even I have lost track of what's going on here because there's been so much back and forth in so many activities in different courtrooms too involving this case. So, where exactly are we and when will we find out if this will go to trial in, what, 40 days?

HONIG: So, yes, the good news is, we are going to learn really quickly. As Katelyn correctly said, I would not expect the judge to announce a ruling today. But, yes, this trial is scheduled to start on January 5th. That is 40 days or so from right now. We will hear rulings before then.

Now, John, this is one of several, I think, meritorious motions that Jim Comey has to dismiss. There's this motion based on selective or vindictive prosecution. There's a separate pending motion. We saw arguments last week arguing that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was improperly appointed. We just saw earlier this week a finding that there may have been misconduct in the grand jury, in some of the comments that Lindsey Halligan made to the grand jury and the way that they used certain evidence. If Jim Comey wins on any of these, the case will be dismissed.

Now, if that happens, however, DOJ can still appeal that. So, let's say the judge agrees. Yes, this is vindictive prosecution. Case dismissed. DOJ will have the ability to appeal that up to the court of appeals. But generally, John, these rulings are left to the district judge, the trial judge.

BERMAN: All right, I'm sure this is not the last time we will be speaking about this, and maybe not the last time we'll be speaking about it pretty soon.

Elie Honig, great to see you. Thank you very much.

Sara.

HONIG: I'm ready for you. Thanks, John.

SIDNER: All right, today, President Trump could sign the bill that Congress just passed to get the DOJ to release the Jeffrey Epstein investigation files. Trump, after months of trying to stop the release, finally capitulated and vowed to sign it. Both the House and the Senate approved the bill nearly unanimously after a whirlwind day on Capitol Hill. Just one Republican across both chambers opposed it.

Most importantly, it marks a victory for the survivors of Epstein's abuse. Many who have fought for years to see some kind of justice. But questions are swirling about how or if the Justice Department will comply and release everything.

Joining me now are Tyler Pager, a White House correspondent with "The New York Times," and Stef Kight, a politics reporter with "Axios."

Thank you both for being here.

Tyler. I'll start with you.

Trump has said he will sign this bill when it reaches his desk. Is there anything that might stop him from doing so today or stop the DOJ from releasing them?

TYLER PAGER, WHTIE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Yes, I mean, White House officials and sources all week have been telling me since the president put out that Truth Social post over the weekend flying back from Florida, that he plans to sign the bill when it reaches his desk. We expect that to be at some point today.

[09:10:03]

You know, Trump's schedule is, it's not always exactly clear how things will unfold, but we are expecting that to happen shortly.

In terms of the broader release of documents, I think there is some belief that the -- some documents could come soon, but also the DOJ has announced that it is going to investigate some of the individuals that Donald Trump has asked them to. Democrats in particular. And so there is a possibility that some of those documents are withheld because of ongoing investigations.

Sara, the other thing that I think is important to point out for viewers is that these documents are likely to be heavily redacted. And so, we know that over the last several months DOJ officials have been working on redacting these documents in advance of a potential petition to call them -- to call on them to release them. And so, I think there -- there's not going to be full transparency on everything because of some of those redactions and sources I've talked to said we should expect heavily redacted documents.

SIDNER: Yes. And we will see. There will probably be some blowback from some of that as well if people can't understand exactly what it is they're reading.

Stef, I want to turn to something else that has happened congressionally. In the short-term budget bill that reopened the government, Republican Senator, majority leader, John Thune put a provision in there that says senators can sue the Department of Justice for $500,000 if their data was obtained during special counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election subversion case without their knowledge. That's taxpayer dollars. What are you learning about the pushback by even his fellow Republicans over this issue?

STEF KIGHT, POLITICS REPORTER, "AXIOS": Well, there's a pretty clear divide among Republicans over this measure, which was added to, you know, this government funding package pretty last minute to the point that, you know, I was talking with Senator Markwayne Mullin just yesterday, and he mentioned that, you know, he was the senator who led one of those government spending bills. And it was in his bill that this ultimately got tucked in there. He told reporters that he didn't even know this was being added to his bill until after the vote. And, of course, on the House side, Speaker Johnson has been very clear that he thinks this part should be repealed. He's moving --we're expecting a vote even today in the House to move to repeal that measure from the bill that passed. Of course, they did not want to prolong the government shutdown to deal with that issue at the time.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, you know, Majority Leader John Thune has defended this action, saying that the $500,000 is really a penalty to ensure that the Justice Department would be held accountable in the instances that have come up recently where Republicans were targeted by the Justice Department, whose -- their phone records were obtained without their knowledge.

And we also found out yesterday that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had been involved in this measure and had ensured that it would apply to potential Democrats in the future who might have their phone records obtained. So, we've really been finding out a lot about this measure after the fact. But there's a very clear divide over whether it should stay in or whether an effort to repeal would actually be able to move forward in the Senate.

SIDNER: All right, Tyler, I do want to quickly get to this. The federal court that blocked Texas from using its newly drawn congressional map in next year's midterms, ruling the map is likely unconstitutional because there was a racial gerrymander that happened. What is the fallout that you're seeing from this? Are you -- are you hearing anything from the White House or others?

PAGER: Yes. I mean, Sara, it's a remarkable opinion, in part because if you recall, the Texas, you know, redistricting started this nationwide effort, this arms race, so to speak, of Democrats and Republicans redrawing districts around the country. So, it is the state that kick started this whole process. And it was really where Republicans put a lot of their focus and effort to try to gain an advantage ahead of the midterms. It's what led Governor Gavin Newsom to Prop 50, which just passed, giving Democrats -- likely giving Democrats five extra seats. And so there's a lot of frustration within the Republican Party about this because they, you know, they're -- they felt that this was their pathway to trying to keep the majority in a midterm cycle where they expect, history shows, to lose some seats.

And so, I think this is going to have huge ripple effects across the country. Obviously, this case can be appealed. And we don't exactly know how it will unfold. But quite a remarkable moment for the Republican Party that's put a lot of its stake in controlling the House in these five seats.

SIDNER: Yes. I mean there's a lot to unpack there.

Tyler Page and Stef Kight, is a pleasure to have you both on. Do appreciate your time this morning.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Immigration raids ramping up in North Carolina as rallies against the administration's crackdown on immigration are now stretching across that state. There's new reporting now on which American city could be the next White House target.

[09:15:06] And we are standing by for the opening bell. A shaky week for Wall Street with concern growing about a potential A.I. bubble. This morning, investors are keeping a very close eye on big earnings report coming out, especially from semiconductor maker Nidia.

Plus, the bombshell guilty plea. A man admitting to dumping his wife's dead body, but claiming he did not murder her. We're going to get the very latest on this trial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: All right, new this morning, signs that New Orleans could be next on the list of cities where ICE and Border Patrol agents will impose the president's immigration crackdown. So far, in North Carolina, there have been more than 200 arrests in Charlotte. That's just over the past three days.

Let's get to CNN's Dianne Gallagher, who is in Charlotte this morning.

You've been there all week watching this unfold. What's the latest?

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And, you know, John, I live in Charlotte. And so, the way this city was the week before this happened, compared to now, it's silent.

[09:20:05]

Places are closed. There is not -- there are not as many people out on the streets. You can really feel the chilling effect of this so-called Operation Charlotte's Web from Customs and Border Protection here.

Now, look, in the past day or so we have seen it expand past the city limits of Charlotte into some of the neighboring cities and as far north as Raleigh and Durham and Cary, about two and a half to three hours from Charlotte. But most of the focus does seem to remain here in the queen city, where the Department of Homeland Security has said that they've arrested more than 200 undocumented immigrants within the city. Some of those, dozens they say, that do have criminal records.

But within the city, much of the focus from the community has been the fact that the majority do not. And they say they feel like this has been overall a fishing expedition that, in the words of some at a county commission meeting last night, is terrorizing Charlotte.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today, the Charlotte I know and love is being terrorized by masked men operating under the authority of the federal government.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are getting phone calls in our ICE hotline of individuals who do not know where their loved ones are, who have been picked up three days ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is happening in the streets of Mecklenburg County is not public safety, it's not security, it's meant to instill fear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Now, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that it was actually investigative work that led them to the city of Charlotte. She said there was, quote, "a high number of child abuse, trafficking, neglect type instances that we've identified over our work there. And that is why they came to Charlotte."

Sources tell CNN's Priscilla Alvarez that next up for Gregory Bovino, Trump's top official with border -- with Border Patrol here on the ground in Charlotte, as well as Chicago, that they're heading to New Orleans the first week of December, where he previously worked as an official with CBP. About 200 or so of the officers are expected to join him there as well.

BERMAN: Dianne Gallagher, in Charlotte, watching developments there, and watching them perhaps move to other cities soon. Thank you very much for your reporting.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: So, it's day two of jury selection getting underway in Massachusetts in the murder trial of a man accused of killing and dismembering his wife. In a shocking twist, Brian Walshe now says he is guilty of disposing of his wife's body, but he maintains he is not guilty of killing her. Ana Walshe was reported missing nearly three years ago. Her body has never been found.

CNN's Jean Casarez has been following this.

Jury selection continues, but, wow.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And they could get a jury today.

BOLDUAN: Really?

CASAREZ: Because, according to our affiliate, they got nine yesterday. They were --

BOLDUAN: It feels like it's moving fast, right?

CASAREZ: Very quickly.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

CASAREZ: But the judge is doing most of the questions. And it's really on pretrial publicity. Can you be fair and impartial? And if they say yes, they're in. So, that is taking place.

But the day started yesterday with a bombshell. He pleaded guilty to willfully misleading a police investigation. That's count number two. And this is what the facts are based on that.

After Ana Walshe was reported missing by her employer in Washington, D.C., the police came and interviewed Brian Walshe four times. And he talked. He talked a lot. And he said that it was early morning hours of January 1, 2023, she said, there's a work emergency. I've got to go. She got herself ready. Her son kissed her goodbye. She left, took an Uber, and went to Boston Logan Airport to fly to Washington, D.C., and he hadn't heard from her since, and he didn't know what happened.

Well, they got the police out in Cohasset, Massachusetts. They also got the detectives out. Other agencies came in. There was a full-blown search to find her. And the prosecutor, who was not for this, talked about the money it cost, the emotional toll.

But then he pleaded guilty also to willfully conveying a body, or willfully dismembering a body. And remember there's tape from Home Depot with a hacksaw that he bought. He's pleaded guilty to this.

The judge asked him a lot of questions yesterday, and here is part of that exchange with the judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE: Is your mind clear here today?

BRIAN WALSHE, DEFENDANT: Yes.

JUDGE: Tell me, in your own words, sir, why are you here?

WALSHE: I'm here to plead guilty.

JUDGE: On those two counts?

WALSHE: Yes.

JUDGE: And you understand that your trial's starting today.

WALSHE: Yes.

JUDGE: On the first indictment?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: To be clear, this was not a plea deal. Prosecutors were not in favor of this unless he pleaded guilty to murder one, first degree murder. He refused to do that. That's going to trial. What will the defense be?

BOLDUAN: It seems the options are limited. I -- this is, obviously, something to watch.

[09:25:02]

Jean, thank you so much.

CASAREZ: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Sara.

SIDNER: All right, coming up, could Sean Combs face new charges? He's at the center of a new investigation in California now.

Plus, what do a great white shark, a stellarator, and a baby chick have in common? We look at "National Geographic's" pictures of the year.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: The breaking news this morning. The bill to force the Justice Department to release all of its files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation is headed for President Trump's desk. He said he will sign it. And that could happen as early as today.

[09:30:00]

All marking a remarkable reversal for the president and just a turn of events. I mean how long this effort had been stonewalled and then how fast it moved