Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Pentagon Threatens to Court-Martial Democratic Senator; NBA Gambling Allegations; Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks?; Judge Dismisses Indictments Against James Comey and Letitia James. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired November 24, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:18]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We start with breaking news just into CNN.

A judge has just dismissed the federal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: This comes just days after Comey's legal team filed a motion for dismissal after interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan revealed that indictment had not been seen in its final form by all of the grand jurors.

Both cases had been brought by Halligan after her predecessor declined to bring them.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz has been following all of this.

Katelyn, what is the judge saying about this decision?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Boris and Jessica, the judge is saying, these cases, they're dismissed. That is her order. That is her ruling.

And it is about Lindsey Halligan, the Eastern U.S. -- the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was sent there by the Trump administration, by the attorney general. She's saying that Lindsey Halligan did not have the authority to be the top prosecutor in that district and, thus, anything that she did is invalid.

The judge is looking at Lindsey Halligan specifically. And she's looking at Halligan in both of these cases for Letitia James and in the case against James Comey because both of those defense teams challenged Halligan's appointment.

So this isn't challenging the meat of the case or the allegations themselves. This is about whether this prosecutor was sent to the Eastern District of Virginia and could have gone before a grand jury to secure those two indictments, as she did. She was the only prosecutor in the room with the grand jury at the time of the James indictment and the time of the Comey indictment.

And the reason this judge says that Halligan didn't have that authority is because she's not Senate-confirmed, that the prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia, that there were other top prosecutors there. They had served a very long time, too long, in fact, to have somebody that was just an interim appointee.

And the judge said that it is up to the district judges in that jurisdiction, in the Eastern District of Virginia. It falls to them at that time, rather than the attorney general and the president to send Lindsey Halligan in, that the judges are the ones that hold the power at this point without Congress' signing off on the top prosecutor to find the person to lead that office.

SANCHEZ: Katelyn, thank you so much for the latest there.

Let's go live to the White House and get some reaction with Kristen Holmes.

Kristen, President Trump personally picked Lindsey Halligan. She was a former attorney of his. Are we hearing a reaction now from the White House?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We have not heard from President Trump or from the White House, but we do expect to hear from them at some point, because President Trump has been incredibly invested in this entire process.

One of the things to keep in mind here, you mentioned him handpicking Lindsey Halligan. Well, this was a lengthy process that didn't just start with Halligan. It started with Erik Siebert, who was the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Virginia, who didn't want to bring charges against Comey and Letitia James, saying there wasn't enough actual evidence to bring those charges, which was something that President Trump just didn't believe and didn't want to hear.

And so you saw a pressure campaign from the White House, from Trump advisers on Erik Siebert that eventually led to him leaving that office. And there were a number of prosecutors that were there in that office who had been there for a long time.

But there was a general consensus among the White House, the advisers that none of those people would necessarily want to bring this case if Erik Siebert hadn't wanted to bring this case. And that's where you saw President Trump coming in. He sent that note on TRUTH Social.

We were told by some people that it was supposed to be a direct message to Pam Bondi,instead ended up as this TRUTH Social post he later deleted, where he told the attorney general that she needed to bring in Lindsey Halligan, that Lindsey Halligan, his once personal attorney, who had never even been before a grand jury, was willing to bring these cases.

And that is how Halligan ended up in this top office. And just a reminder, she basically cleaned house when she got there. She fired at least four or five people almost immediately before working on these cases and bringing Comey first, and then Letitia James, getting indictments in both of them.

But, again, President Trump, this was something he wanted. He wanted them out of this area. He knew that these cases were coming out of the Southern District of Virginia. He was watching them closely. He was having his political advisers, his White House advisers, reaching out to people who are familiar with the case.

So it's likely we're going to hear from him directly on this matter.

DEAN: All right, Kristen Holmes at the White House with the latest reporting from there, thank you so much.

Let's bring in national security attorney Bradley Moss to go through some of this.

Bradley, I just want to start first with your initial reaction to this decision and the judge's reasoning behind it.

BRADLEY MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYER: Well, you bring in junk to try to bring these cases. It gets thrown out Monday afternoon as we're all sitting there finishing lunch.

[13:05:04]

Look, these cases on their merits were always thin and weak at best. That's why the career prosecutors recommended against indicting either James Comey or Letitia James. But then you also brought in an unqualified insurance lawyer who had no earthly idea, with respect to her, what she was doing, didn't have the understanding of this process and got rid of the very people, as the former panelist just said, who would have been arguably the ones qualified to know how to handle it.

And you got these garbage indictments. It's no surprise that they were stumbling throughout this process. They were trying to sort of retroactively fix the appointment issue with these letters from Pam Bondi saying she was also appointing Lindsey Halligan to another role and that would rectify things.

It doesn't work that way. I know that's the way Trump and his acolytes prefer things work. They just paper over everything. No, we still, at least for the moment, do have laws, do have processes, and they simply didn't follow them and that's why this got tossed.

SANCHEZ: Bradley, I wonder, given the very public desire from the administration to pursue charges against James Comey and Letitia James, is it likely that we will see DOJ potentially replace Halligan or find another way to try to make the argument, potentially appeal this, to refile these charges?

MOSS: Sure. So there's a couple different options here and different sort of problems for each of them.

One is, obviously, they could appeal, which is what I expect they will try to do, not so much that they think the Fourth Circuit, who would hear it, would be all that amenable to the appeal, but so much as they really want to get this before the Supreme Court, sort of further expand the president's sort of unfettered discretion and his powers that they have been doing for the last year.

But even if they try to go back and refile, you would have the issue of who could lawfully bring a new case. It would have to be someone who met either the district court appointment or someone who was confirmed by the Senate, which right now good luck to anybody trying to get through the Senate, trying to explain what they will do differently than what Lindsey Halligan was doing.

And with the Comey case in addition, there's a statute of limitations problem they will face. Remember, Lindsey Halligan rushed this thing within days of showing up because the statute of limitations to bring the case against Comey was going to expire in like three or four days. And so now there will be a whole extra legal fight of, can you even bring a case anymore?

So this is a mess of their own making. It's the president's personal vendetta, and it's blown up in their faces on a Monday morning as we're getting ready for Thanksgiving.

DEAN: And I do want to read something. We just got Letitia James' statement on this. She said: "I am heartened by today's victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country. I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day," again, that just coming now from the attorney general of New York, Letitia James.

Bradley, back to what we're learning today as well. What does this mean for Lindsey Halligan?

MOSS: It doesn't look good for her for -- in terms of any real idea that she's going to get to remain there, unless somehow they succeed on appeal.

But a bigger concern I would have, if I'm Lindsey Halligan, is,a lot of what came out, particularly in the Comey case, with how she presented things to the grand jury, that speaks to -- sorry -- a potential ethics violation. That speaks to potential disbarment at some point by whichever state bars she's licensed in.

That's no small thing. Donald Trump can always put her in some spot and keep -- and pay her whatever you would want as a private lawyer, but in terms of actually being a licensed attorney to practice, that's in real jeopardy from what we learned in this whole case.

SANCHEZ: Bradley Moss, thanks so much for the analysis. Appreciate it.

Still to come: progress, but no peace, the U.S. and Ukraine working on a deal to end the war. But a lot of cooks are in this kitchen, and the Kremlin just gave their response. We will get into the details in just moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:13:20]

SANCHEZ: Happening right now: Russia is throwing cold water on the latest terms being pitched to end its war in Ukraine. The Kremlin says the European Union's counterproposal to the U.S. plan is -- quote -- "unconstructive."

The E.U.'s president said today that negotiators made significant progress during weekend talks in Geneva, while admitting some key issues still need to be resolved. President Trump echoed that sentiment on social media, saying big progress has been made and hinting that something good just may be happening.

DEAN: Under the U.S. plan originally, Ukraine would make significant land concessions, including territory Russia does not occupy. That proposal would have also limited the size of Ukraine's armed forces and blocked Ukraine from ever joining NATO.

But the E.U. has countered with its own proposal, something Russia is now saying doesn't suit us. That's their words.

Here with us now, Jeffrey Edmonds. He's a former director for Russia at the National Security Council. He's now an adjunct senior fellow at the Center For a New American Security.

Jeffrey, thanks so much for being here with us.

We were saying in the break, this is moving very quickly and changing a lot, and it's hard to know exactly where everything stands, because we started out with that original proposal and this Thursday deadline. Then Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, said maybe it doesn't have to be Thursday. Now they have met in Switzerland.

How do you assess where we are at this moment?

JEFFREY EDMONDS, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I think there's a lot of confusion about where this -- these points came from. I know that the president has agreed to them.

But what I think is important is that the Russians are not -- there are elements of this the Russians certainly won't agree to. There are elements the Ukrainians won't agree to. But the Russians have every incentive to play this along, right?

And they have very little incentive -- even policy analysts in Moscow are saying every time talks come up, the situation gets worse for Ukraine. So there's no incentive for them to actually agree to this, but there's every incentive for them to drag it along.

[13:15:07]

SANCHEZ: And, in the meantime, their attacks on Ukraine continue. Is it your view that Ukraine is in a lower leverage position because of the way that the war has been going over the last few months? EDMONDS: So I think Ukraine has sustained serious damage to

electrical grid ahead of what's probably going to be a harsh winter. That lowers -- weakens some leverage there. They really need to mitigate that problem.

The front line is not great, but it's not dire. And I think that part of the momentum behind these talks is the perception that the Ukraine front line is getting ready to fold. And that's not the case. It's not great. And they have lost some territory recently, but they're not ready to fold.

DEAN: And so, again, it goes back -- the president said over the weekend that if Ukraine didn't agree, they could, and these were his words, continue to fight their little heart out.

But others have said, other U.S. officials have said, we're not saying we're yanking any sort of support for Ukraine. So it's exactly unclear where that all is. That being said, if the U.S. does start to pull back from Ukraine, what does that mean for Ukraine?

EDMONDS: I think there are serious consequences for that. We provide a lot of intelligence and other support.

That being said, it's not as if countries like the U.K. and France, Sweden, Norway -- they have significant intelligence and military capabilities themselves that I think would fill some of the void. And so it's not as if Ukraine is completely left out of the cold if the U.S. backs out.

SANCHEZ: I wonder what you make of the European aspect of all of this, because they presented this counterproposal. The Kremlin has said it's a nonstarter. Are they essentially now, both sides, Russia and then Ukraine and its European allies, competing for President Trump's ear to try to persuade him to see where he lands? Is that what the dynamic is?

EDMONDS: Boris, I think that's part of it. But I also think that Europeans are just trying to assert their role in this. And that's a good thing.

Unfortunately, I think both -- the Russians see the Europeans as largely U.S. proxies when it comes to foreign policy. And so the Russians will only deal with the United States. And it's not clear the administration really is interested in the European deal either.

But I think it's important that the Europeans on their own are coming up with these deals to support Ukraine.

DEAN: And, so if the U.S. is the one dealing with Russia in all of this, what pressure points does the Trump administration have to push Russia to the table, knowing that they'd love to play this for time, they'd love to just let this go on and on?

EDMONDS: I think that the energy-related sanctions, I think those are having an impact. There's more that can be done there. But I think at the end of the day, you have to change the Kremlin's

calculus on whether or not they can achieve their goals in Ukraine. That is the only thing that's ultimately going to bring them to the table, is if Putin suddenly at some point assesses, you know what, I can't achieve what I really wanted to achieve, so I need something, now I will go to the negotiating table.

DEAN: And I will take whatever this might be.

All right, Jeffrey Edmonds, good to see you. Thanks so much for that. We appreciate it.

EDMONDS: Thanks.

DEAN: Some big names in basketball not on a court, but in court today on illegal gambling allegations that have really shaken the NBA.

Hall of Famer and Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups pleading not guilty to accusations he helped rig poker games in a scheme with ties to notable crime families.

SANCHEZ: He appeared in court alongside some 30 other defendants in the case.

CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson joins us now. He's a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor.

Joey, our team here is reporting that there were talks of splitting up the defendants into smaller groups, again, 30 defendants. Would that be better or worse for Chauncey Billups?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Boris, good to be with you and Jessica.

It depends who you ask. Prosecutors are noting, just because of the complexity of having 30 defendants appear, that it would make sense to organize them into three separate groups with about 10, 11 defendants in each.

The defense attorneys, however, are objecting, noting that they are, that is, prosecutors, using this as a tactic to divide and conquer. I will tell you, however, Boris and Jessica, that there are numerous instances in which defense lawyers certainly file motions to what we call sever the case, which essentially is what the prosecutors are doing on their own.

I think that the likelihood of the matter going forward with 30 defendants or 33 defendants, excuse me, 31 defendants, it's not going to happen. It's just not. A court, certainly the size, in the size that could accommodate them in terms of sitting them, but in terms of the logistics of trying the case and doing the case, it won't work. There will be plea deals, other people will leave the case, et cetera.

So at the end of the day, no matter how they do it, organizing into groups, the motion of prosecutors or defense attorneys or the judge separating them, it's not going to happen where all of them are going to go forward at once.

DEAN: And, Joey, prosecutors in this case say there is a tremendous amount of evidence, a terabyte. I can't say that I know how much that is, but it seems like it's a lot.

(LAUGHTER)

DEAN: What do they need to demonstrate to secure that guilty verdict?

JACKSON: Yes, so a number of things are at play here.

First of all, we should note that this is a federal prosecution. And by virtue of that, the distinction is that the federal government generally investigates for years before they move forward. In fact, when they held a press conference regarding this case last month, they noted that it was a four-year investigation.

[13:20:16]

The significance of that, going to your point, Jessica, about the nature of the discovery, the information, is that you acquire a lot. Like what? Like e-mails, text messages, surveillance, phone calls, data, information, video, audio. It's just so much information that they have.

Now, based upon that, the bad news for the defense is that, generally, after that four-year investigation, they pretty well have a sense of who should be implicated, who shouldn't be. Now, I'm not suggesting everyone's guilty.

A grand jury, which convened and indicted everyone, consists of 23 people, a simple majority of which, right, that's 12, have to decide, A, is there reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed, and, B, that those defendants committed that. That's a far cry from proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But unlike a state case, where they arrest you and then start investigating, they have the goods. In terms briefly, Jessica, what they're trying to prove is that this was an illegal gambling ring, in which case they were conspiring. That is, they were acting in concert together to defraud individuals.

They got people who were there who were prominent people, like Chauncey Billups, who they're alleging was in on it and, as a result of that, people were really duped out of providing all this money, and then they were later extorted, et cetera, in terms of making sure that they made the payment.

So with all this information, if they could prove that, the government will be in good shape. If they can't, then the defendants will be not guilty.

DEAN: Yes.

SANCHEZ: And we will see how the case moves forward. Joey Jackson, thank you so much. JACKSON: Always.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL: the Pentagon threatening action against a sitting senator, the Defense Department saying it could recall Senator Mark Kelly to active duty to face a court- martial. We will explain why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:26:38]

SANCHEZ: So the Pentagon now says it's investigating Senator Mark Kelly for what it is calling serious allegations of misconduct. Of course, this is tied to a video made by Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders.

DEAN: Kelly is a retired U.S. Navy captain.

Let's bring in CNN's Natasha Bertrand, who's been following this.

So, Natasha, walk us through what the Pentagon's threatening to do and why they can do this.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is a really significant move by Hegseth's department here.

And, essentially, the way the department is describing it in a post on X is that they have received serious allegations about Senator Mark Kelly and they say that a thorough review of those allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.

Now, they can do that because Senator Mark Kelly, he retired from the Navy as a captain, a fairly high rank in the U.S. Navy. He still receives a pension. He is still technically able to be recalled to the U.S. military by -- to active duty by the U.S. military.

And for that reason he is the only one of the six lawmakers, several of whom are also veterans, but who did not retire and are not as high of a rank as him, that can be subject to this kind of investigation.

Now, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he also posted on X, making it very clear that this was in relation to that video that Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers posted urging service members to disobey illegal orders and reminding them of their duty to do so.

And he also spelled out why Mark Kelly here is the only person that's being targeted. He said: "Five of the six individuals in that video do not fall under Department of War jurisdiction, but Mark Kelly is still subject to the UCMJ and he knows that."

So there are a lot of questions, of course, that have been raised following that video about what exactly constitutes an illegal order. And it is definitely a gray area. It's not very clear in black and white to service members who are dealing with these orders every single day.

But the lawmakers who appeared in this video say that they were simply stating a matter of law, that it is a service member's duty to disobey an illegal order. Now, again, that kind of gets into an area where the service members are going to be having -- are going to have to ask, well, what actually constitutes an illegal order?

The law really isn't that clear about that. But that is why you have lawyers in the U.S. military. That is why you have uniformed lawyers who are supposed to be advising on this thing day in and day out.

And we should also note that many of the orders that President Trump has given over the last several months have been questioned in terms of their legality, the boat strikes in the Caribbean, for example, against the drug cartels and, of course, the deployment of the U.S. military across cities across America.

So a lot of questions that will be raised here. And whether Senator Mark Kelly actually is going to be recalled to active duty is something that we will be watching closely.

DEAN: Yes, it sounds like there's a lot to sort out there.

Natasha Bertrand, thank you so much for that.

Up next here: Who are the winners and losers in MAGA's latest breakup? And, perhaps more importantly, what does Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's open revolt mean for the broader movement?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)