Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Comey: Prosecution Was Based On "Malevolence & Incompetence"; Judge Dismisses DOJ Cases Against James Comey, Letitia James; Zelenskyy: Peace Talks To End War At A "Critical Moment"; Kremlin: EU Counter-Proposal To U.S. Peace Plan "Unconstructive"; New X Feature Displays Users' Locations; X's New User Tool Prompts Scrutiny About Origin of MAGA Accounts; Pentagon Threatens to Recall Sen. Kelly to Military Service After Illegal Orders Video. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired November 24, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Forty-two-year-old actor, musician, Donald Glover, also known as Childish Gambino, just revealed he suffered a stroke last year. He was performing in Los Angeles over the weekend when he broke that news. He said it all started with a pain in his head and then his vision started to be impacted during his tour last year. And while he was in the hospital, that's when doctors told him he'd had a stroke. Doctors also discovered he had a hole in his heart, which required two surgeries.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

Cases Dismissed: The federal judge throwing out the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James. Her explanation for doing so and whether charges could be refiled in the future.

DEAN: Plus, Progress But No Peace: The U.S., Ukraine and Europe discussing plans to end the war, but no proposal so far looks agreeable to all sides, including Russia. We'll have the latest from the negotiations in Geneva.

Plus, a new feature on X lets you see the location of other users and it's exposing how many widely popular political accounts originate from overseas.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

And we do begin with our breaking news as former FBI Director James Comey now responding after a federal judge dismissed the indictments against him and New York's Attorney General Letitia James. This is part of what Comey posted just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Again, this case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the President of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies. I don't care what your politics are, you have to see that as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free. I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again and my attitude is going to be the same. I'm innocent. I am not afraid. And I believe in an independent federal judiciary, the gift from our founders that protects us from a would-be tyrant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: In a statement, a White House spokesperson says, quote, the facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed, and this will not be the final word on this matter.

SANCHEZ: CNN's Katelyn Polantz has been following these cases closely.

Katelyn, the judge tossing these indictments without prejudice. So, what happens next?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: That's a big question. What happens next? It could happen in a lot of different directions, but the White House is saying this will not be the final word on this matter. It's plausible they will appeal this decision. At this time, this is a decision by a trial level judge presiding over this case because she had to be brought in. And she's saying that throwing out these cases, dismissing the indictment against James Comey and dismissing the indictment against Letitia James, she's also saying an additional thing. The judge says that the district court of the Eastern District of Virginia.

So, that's all the judges sitting in that district. They have the power to decide on who the next U.S. Attorney is until someone is nominated by the executive branch and then confirmed via a congressional approval process, the Senate confirmation process that Lindsey Halligan, the current interim U.S. Attorney, never went through.

So, it's a big question about what happens going forward. We are likely to see a lot more in court, though, even if we're not just talking about appeals. We are already hearing from Comey's lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, in a statement saying that there is no further indictment allowed here because this is void and the -- what James Comey had been charged in is well past the five-year window the Justice Department had to try and bring that case.

The judge here, Judge Cameron Currie, seems to agree with that. But these are the sort of things that may still face a lot more court fights, even though these cases against James Comey and Letitia James have been dismissed today.

DEAN: All right. Katelyn Polantz with the latest reporting. Thank you for that.

And let's bring in former federal prosecutor, Berit Berger.

Thanks for being with us as we metabolize what all this means and kind of sort through it. The White House saying this is not the final word on this matter. The judge dismissing this without prejudice. So, how do you see this playing out from here? BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, it's significant that

the judge dismissed this without prejudice. Had the judge dismissed this with prejudice, that would be the end of the story. The government would be precluded from bringing an indictment again, but that's not what happened.

So, because there is no prejudice here, the government could theoretically try and reindict both Comey and James. Now, as you pointed out, there's an issue with respect to Comey, which is that as you look at it right now, the statute of limitations has passed. They can't bring an indictment now because the statute has passed.

[15:05:00]

The government is going to argue that the statute was paused we're told during the pendency of this legal proceeding. So, they're going to say, actually, we have a few more days left on our ticker here that we could actually bring another indictment.

So, what I see happening here is one of two things. Number one, the government appeals Judge Currie's decision. We go to an appellate court to see if there's any chance an appellate court will see this differently than Judge Currie did.

The second path, which could happen at the same time as the appeal, would be the government would try to reindict Comey and James and then a different judge would have to weigh in on the question of whether the time had passed or whether there's still time in the statute.

SANCHEZ: Which do you see as the -- the most likely path for the administration? It seems as though they have a few options, but it may be tough depending on which they pick.

BERGER: Yes, I mean, I think it is very likely that they will appeal. I mean, this is a pretty significant decision limiting the President's power to continue appointing these interim U.S. Attorneys. So, my guess is they don't want this to be the final word on whether the president can appoint successive interim attorneys without having to have Senate approval. So, I think they will appeal.

On the question of whether they decide to reindict. I mean, as I see it, I think it is unlikely that they would win if they -- even if they were able to obtain another indictment. Not only would they have the question about whether the statute of limitations is earned, but don't forget, you still have these substantive motions that are sort of weighing out there about selective and vindictive prosecution.

These were issues that had sort of marred the indictment of both of these two defendants from the very beginning. So, to say nothing about sort of the timing of it, you would still have these big picture issues that could possibly kill an indictment as well.

DEAN: Yes, the judge didn't even get into that part of it. This was really ...

BERGER: Right. DEAN: ... about Lindsey Halligan and if she was appointed

appropriately. And I -- the question becomes then what happens to that position that she is serving as the -- the interim in? And also, to her, there are questions about whether she may face some disciplinary action.

BERGER: Right. So, now the -- the position has to be filled in one of two ways. Either it can be up to the judges in that district to appoint somebody to the position, or the President could put forth a U.S. Attorney and actually get Senate confirmation for that person. That is sort of the normal course, how the statute anticipates that U.S. Attorneys would be put in their position as they would be confirmed by the Senate.

So, one of those two things has to happen in either path. I think it is unlikely that that person will be Lindsey Halligan. Now, whether or not she's going to face misconduct for this is unclear. I think it's probably unlikely that she would face any sort of disciplinary charges. She was given the job by the President. I think she would have a pretty good argument that she went forward in good faith, did everything she could in good faith, believing at the time that she was the validly enacted U.S. Attorney.

SANCHEZ: There's also the open question of whether a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney would file these charges to begin with, but we'll leave the conversation there. Berit Berger, thank you so much for the perspective.

BERGER: Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Another important story we're following this afternoon, the ongoing peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin now rejecting European leaders' counterproposal as, quote, completely unconstructive. The U.S., EU, and Ukraine held talks in Geneva over the weekend, after which there appeared to be some positive momentum, at least according to officials with the administration, for a potential deal.

DEAN: President Trump posting on Truth Social, he says big progress is being made in the peace talks, something EU and NATO leaders have since echoed. Today, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said negotiations have entered a critical moment. And here with us now, CNN Chief National Security Analyst Jim Sciutto.

So, that's what everyone's saying publicly, Jim. What's your read on the situation?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, on Friday, I was hearing abject panic and outrage at the -- the leaked details of that peace proposal. I heard it from Ukrainians who said that this was surrender. I heard it from Europeans who said this has no connection to what our demands are for peace all the way to Capitol Hill. And even Republicans, mind you, who were quite publicly saying that this shall not stand in effect. The difference between Friday and today is marked. I've heard from

European diplomats who say they did make progress this weekend in communicating their core principles, one of which is NATO membership for Ukraine. And not that Ukraine's going to become a member of NATO tomorrow or even five years from now, but just it's important to them not to take that off the table immediately because they -- they look at that as an immediate concession to Russia.

For Ukrainians in the midst of this, their heads are spinning, right? I mean, I heard from a Ukrainian who told me Friday this would amount to surrender. A military commander told me today, listen, it's better today.

[15:10:01]

But he said we're in a vicious cycle of deja vu is that they feel like one day they feel they have America's backing. A week later, it's something completely different. A week later, you know, the -- the tables seem to come back to -- to some sort of, you know, status quo. But -- but for them, I mean, these are existential questions, right? They -- they don't enjoy that -- that back and forth.

SANCHEZ: To that point, you had at the beginning of the year, the President saying that Zelenskyy is ungrateful and that he doesn't have the cards ...

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... to then having Zelenskyy and NATO allies at the White House talking about potentially sending long range missiles to Ukraine. And now, you have the President again calling Ukraine ungrateful and seeming to entertain this plan that by all accounts seems to favor Russia.

SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, it was -- it was like going back to that moment in the Oval Office in February, right. The ungratefulness. He was using the same language, but also President Trump's own assessment of the situation. Right. Because it was only two months ago at the U.S. General Assembly, I remember being there because everybody was like, oh, wow, this is a big change for the President.

He said quite publicly, I just spoke to Zelenskyy and I -- I believe Ukraine can bring -- can win back all the territory it lost from Russia, right, which is a quite positive read. I don't know a lot of people who agree with that to Trump saying again, you know what, they're losing and they got to make a deal now.

Those, you know, to my knowledge, there's been no massive swing in the U.S. military assessment of the situation on the ground. So, where -- where is that basis for what would be a huge strategic turn coming from? You know, and this is the kind of thing that drives particularly the Ukrainians crazy.

DEAN: And what about the Russia of it all, Jim? Because to get -- everyone says and I would -- I would be curious what your thoughts are. They just want to keep playing this out as long as humanly possible. And so, what -- what might Trump have to do to actually get them to the table where they would accept anything less than their list of demand?

SCIUTTO: Well, the European view of this is that Russia doesn't want to make peace, right, that they feel they're winning and that they want to wait out Europe and the West. And it's interesting that the number one criticism you heard on Friday of the initial leak plans of this deal, which, by the way, didn't seem to be a final deal. It seemed to be kind of a working a working document was that this is Russia's ideal outcome. Right.

And what's interesting is that that does not seem to be far-fetched at this point, because when this revised plan comes out, it's not quite out, but at least discussions of it, Russia's saying today, oh, we can't deal with this. So, it does seem kind of true that was out on Friday was Russia's wish list, right? It's just that Europe's not on board for that.

DEAN: Right. So, then on -- and on we go.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

DEAN: Jim Sciutto, good to see you.

SCIUTTO: Thanks a lot.

DEAN: Thanks for that. We really appreciate it.

Still to come, social media platform X releasing a new feature that's raising questions and exposing accounts that promote divisive political content.

SANCHEZ: Plus, the Pentagon threatening to recall Senator Mark Kelly to military service to face a court martial over a video where the senator and other lawmakers remind service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders.

And later, airlines bracing for what could be the busiest Thanksgiving travel period in 15 years while still recovering by those lingering issues caused by the government shutdown and a shortage of air traffic controllers. That much more coming your way next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:27]

DEAN: New feature on X reveals the locations of where accounts are based and other details. The company saying it intended - it is intended to help users verify the authenticity of the content on the platform.

SANCHEZ: Yes, online sleuths quickly discovered that many high engagement accounts that regularly post about U.S. politics actually originate outside the United States ...

DEAN: When did you know it? SANCHEZ: ... shocking, I know -- many of them are also popular MAGA and right-wing influencer types posing as patriotic Americans. CNN media correspondent Hadas Gold joins us.

Hadas, take us through what folks have found.

HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this new feature really set the internet abuzz over this weekend. So, this is a new feature. If you go onto an X account, you can click on where it says the date the account joined. You click on that. It takes you a page that shows you where the account is based in the world. It might show you a country. It might also show you a region. And that's for privacy reasons. If you're in a country that might have some free speech issues and you don't want to show exactly where you are, then you can just say a region.

But as you noted, a lot of users over the weekend started noticing some of these really big accounts have hundreds of thousands, even a million followers or more, a lot of them are sort of pro-MAGA post. A lot of American politics content aren't even actually based in the United States. I want to show you some examples.

The first one is from an account called MAGA Nation has more than 392,000 followers, post exclusively pro-Trump content. But then look at where it's based. Eastern Europe, non-EU. That's somebody who clicked that privacy toggle. We don't know the exact country, but we know the region not based in the United States. This one is another one.

It's -- it's a Barron Trump fan account. It has more than 500,000 followers, post a lot of pro-Trump content, actually says it's in Mar- a-Lago, based out of Mar-a-Lago, not actually based out of Mar-a-Lago. This is another one that is based and you'll be able to see it right there. Also, in Eastern Europe.

A lot of people were posting a lot of these accounts based in India. There was one account that was an Ivanka Trump fan account, had more than a million followers. It was based in Nigeria. That account has since been suspended.

Now, Nikita Beyer, who is X's head of product, posted that this feature is an important first step to securing the integrity, he said, of the global town square. And it's not a hundred percent. There are some issues here. You could be using a VPN that could sort of trick where the account says it is created from. But it goes to show you how much of our online political discourse may not be authentic. And this is a reminder to everyone, X is not real life.

So, what you might be seeing on X by a lot of accounts, you might say, oh, this is the discourse everybody is talking about. It might not be real. And it might be from people who aren't even in the United States. And there's motivations for this. There's political motivations. Foreign governments, as we've seen going back to 2016, want to influence American politics. But there's also economics, because X pays creators for engagement.

[15:20:08]

If you're in their creators program, you get more followers, more comments, more engagement. You get paid more money. And as we all know, politics gets a lot of engagement. And people get really amped up about politics and start having discourse back and forth. So, there's an economic motivation to this as well.

For X, as to why they want to roll out this new transparency feature, well, think about what's coming. All of this A.I.-generated content, A.I.-generated accounts, users, and importantly, both advertisers, they want authenticity. And so that's something really important that is likely weighing on X, which is probably motivating them to try and push forward with these new transparency efforts.

SANCHEZ: Hadas Gold, thank you for that reminder.

DEAN: A good reminder.

SANCHEZ: It should be a daily reminder ...

DEAN: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... that social media, not real life.

Still ahead, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly responding after the Defense Department threatened to recall him to active service to face a court- martial. The details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:25:37]

SANCHEZ: Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a retired Navy captain, is now responding to being investigated by the Pentagon. The Defense Department said it's doing so in light of, quote, "serious allegations of misconduct" against him.

DEAN: He's one of six Democratic lawmakers under fire by President Trump for their video that reminded service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders. Let's bring in CNN's Natasha Bertrand, who has been covering this for us.

Natasha, what exactly is the Pentagon threatening to do here?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so in a statement posted on X, the Department of War said that they are conducting a thorough review of the allegations against Senator Mark Kelly. Those allegations, of course, appear to stem from that video that he and other lawmakers posted last week reminding service members that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. That video really angered President Donald Trump, who called it seditious, who said that they were traitors for releasing that video.

And now, the department says that this investigation could even lead to Mark Kelly being recalled to active duty to face a court martial, which would be a very serious escalation. Now, Secretary Hegseth on X, he also said that the reason why Senator

Kelly and not some of the other Democratic members of Congress who were in that video who are also veterans is being singled out here is because they do not fall under Department of War jurisdiction, he said. "But Mark Kelly is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he knows that," unquote.

Mark Kelly retired from the U.S. military at a particular senior rank. He is therefore eligible to be recalled back to active duty in a way the other veterans are not. So, Mark Kelly is now responding to all of this. And he posted in a statement on X in part, quote, "if this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won't work. I've given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution."

Now, it's really unclear at this point whether this is actually going to get to the court martial phase. There are going to be serious questions as well about undue command influence for merely because of the fact that Secretary Hegseth and, of course, President Trump have weighed in on this. But Mark Kelly, he really does not seem deterred at this point. He's already sending out fundraising emails about this. This, if anything, is likely only to raise his stature.

DEAN: All right. Thanks for following this for us. More to come on this, Natasha. Thank you so much for that.

Looking for a win-win deal for Ukraine and Russia. President Trump says progress is being made, but Europe has some issues with the deal and the Kremlin has some issues with Europe's deal. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)