Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
Trump Admin. Quietly Working On Peace Plan With Russia; Zelenskyy Visits Turkey; Epstein Bill Waiting Trump's Signature; Congress Approves Bill Requiring Release Of Epstein Files; DOJ Responds To Comey Grand Jury Bombshell; Masked Federal Agents Continue To Arrest People Across North Carolina; NASA Releases Photos Of 3I/Atlas Comet. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired November 19, 2025 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, and you're watching
"The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, we're told the Trump administration is quietly working on a new peace proposal with Russia to end its ongoing invasion of
Ukraine. The White House offers no timeline for when the president might sign into law a bill to release the Epstein files, and NASA captures new
images of a rare interstellar comet as it races past Mars.
First though, CNN has learned the Trump administration has been quietly negotiating a new peace proposal with Moscow directly. Sources tell us
special White House envoy Steve Witkoff has been leading the talks. The details of this new proposal not yet clear, but previous U.S. proposals had
focused on freezing Russian and Ukrainian troops along the current battle lines. The Kremlin had rejected that idea.
Earlier on Wednesday, Russia launched yet another large-scale drone and missile attack on Ukraine. This one killed at least 25 people, including
children. Among the targets, the western city of Ternopil, where the missiles struck apartment buildings. NATO also scrambled fighter jets after
a Russian drone entered Romania during those attacks. It's not the first time. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Turkey to meet with
the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, trying to revive peace talks with Russia.
Joining me now from Ukraine, Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, chair of its foreign affairs committee. Thanks so much for
joining us again.
OLEKSANDR MEREZHKO, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT: Thank you for having me.
SCIUTTO: First of all, based on what little we know of this deal, there does seem to be some discussion of Ukraine giving up more territory to
Russia. I just wonder, based on what you've seen, is it different at all from previous proposals the Trump administration has made, which Ukraine
rejected?
MEREZHKO: Yes, we don't know much yet about the details of this so-called plan. But to me, it looks really suspicious and ludicrous, because to me,
it looks like a summary of the previous Russian ludicrous and absolutely unacceptable for Ukraine demands. Well, this plan seems to be aiming at
surrender of Ukraine, and for us, it's totally unacceptable. And I do hope that it's not serious.
I don't rule out that it might be some kind of provocation, because judging by who was involved in this, in drafting this so-called plan, for example,
on Russian side, Mr. Dmitriev, he is nobody, he is nothing. And it might be just an attempt on his part to pretend that he has some importance or
influence. So, everything looks very suspicious, and for Ukraine, it's totally unacceptable to take such decisions without our participation. We
hope that President Trump will continue to honor important principle, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.
SCIUTTO: Why now, do you think? Why would the Trump administration be talking to Russia now, given the most recent indications from Russia, from
Trump administration officials, has been that Russia has not moved one inch on its demands?
MEREZHKO: Exactly. This is the key issue. Russia is not winning on the battlefield, even though the situation is difficult, but Russia is not
making advances. And Putin, he failed to take, so far, the rest of the territory of Donbas region. He failed to do it, and he's trying maybe to
arrange some kind of provocation.
First of all, he's trying to dodge, to avoid sanctions imposed by President Trump. And he's resorting to the same old tactics to pretend that he's
negotiating and to talk about kind of absolutely absurd ideas and demands in the hope that he will again try to deceive Mr. Trump.
[18:05:00]
SCIUTTO: Part of this plan appears to include a limitation on the size of the Ukrainian military, perhaps going so far as to cut it in half from its
current force. Is that at all an acceptable demand?
MEREZHKO: Of course, it's not acceptable for us because the primary goal of the so-called plan is to create conditions which would allow Putin to
destroy Ukraine, to subjugate Ukraine. So, he might be trying to create this kind of conditions for surrender of Ukraine and for total destruction
of Ukraine.
SCIUTTO: Do you believe it's possible that the Trump administration or the Kremlin senses weakness in President Zelenskyy right now, given the
corruption scandal? And that perhaps they're saying a Zelenskyy that's weakened might be less likely to push for more in a deal?
MEREZHKO: Putin is definitely trying to exploit any issue with regard to Ukraine. He hopes that somehow he can undermine unity, sow discord within
Ukraine to undermine us from within. But it's absolutely, it will not produce any result.
The thing is that even if we imagine, hypothetically speaking, that Putin and Trump will come up with a plan which is unacceptable for Ukraine, it
cannot be imposed upon our president, upon our parliament and upon our people and our army. It's absolutely out of the question. So, it's
absolutely fruitless and hopeless for Putin even to hope to do something like that.
SCIUTTO: You do have allies, of course, in this country. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican. He is once again pushing the bipartisan Russia
sanctions bill here, and it has the support of some 80 senators, the vast majority of the Senate. And he says at least that President Trump has given
him the go ahead. Do you believe that those lawmakers will back Ukraine if the White House attempts to force its hand on any negotiation?
MEREZHKO: Well, we are lucky that we continue to have bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. American people, judging by the polls, they support,
continue to support Ukraine. They are on the right side of history. And I'm sure that President Trump will not try to come up with such absurd plan
because, you know, it will cause outrage, uproar, not only in Ukraine, but also in Europe, in the United States and the Congress. So, it's absolutely
meaningless even to offer such plans.
SCIUTTO: Final question before we go. I wonder if you could give us a sense of the situation on the front lines, because there has been concern about
Russian advances that the recent capture or near capture of a city on the front lines, which is quite close to, as you know, important Ukrainian
supply lines. Are you concerned about Ukrainian defenses weakening or breaking anywhere on the front lines?
MEREZHKO: Russian army has bogged down in Ukraine, even though it might make a certain very limited advances, but it doesn't change strategic
situation. According to some estimates, if Russia will be advancing at this pace, like right now, it will take at least five years for Russian army to
occupy the rest of the Donetsk Oblast, for example.
Putin wanted to take Pokrovsk, which is one of the hubs in our territory. He wanted to take it more than two years ago, but so far, he failed to do
it. But, of course, we have a problem which we are trying to tackle. It's about our manpower. But to compensate for this difference, we need more
weaponry, including the United States. And we continue to target Russian military objects inside Russian territory because it's really painful for
Russia. But the point is that Russia is not winning and Ukraine is not losing on the battlefield.
SCIUTTO: Oleksandr Merezhko, we appreciate you joining again.
MEREZHKO: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Well, we are waiting to hear in this country from the White House as to exactly when a bill compelling the Department of Justice to release
its Epstein case files will be signed by President Donald Trump, as he has promised to do. Today, it's remained silent.
[18:10:00]
The Senate sent the bill over for signing after it passed both chambers of Congress quite easily, even though earlier this month, President Trump and
Republican leaders were still trying to quash it. Now, the question is, would the Trump administration actually release everything the Justice
Department holds in its possession?
Last week, the president asked the DOJ to investigate alleged ties between Jeffrey Epstein and only certain Democrats and institutions. Attorney
General Pam Bondi then directed the Southern District of New York to lead that probe. Today, she was asked if the investigation, that investigation,
would interfere with the release of the files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does the new investigation by the Southern District of New York U.S. attorney prevent the department from releasing all of the
remaining files?
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: So, we have released 33,000 -- over 33,000 Epstein documents to the Hill, and we'll continue to follow the law
and to have maximum transparency.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What changed since then that you launched this investigation?
BONDI: Information that has come -- information. There's information that - - new information, additional information, and again, we will continue to follow the law, to investigate any leads.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining us now, Kristen Holmes at the White House. So, listen, this, and you've reported this widely, this went ahead. Trump did not want
it to go ahead. He didn't have the votes to block action, both in the House and the Senate. Is there suspicion that the bulwark against the release
would be the Justice Department saying, well, we can't release it now because we have active investigations?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, that's certainly the suspicion. Now, I've talked to a number of White House
officials who deny that that is the case. It is hard to go off of just the White House when it comes to something like this because of the fact that
the investigation is being run by the Department of Justice, and not just the Department of Justice, but the Southern District of New York.
And while the White House says that they do not believe any documents will be held back because of this investigation, we'd still have to hear that
directly from the Department of Justice and the Southern District of New York before we can fully get on board with that. That is just what they're
saying now. And I've also been told that President Trump is not going to stand in the way of any of these documents being released.
Of course, right this very second, the question is, where is this bill and why has it not been signed or has it been signed? And we just simply don't
know. We have been asking for hours whether or not the bill has made it to President Trump's desk, whether or not President Trump has signed it. We
were told by White House officials that as soon as it got to his desk, he would sign it. We still don't have any answers. It's been almost radio
silent.
And I'll tell you, we have 10 reporters and producers who are asking the same question over and over again to almost no results, other than the fact
that reporters caught up with Stephen Miller as he was leaving a Fox interview and asked him about the timeline. And he said he didn't have
anything on that at this point. So, that's about the extent of what we've gotten in terms of information on if he's going to sign and when he's going
to sign.
And although, I will say, White House officials still say that he is going to sign. And of course, the president himself committed to that. The
question then becomes, what's going to be released and when is it going to be released? And as you noted, does this investigation in the Southern
District of New York play a role in any of that? Does that stop them from releasing any documents or at least serve as their reasoning for not
releasing any of the documents?
So, a lot of questions here as we are waiting at the White House. And I will say, Senate officials said that it could take a couple hours to
actually get from the Senate to here once they sent it off. It has been much longer than the couple of hours that they said it would originally
take. And we still have zero word on where it is or if President Trump has seen it or signed it.
SCIUTTO: Big question just briefly, because as you know, President Trump fought this. He fought this for weeks and months. And ultimately, he lost
his party on this, right? Is he or his advisers concerned that this is going to be damaging for him?
HOLMES: Sorry, I want to be clear. Do you mean any of the actual information that comes out? Is that going to be damaging to him, or do you
mean the fact that he tried to stand in the way?
SCIUTTO: Well --
HOLMES: When I -- when you -- both?
SCIUTTO: I mean, that goes to why he's trying to stay out of the way, right? But is he concerned that this is going to be damaging the release,
the drip-drip of allegations, et cetera?
HOLMES: I will tell you that when it comes to, for example, the emails that came out from Epstein, the White House had very little insight into what
was going to be in that batch of emails. It came from the estate. They were -- the Department of Justice was working with the House Oversight
Committee. They knew that Trump's name was mentioned multiple times, but they didn't know the extent of all of those emails.
And while you talk to these officials, they say it's embarrassing. They want the story to go away. They ultimately say President Trump was not was
not convicted or not even accused of a crime or any legal wrongdoing.
[18:15:00]
So, anything that comes out like those emails, they believe, and again, this is coming from White House officials, is not going to be something
that some kind of changes the narrative in any way away from what it's already been. They expect his name to be in things. They expect it to be
brought up that he was close with Epstein, we know that. But in terms of legalities, they just lean heavily on the fact that President Trump was
never convicted or never accused of any legal wrongdoing.
When it comes to actually voting for the bill and supporting Republicans, I think that damage has been done. You've heard a number of people in the
base who have really grown frustrated at the way the president has handled all of this. Not even necessarily angry or frustrated at the fact that his
name appears in these emails or his relationship with Epstein in the past, but instead frustrated at the fact that he tried to stand in the way of
this vote from even happening, ran on this idea that he would release all the files and then never really gave any explanation as to why he changed
positions completely when he got into office.
And that you've already started to see cracks, particularly when it comes to young voters and voters who weren't necessarily for a party. But this
was a cause that they cared about, saying essentially, they wanted to hold the elite accountable. And then you saw President Trump kind of try to
stand in the way of that.
SCIUTTO: Those were the politics. Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks so much. Well, joining me now is Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell from
California. Good to have you on, sir.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Of course.
SCIUTTO: First, you said that the Epstein estate has been more transparent than the DOJ in the handling so far. The emails. Do you expect the DOJ to
follow through and actually reveal the files that it has going forward?
SWALWELL: Well, the victims expect that. And it was so moving yesterday, Jim. I was actually seated on the floor next to Nancy Pelosi when the bill
passed. And, you know, she immediately turned up -- turned around and pointed to the victims who were in the gallery. And she had been such a
champion to see the release of these files. And they were just beaming because it was a rare occurrence where you can go to Washington, have your
voice heard and see progress. And now, they have that expectation that they'll be in the Oval Office at the signing ceremony, but that the files
will actually be released.
I'm not holding my breath, though, Jim. I'm realistic that, you know, when Kash Patel testified to me in Congress that he likely lied to me. I asked
him how many times Trump's name had appeared in the files. And I went through. Was it a thousand? Was it 500? Was it 200? And he said no to each
number. And we know at least from the Epstein estate files that it's well over a thousand. So, I'm skeptical of anything that comes out. But I know
that these victims are worthy of full transparency.
SCIUTTO: Ultimately, Republican lawmakers abandoned the president on this. They defied the president. I mean, that vote in the House was overwhelming
in the Senate as well. In your view, why is that beyond the base pushing for this? Do you believe that your Republican colleagues are beginning to
prepare for a lame duck president?
SWALWELL: They couldn't hide. That's why. And I had tweeted out about a month and a half ago that this is all coming out. And I said that because
Republicans were telling me privately, you know, at the gym that is only a member's gym that we work out at or in the Dunkin' Donuts' line or just
through text message that they were going to vote for release. And this was a month and a half ago. If they had to take a public vote, they couldn't
protect him publicly because they did know that it was the right thing to do, but they also knew their constituents expected them to do that.
So, the lesson here, as I take it, is continue to find coalitions and their thin majority, you know, to get members on their side to work with us and
then force votes. And the next fight, by the way, is to make sure we bring down the cost of health insurance. The president will not put back in place
the Affordable Care Act subsidies. Most people are going to pay more next year. We have a discharge petition to put those subsidies back in place.
And let's go back to many of the allies, you know, who have been with us on that. Marjorie Taylor Greene, I'll take her word. She said that we should
have those subsidies in place. Let's start building that coalition and seeing if we can get more public votes.
SCIUTTO: Do you believe you could get to the votes with Republicans -- that Republicans and Democrats would get to the to the numbers needed to, in
effect, overrule the president? Because to your point, I mean, he tweeted yesterday -- or Truth Social yesterday that he would not sign a bill that
extended those enhanced subsidies.
SWALWELL: Well, he won't sign it until he will. Right. He also said he wouldn't sign, you know, the Epstein files released and even brought a
member of Congress into the Situation Room of all places to try and get them come off of the petition. So, we have to build the public sentiment.
The public sentiment is there.
[18:20:00]
There's a Republican pollster named Tony Fabrizio. He was Donald Trump's pollster, and Republicans have told me that they've seen a memo that he has
circulated that says that Republicans will get creamed in the midterms if they don't put these subsidies in place. So, they know just kind of do it
because it's the right thing to do, like electorally, maybe you might want to do it.
SCIUTTO: OK. Let's talk about you, because as you know, you're now accused by the Trump administration of mortgage fraud. You've called these
accusations nonsense. Tell us why, tell us what they're accusing you of and what the truth is.
SWALWELL: Yes. It is nonsense, Jim. It's the same accusation they're making against Adam Schiff, which is nonsense, and Tish James, which is nonsense,
and also Lisa Cook, the Fed board governor, which is nonsense.
I have -- you know, I'm a member of Congress. I live between California and Washington, D.C. We've always had a residence in California, and we have a
residence in D.C. I don't have two mortgages. I have just one mortgage. They're going to be embarrassed when, you know, these facts come out, but I
don't think they care, and that's not the aim.
I'm a vocal critic of Donald Trump, the only surviving lawsuit against him with the January 6th police officers. I know why he's coming at me, and if
he thinks for one second I'm going to be quiet or shrink or hide under the bed, he's wrong. And Schiff and Cook and James, they're not going to be
quiet either, and whoever he goes after next week, it's going to be nonsense, and that person is not going to be quiet either, and that's the
lesson to be learned here is, you know, we can show strength in arms -- strength in numbers by linking arms, and we can be bigger than he is.
SCIUTTO: We've seen -- we saw the judge in the James Comey case raise hard questions today about the process of that prosecution and indictment. Are
you confident that you will win this out in the legal system? Do you think the legal system will protect you?
SWALWELL: Yes, I'm a former prosecutor. I've gone about 35 times to a jury to ask them to make a difficult decision. I know pretty well how jurors
work and how fair they can be. Again, this is completely baseless. It would be prosecutorial misconduct to charge this case, but it would be a swift
acquittal if any jury ever had to hear it.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Eric Swalwell, we wish you good luck. Thanks so much for joining.
SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, tech's big test. NVIDIA has just released one of the most watched profit reports in months. We're going to ask an NVIDIA bear if
it and the rest of the market is stuck in an A.I. bubble.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:25:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, U.S. stocks broke their four-day losing streak and finished higher across the board. Tech
stocks which have been hit especially hard in the past week rose a bit more than half a percent. Google parent company, Alphabet, closed at an all-time
high.
NVIDIA, this is crucial, the world's most valuable company, is just out with closely watched quarterly results. The chipmaker beat on both profits
and sales as firms continue to spend billions to build out their A.I. operations. NVIDIA is forecasting even higher sales for this current
quarter. CEO Jensen Huang says sales for its most advanced chips are, quote, "off the charts."
NVIDIA's earnings come at a volatile time for A.I. stocks to say the least. They have been falling sharply in recent sessions on fears that the A.I.
boom may be slowing and might be in bubble territory. Many analysts have raised fears about the complexity of A.I. deals the amount of debt used to
finance them and whether firms are using accounting trickery to boost results. NVIDIA shares are currently up more than 4 percent in after-hours
trading.
Joining me now Jay Goldberg stock analyst at Seaport Global. He is the only NVIDIA analyst on Wall Street with a sell rating on the stock. Welcome,
Jay. Thanks so much for joining.
JAY GOLDBERG, STOCK ANALYST, SEAPORT GLOBAL: Hi. Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: So, does -- do these latest results change your sell rating?
GOLDBERG: No, they don't. I'll give them full credit. It was a good quarter. I actually raised my numbers, my estimates for them last week just
in anticipation of them trending well in the near-term. But I think the list of problems that face them is growing. Things get harder as we move
into next year.
SCIUTTO: And identify those problems. Because you're not alone, there are some big investors who, as you know, dump their NVIDIA stakes recently
which to be clear it happens when stocks go up sometimes. But tell me what those problems are.
GOLDBERG: So, I think in the near-term it's just a fundamental of this, they've said they're sold out. And once you're sold out it's hard to
surprise to the upside, right. The way we think about it on the street is that there's more downside risk than there is upside risk. There's a lot
more things that can go wrong for them to go right.
But longer-term I think there are reasonable questions to be asked about end demand for A.I. Things are looking bubbly. I'll say it's a bubble and
lots of sort of end markets where they sell into. And it makes me want to question how much longer they can keep on this trajectory.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I've spoken to bears -- or at least I've spoken to bulls on A.I. stocks or at least non-bears who have said the difference between this
market and say the dot.com bubble, which a lot of those dot.com companies had zero earnings whatsoever, and the devaluations on some of these A.I.
companies, at least historically, are not at peaks. What's your answer to that point?
GOLDBERG: I think this is a case of history doesn't repeat exactly but it rhymes. And in this situation the concern I have with the bubble is that
it's very narrowly based. If you look at all this incredible spending that we're hearing about all these data centers going up all that half a
trillion dollars in capex when you boil it all down to it comes from six companies, right, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, right, in them. And
that's a very narrow base to hold up, you know, arguably a big portion of the U.S. economy.
And a lot of their needs are -- their desire to do this is sort of psychologically driven. They're worried about what the other guy will do.
And that feels unsustainable over the long-term. Add to that the fact that one of the leading members of that six is OpenAI, which is a startup that
is losing a lot of money. So, I'm not clear how long they can support this.
SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, the question, right, is that enormous amount of expansion, and you know this better than me, without a clear expression of
how they're going to make money off this expansion. Is that in layman's terms one of the issues?
GOLDBERG: Yes, that's exactly it. And just to be clear, I'm not bearish on A.I. I think A.I. will be an important technology. But if you look at any
mass technology, especially one as big as this, historically, they never get adopted in a straight line. And my industry, semiconductors, are
cyclical. And I think we're going to have some downturns in the cycle before we get to real utility for A.I.
SCIUTTO: Yes. From the Internet to railroads, right. There's a lot of history here. Jay Goldberg. Thanks so much for joining.
GOLDBERG: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up after the break, the U.S. Department of Justice responds to bombshell revelations about the case against the former head of the FBI.
Some tough questions in the courtroom. We're going to have more on that in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.
The White House is working on a new peace proposal that could bring it hopes an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine. This according to a
source who says U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is leading the discussions with the Kremlin. Russian sources also confirm these high-level talks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has met with his Turkish counterpart as they try to jumpstart the peace process.
The White House has not said when President Trump will sign the bill forcing the release of the Justice Department's many files on Jeffrey
Epstein. The president had promised to do so before it passed through both houses of Congress. It's unclear whether the Department of Justice will
release all of the files relating to the convicted sex criminal though. Some documents might, they say, remain tied up due to active
investigations.
Israel says it launched retaliatory airstrikes today across Gaza after Hamas fired on its troops. The Palestinian Health Ministry says those
strikes killed at least 28 people. Both sides have repeatedly blamed each other for violations of the U.S. brokered ceasefire.
The U.S. Department of Justice is responding to a stunning new revelation in the federal case against the former FBI Director James Comey. This after
interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan took the stand earlier in the day saying that only two grand jurors reviewed the final indictment against
Comey. Prosecutors said that after the grand jury declined to approve one of the counts Halligan brought an altered version to the matter magistrates
courtroom for the grand jury foreperson and just the foreperson to sign.
Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 hearing about whether he ever authorized leaks to the media. He has pleaded not guilty.
[18:35:00]
His lawyers are now arguing this revelation means there is no actual indictment against Comey. The DOJ says, just in the last hour, it was not
an issue.
Joining me now is Kyle Cheney is a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico. Kyle good to have you.
KYLE CHENEY, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Good to be with you.
SCIUTTO: So, first help me explain to my viewers what happened here. So, the prosecutor admits that the whole grand jury that we had been told
approved of this indictment didn't actually see the final indictment, just the foreperson?
CHENEY: That's how it sounds because what happened was the grand jury originally rejected one of the three charges that the prosecutor, Lindsey
Halligan, asked them to return. And so, she had to go basically redraft a new indictment that -- and remove the first charge. But what it sounds like
it's rather than present this revised version to the full grand jury, she just showed it to the foreperson and said, look, we took out the first
charge. It's been edited and cleaned up. And so, this is good to go.
That may be a fatal issue for the case. The judge seemed to be pretty concerned about it. And it's just one of several things that are now
hanging over this case.
SCIUTTO: To be clear then, was there any indictment count that the full grand jury approved of?
CHENEY: Yes, there were two counts that essentially connected to the same act of Jim Comey's testimony to Congress in 2020. Essentially, they say he
misled or lied to Congress in that appearance. Both counts are connected to that. The first count was a broader conspiracy count -- or excuse me, an
obstruction count that the grand jury did not return and required them to revise the full indictment.
SCIUTTO: So, the other issue here was that the prosecutor Tyler Lemons refused to confirm whether what's known as a declination memo exists in
effect for prosecutors to spell out why they didn't believe this case should be pursued. How would that affect the judge's decision on whether to
release the possibility, right, of dismissing these charges?
CHENEY: Well, the judge right now is weighing what Jim Comey says is plain as day, he says, the president -- the only reason I'm sitting here in court
is that the president hates me and his animus against me is the reason I'm being prosecuted at all. And that means vindictive prosecution. Things
should be thrown out. That's not permissible.
And one of the pieces of evidence that they would certainly point to is if proxy career prosecutors in that office told Lindsay Halligan, the lead
prosecutor, there is no case here, you shouldn't bring these charges, and she overruled them and brought them anyway, that would be a pretty big data
point for Jim Comey to point to.
Especially because Halligan -- Trump essentially put her in that job to do exactly this -- exactly what she did, which is indict Jim Comey. So, that
declination memo could be significant. And the fact that they danced around whether it exists or not is going to be something I think the judge is very
aware of.
SCIUTTO: And his lawyers were arguing -- Comey's lawyers were already citing the president's own words, were they not, in saying quite publicly
in what was either a tweet or an accidental tweet, right, prosecute James Comey.
CHENEY: Right. And essentially, they're saying you probably don't even need the declination memo. They're saying just look at the president's words.
Look at the timeline of events how this all came together. You can throw this case out just on what you've seen in public, what you know. But if the
judge doesn't accept that then they're going to ask to dig deeper and look at things like a declination memo if they confirm that one exists and other
pieces of internal DOJ machinations that might point to the same thing.
SCIUTTO: So, how soon does this judge decide on that dismissal question. And if he does dismiss, what happens then?
CHENEY: Well, the Comey's attorneys asked him to make this decision quickly. They want it to be a what they call the threshold matter
essentially. We don't want to get to the rest of the case until we decide whether this case should happen at all. The second issue whether Lindsay
Halligan was legitimately appointed to bring the case in the first place that they also want decided quickly.
And so, those two issues are could be decided -- I mean, could be decided before Thanksgiving. I expect at least one of them, the Halligan issue, to
be decided within the next week. So, this case could be gone if the judge rule -- if the judges rule the way we expect they might rule, it hinted
they might so imminent, that's what I'd say.
SCIUTTO: And if it goes, does can they re-prosecute? Could they try again?
CHENEY: So, that's a big question. What Comey's lawyers are asking the case to be dismissed with prejudice. And what that means is that means you
cannot re-bring the case. If it's dismissed without prejudice, they could say well you get a do over. You screwed up the first indictment. We'll give
you a second chance to do it the right way. And Comey's lawyers say, you can't do that in this case because of the corrupted nature of where it came
from.
So, the judge, while he seemed somewhat sympathetic, that argument hasn't totally tipped his hand on exactly how he would dismiss it if he does it
all
SCIUTTO: Right. Well, we'll be watching your Twitter feed to see when that decision comes down.
CHENEY: Appreciate it.
SCIUTTO: Kyle Cheney. Thanks. Thanks so much for joining.
CHENEY: Thanks for having me.
[18:40:00]
SCIUTTO: Coming up on "The Brief," masked federal agents continue to arrest people across North Carolina, causing widespread fear and uncertainty.
We're going to have the latest on this immigration crackdown coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Immigration raids in Charlotte, North Carolina, have been expanding now to other parts of the state. U.S. officials now say more than
250 people have been arrested or detained since that operation began. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools reported more than 30,000 students were
absent on Monday, about a fifth of the district's enrollment. Many stores have closed. Many residents are protesting and complaining.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
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)
SCIUTTO: While the spotlight has been on Charlotte, sources say Homeland Security officials are now eyeing New Orleans, Louisiana as the next city
they will target for immigration action. Immigration policy expert Todd Schulte joins me now. His organization, FWD.us, focuses on reforming
immigration and criminal justice here in the U.S. Thanks so much for joining.
TODD SHULTE, PRESIDENT FWD.US AND U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY EXPERT: Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: So, first on the broad immigration crackdown, this has been underway for a number of weeks in a number of cities. We've begun to see
somewhat organized protests. We've seen public complaints in public forums like we just played just then. Has anything worked right to slow this down
or are these raids proceeding aggressively and in effect without any obstacles?
SHULTE: No, I think what you're seeing, first off, is the president's approval rating on immigration has plummeted, and I think that's really
important for people who are really concerned with what they're seeing, the cruelty and the chaos.
[18:45:00]
This is not what people who were maybe on the fence of who they voted for were looking for here. And instead of a president who is focused on driving
down cost of living, we're seeing cruelty and chaos. We're seeing federalized law enforcement and ICE terrorizing communities, ripping apart
families. And I think that is putting a dent to the president's approval rating. That's really clear here.
You look at Charlotte, for example. When you see people who are saying, I have to shut down my bakery because I'm worried my workers will be arrested
and I'm worried my customers are too scared to show up here. That's bad and it's, let's be honest, really bad politics.
SCIUTTO: Yes. We saw that in the Virginia and New Jersey elections, right, where Latino support for Republicans dropped significantly as a result.
This other phenomenon you're seeing, right, is people taking their kids out of school, right, because they don't want to expose the family at all to
the possibility of being detained. Are you seeing this in multiple cities?
SHULTE: I mean, you saw Bovino, who's kind of the guy with the -- I don't know, it's a call of duty aesthetic, who's leading these raids from Border
Patrol. I should say Charlotte's 200 miles from the ocean, let alone the border. Just walking up to somebody who he's -- you know, Latino, asking
people if they speak English. If you're seeing that, you are being racially profiled, whether you're undocumented, you have temporary status, you're a
citizen here, the idea that we should be harassing kids or their parents because they're going to school, that is really bad for everybody here.
Again, the idea that we should be targeting families with not just kind of the act of enforcement itself, but the fear around that, that's bad. And
again, that is not what the American people want.
SCIUTTO: I want to ask about another phenomenon that your organization has been tracking, and that is the Trump administration's plan to make it
harder for immigrants to get green cards and therefore a path to citizenship if they're from countries subject to the president's travel
ban. And as I understand it, that's even if they arrived in this country before the travel ban came into effect. Can you explain what's going on
here?
SHULTE: Yes. I think a lot of your viewers have heard about travel ban. This is a citizenship ban based on a bunch of countries. This really
harkens back to some of the worst things we have done as a country, in fact, to things like the Chinese Exclusion Act. This is a policy that's
been floated.
So, let me explain what this is. Say you find your loved one, say they happen to be from Cuba. They maybe are somebody who's had to flee Iran.
Maybe this was -- their family still might be concerned about violence from the Ayatollahs or in Cuba. I mean, just think about how many people have
come here and built a better life. This would say that, all of a sudden, we're not going to welcome people. They can't become a citizen because of
the country they're from. This is something that really flies in the face of the best of what America should be trying to do here. And we really hope
that more people hear about it and push back.
SCIUTTO: And to be clear, it's a partial step towards a citizenship ban, right? I mean, basically, it's picking countries and saying, well, if you
come from Sweden, path to citizenship, you're fine. But if you're from Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, the list goes on,
you don't have a path?
SHULTE: These countries -- we should be very honest, tend not to be Northern European countries or Western European countries, they tend to be
in places like Afghanistan and Africa. Again, we should be able to understand there are oppressive regimes. Our country is all going to be
better if we welcome people from those countries.
But, you know, someone who fought alongside our allies in Afghanistan, they somehow make it here. They flee the Taliban, but we're going to ban them
from becoming a citizen because they happen to be born in Afghanistan here by basically saying they're not going to be able to become a green card
holder or a legal permanent resident, which is the key step to eventually becoming a citizen. That is just absolutely a very new and awful idea.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, Cuba's on the partial restrictions list. Of course, the sitting secretary of state family fled Cuba.
SHULTE: And think about what -- yes. Think about what Florida would look like today if people would be able to flee the Castro's. It's a great thing
to ask a lot of those policymakers in Florida when they come on the air here. Is it a good thing that people can flee these so-called failed
Marxist regimes and build a better life in America? I think it is. And I hope more people have to answer those questions.
SCIUTTO: Todd Schulte, thanks so much for joining.
SHULTE: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Just ahead, an interstellar visitor passes through our solar system. Why it's so rare and why it's teaching us about the universe beyond
our own backyard.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:00]
SCIUTTO: So, it may not look like much but NASA has now released images of a comet which originated outside our celestial neighborhood. 3I/Atlas, as
it's known, is only the third known interstellar object to pass into our solar system. The agency used its fleet of spacecraft and telescopes to
document the visitor. NASA officials compared it to people sitting in different places in a baseball stadium all with different types of cameras
all trying to take photos of the ball while it's traveling really fast. Scientists are still reviewing the data which offers a deeper look at
comets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAWN DOMAGAL-GOLDMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR OF ASTROPHYSICS DIVISION, NASA: What this will let us do is tell that story in a broader context between the
detailed and large library of data we have on those origins of our own solar system and how volatiles were delivered to make life possible here on
Earth combined with that big picture of other systems of the dust spread throughout those other solar systems and now with this visitor that got
frozen in time from somewhere beyond our solar system and that small picture of what that was like when that formed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Tariq Malik is the editor-in-chief of Space.com and he joins me now. Well, good to have you. Tell us what these new photos show. To you,
qualities of a comet?
TARIQ MALIK, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, SPACE.COM: Well, you know, we've been calling it a comet since its discovery over the summer. It really has looked and
acted just like what we would expect. But I think that what we got today from NASA is an unqualified look at this comet from many different angles,
from many different spaces.
Over a dozen different NASA spacecraft and assets looking over time. It's truly like a wealth of data. The most, I think, comprehensive look at a
visitor from beyond our solar system that we've ever seen, despite having seen two of these before.
SCIUTTO: So, given it's only the third interstellar object observed -- and we have better tools these days, right? We can, you know, get better
images, et cetera. What can we learn from it?
MALIK: Well, one of the key, I think, goals that NASA and scientists around the world are trying to learn is what the conditions are like beyond our
own solar system. Of course, Earth is the only place that we know of right now that has life, but comets have thought to be kind of like those seed
bringers to Earth. They brought water. They could have bring all of the ingredients for life. Is that the same beyond our solar system?
And comets like 3I/Atlas could hold that key. It has dust and gas and even water from beyond our local neighborhood. And seeing how that measures up
to what we know every day around us can help tell that story.
SCIUTTO: Are we going to get more images as -- I know it's traveling really fast? Do I have it right, like 300,000 miles an hour? I mean, this is fast.
Are we going to get more images and more data as it continues its journey?
MALIK: It's been a pretty good clip. Yes, in fact, I think when it whizzed by Mars in October, it was traveling something like 130,000 miles an hour
and then it swung by the sun. And now, it's on its way back out, but it doesn't stop there. Like you said, in December, we get a bit of an early
Christmas present when it makes its closest approach to Earth on December 19th. It's still not going to be that close, about 20 times the distance
between Earth and the sun, but it's going to be our closest look from all of the instruments, the powerful telescopes we have on our planet, as well
as in orbit to be able to get that kind of parting glance to cap the year.
[18:55:00]
And so, scientists are really looking forward to that. It's still on the other side of the solar system compared to Earth right now, so it's hard to
see. It's been one of the challenges of this campaign, but NASA and other scientists are really hopeful to kind of get a bit more data to be able to
compare with what they know so far over the past few months to really understand how this comet acts, behaves, and hopefully, one day where it
came from.
SCIUTTO: As you know, the internet is awash with the usual UFO mania. Can you respond to those folks? You know, why the alien conspiracy theory is
bunk?
MALIK: I think it's really fun to kind of wonder where objects like these have come from. We've seen three of these already, one in 2017, one in
2019, and now 3I/Atlas in 2025. And they are different. In fact, the NASA folks today said that what makes these special is because they look so
different.
But we do have to make sure that we get as much data as we can before we jump to conclusions and say, this is what it has to be. It has to be an
alien ship. And everything that we've seen from this object really shows that it's not a vehicle. In fact, NASA said that pretty plainly today in
their presentation it looks like a comet, it acts like a comet, it's a comet.
SCIUTTO: Tariq Malik, thanks so much. And thanks to all of you for your company. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief."
Stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
