Meet the Press NOW April 28

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Melanie Zanona in Washington, where we are following breaking news. Sources have confirmed to NBC News that federal grand jury has indicted former FBI director and outspoken Trump critic James Comey. The charges stemming from this photo he posted on social media last year of seashells on beach arranged to say 86 47. Now, we don't know exactly what charges Comey is facing, but we are expecting to hear from Justice Department officials shortly. You'll remember that administration officials publicly condemned Comey over the post last year, arguing that it was call for violence against the president. 86 is term frequently used in restaurants to indicate when an item is sold out or has been removed. And Trump, of course, is the 47th president. Comey later deleted the post, which he called political message, not violent one. Secret Service agents did interview him about the post. This is now the second time federal grand jury has indicted the former FBI director. He was first indicted last September on charges he lied to Congress during testimony in 2020. Those charges, though, were later dismissed when federal judge ruled that the federal prosecutor in the case had been unlawfully appointed. Comey is one of many Trump critics who the president has demanded face prosecution. number of those targets have faced DOJ probes and indictments. Of course, the news of Comey's indictment comes amid the aftermath of third assassination attempt against the president at Saturday night's White House Correspondents Dinner. Joining me now is NBC News senior justice reporter Ryan Reilly. Thank you so much for joining us to try to put this into some context here, but want to start what we know or rather what we don't know about these charges because right now we actually don't know exactly what potential charges he is facing here. That's Right, Ryan? Yeah, well, we mean, we know it's related to this the seashell photo, which is mean, something, you know, it's pretty unusual for you to be talking about photo of seashells leading to federal charges in the first place. And just think, you know, based on all of the people speak to, all the sources talk to, this is really going to be an uphill battle for the Justice Department to try to allege that message that, you know, as you referenced, has been used in in restaurants forever and sort of has various meanings to various people was direct threat when what we know is that James Comey directly denied that that's what he intended and took down the message when some people interpreted it that way. And so, it's not really hard to convince typically federal group of federal grand jurors to indict, you know, the old saying goes that you can get federal or get grand jury to indict ham sandwich. And so, this what but what this is is represents really, you know, initial victory and for the Justice Department in in getting those headlines. And for especially at time when you have the acting attorney general, you know, potentially looking to get the job permanently when you have lot of other individuals who would like to be the attorney general of the United States, you know, getting headlines and generating headlines that Donald Trump likes is is something that think lot of them are seeking to do. And so, think that that's sort of the basis where we start here. And we could see motions, expect to see motions filed very quickly from Comey's team about this being selective and vindictive prosecution. We didn't get to that stage on the first indictment, but what former federal prosecutors told me is that if there wasn't selective and vindictive case before that, what this would be the one because it's tough battle to get this something to get discovery and to find out whether, you know, to look at whether something is being brought for political purposes, but the evidence really is pretty overwhelming that Donald Trump would very much so like to see James Comey indicted even if it's for what, you know, here is photo of of seashells on the seashore. Yeah, that's great point, especially about Tad Blanche, because he is still sort of auditioning for this job, especially because Pam Bondi, the the last person who held this role was fired because in Trump's view, she didn't do enough to go after some of Trump's political enemies. With this case, though, what do we think is next and do we know when Comey will actually appear in court? Yeah, so mean, we're expecting this press conference to potentially be about that this and see how it unfolds from there. But remember, we haven't even seen the charging document. Some of the early reporting on this was just that James Comey was indicted. It wasn't about whether or not this was about seashell photo. So, think that we're going to have to see what their what their actual hook is, what they're alleging, whether they're saying that sending posting photo on Instagram is interstate commerce and call that threat. Is think probably the most likely path that they're going with here, but you know, they're going to face those those swift challenges. think that first court appearance is going to be question, whether they're going to let him surrender is going to be question because remember they, you know, they they slapped handcuffs on former CNN anchor Don Lemon even though he had been willing to to sort of just surrender. And they also tried to indict six sitting members of Congress for social media video, although federal grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C. rejected that case. So, mean, if you just sort of step back and look at the overall picture here, you're seeing some really remarkable and unprecedented cases being brought against the president enemies. Yeah, Ryan, not to put you on the spot here, but believe we do have the indictment now. It should be in your inbox. If you're able to to to look that over and respond here in real time as we're getting these updates. Of course, this is breaking news situation. We are expecting to hear more formally from officials later today in news conference, but this would be our first indication of what some of these charges actually are. Ryan, are you able to pick up anything at this moment? am. So, we've got two-count indictment here and it says it's for it's, you know, on May 15th, 2025 in the Eastern District of North Carolina, James Comey did what they're claiming is knowingly and willfully make threat to take the life of or inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States in that he publicly posted photograph on the internet social media site Instagram, which depicted seashells arranged in pattern making out 86 47. They claim that reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as serious as serious expression of intent to do harm to the president of the United States. They also claim that in count two, he did knowingly and willfully transmit communication that contained threat to kill the president of the United States, Donald Trump, specifically posting photograph with yeah, it's essentially it's the same language as this first statute. So, so two counts is what they're they're claiming here. And they are, you know, just haven't seen, frankly, case like this before where you have communication that can be interpreted in in in multiple ways and number 86 be purported to be direct threat against the life of the president of the United States, but that seems to be what the what they were managed to convince the grand jury of here. Yeah, want to bring in our legal expert, Misty Marois. She's also with us to help break this all down. My question here, know you're also just getting this indictment here in real time, but what is sort of the legal threshold to be able to bring case like this and how difficult do you think it's actually going to be? This is very difficult case because most speech like this would be protected by the First Amendment. Where it's not protected and falls under this federal statute of threat against the president is when it is true threat. And it has to be made with intent to threaten. So, it it requires that the person who made the threat has knowledge that it is true threat. Some of what would be looked at is this threat that is unequivocal, unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, specific. So, that's the type of analysis that will be at play in this case. When when you're talking about true threat, it is difficult standard because most speech would be protected by the First Amendment. And remember, that threat has to be intentional. And what you're going to look at is it hyperbolic? Is it satirical? That's not going to fall under that federal statute. Then, of course, we have the other element of this, which is that it's communication over the internet. So, it falls under the interstate communications. That's the other charge in this indictment. But anticipate real uphill battle when it comes to being successful when you're talking about the requirement of beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to the grand jury, where it is much lower threshold of probable cause. And Misty, this also comes just days after the assassination attempt on the president at the White House Correspondents Dinner. What do you make of the timing here? Is this just coincidence? Well, it depends on when the grand jury convened because this could have been something that was before the grand jury. The grand jury convenes in secret. So, certainly, it could just be coincidence. It could be something that's been in the works for while. We know that Secret Service had actually investigated back when this happened about year ago. So, some of what came out of that investigation could have ultimately led to bringing this to grand jury. But what would expect the DOJ to be arguing, and and think this is likely where the DOJ will go, is that they're going to say, when you're talking about this being an intentional threat and that term 86, right, which has so many meanings to different people. It's not really that clear threatening language that we would envision as being something that's actionable under the statute. What think you're going to see the argument be is that this is James Comey. He's the FBI director. He knows the import of these types of terms different than your average person because remember this intent to threaten would have to be established in order for the statute to be at play. Now, on the flip side is everything we went over before that this has to be something that is tangible, real, and specific threat, which is going to be challenge to the extent that the evidence is what's in this indictment, you know, this photograph taken in this rock formation from the beach that has multiple meanings. So, we're going to have likely played out in court and and think Mel, what you're going to see is challenge to this indictment before we even get there for targeted prosecution looking back to the prior failed attempt. think that what you're going to see Comey's lawyers argue is that basically the DOJ and Donald Trump is looking for retribution against Comey and they're just trying to find another way to charge him criminally. Yeah, that was going to be my my question to you. Ryan, do want to bring you back in because an arrest warrant has been requested. Walk us through what that means in practical terms and what we can expect to see here. Yeah, mean, it depends if they're going to let Typically when the arrest warrant is issued, if if someone knows about it, they're they can they can surrender, but you know, in the case of Don Lemon, that isn't what the Justice Department chose to do in that instance. They chose to go after him. Typically, if they were going to not have some sort of arrangement made, they would move to keep an indictment under seal so that there would be that element of surprise when they went actually go and arrest them, but there was not motion to seal this this indictment that was returned this morning and so and of course now there's press conference. So, Comey is obviously on well aware that this is the instance. They could have, you know, not gone for the arrest warrant, right, especially if you're if you're talking about the former director of the FBI. He, you know, this was he is not arrested in the in the first instance, right? He could have just showed up in court for his his court date. And so, how this is exactly going to to play out, think, is little bit up in the air. Sometimes these different jurisdictions have have different policies between the various 94 US attorneys offices across the United States and think that's actually kind of really interesting component of this case because, you know, the only reason James Comey was indicted in that first instance is because he was testifying remotely. If he had testified in person for his congressional testimony, the case would have been in DC where DC grand jurors are much more skeptical of the cases that the Trump administration has been trying to bring against Donald Trump's political enemies. And in this instance because he was posted that photo from North Carolina, that gives them the federal hook to go after him in in North Carolina for the Instagram post, right? So, you have to it's almost to the point where where if you're on the enemy if you're on the president's list at this point, it makes sense to think geographically where you're where you're doing things that might that might cause scrutiny to come upon you because obviously, think, you know, the the Trump administration was able to convince this federal grand jury in North Carolina that this was or, you know, that this could potentially be federal crime. want to turn to Monica Alba over at the White House. As we have mentioned, President Trump has repeatedly called for Comey to be prosecuted. So, are we getting any early reaction from the president or the White House here? Not quite yet, Mel. reached out to my sources here and they simply referred us to the Department of Justice saying that they would have more information on this, but there is such complex and layered history here between President Trump and his former FBI director James Comey that now over the last almost 10 years has taken different turns and we have seen different iterations. The president, of course, has been incredibly critical of him for for many, many years since he did fire and dismiss him in May of 2017. And remember that his firing even sparked the appointment back then of special counsel Robert Mueller, who then investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election and that was huge source of the president's frustration and ire overall with Bob Mueller, but also with James Comey and how that all went down. In the years since then and even in just the last year or so, the president has been very clear in some of his language publicly and in particular in that message, remember that he posted to his former Attorney General Pam Bondi that looked like and that we were able to report and confirm was intended to be private message for his then Attorney General that he ended up putting on his Truth Social account in which he wrote, think it started with even the word Pam colon and it was directive about urging her to act with more urgency to bring more cases, to apply more pressure, and to investigate and potentially prosecute some of his political opponents and critics. And among them was former FBI director James Comey. Certainly, there have been many others that he has discussed and he has pointed to in that particular message. He was talking about James Comey. He was talking about Senator Adam Schiff. He was talking about the New York Attorney General Letitia James. And so, we saw, of course, that movement on separate unrelated cases when it came to James Comey and Letitia James that then ultimately faced those legal hurdles connected to Lindsey Halligan, which is just another complete legal sort of mad lib that we're playing here with characters in the orbit of President Trump and this White House, but there are so many different sort of tentacles that come back to the relationship between James Comey and President Trump that this is something where we don't see the president again today in an on-camera capacity where questions may fly for hours because he has the state banquet, of course, with King Charles in little bit, but this is the kind of thing where he will likely react in some form. It's unclear whether he may want to weigh in on social media or whether we will hear from him in another way. But for now, the White House is directing us to the Department of Justice, but there is just so much you can draw on from what the president has said publicly about James Comey and he has made absolutely no secret of his feelings about what he would like to happen to him on legal front. Mel. Yeah, I'm sure we'll hear from the president at some point. Monica, Ryan, and Misty, thank you so much for helping us digest that breaking news. And as we said, we do expect to hear from the Department of Justice later this hour. We'll bring that to you when it happens, but want to turn now to what's been day of royal pageantry here in DC with the US's special relationship with Great Britain on full display. Even as the war with Iran, which is closing in on the 2-month mark, has strained that key alliance. The president and first ladies welcomed King Charles and Queen Camilla to the White House with historic ceremony earlier today. And last hour, speaking before joint meeting of Congress, King Charles delivered rallying cry for unity between the two nations amid these uncertain times. We meet in times of great uncertainty. In times of conflict from Europe to the Middle East, which pose immense challenges for the international community and whose impact is felt in communities the length and breadth of our own countries. Whatever our differences whatever disagreements we may have we stand united in our commitment to uphold democracy to protect all our people from harm and to salute the courage of those who daily risk their lives in the service of our countries. It comes as deal with Iran remains elusive. Two sources tell NBC News Iran presented proposal to the US that focuses in on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war, but tabling the more thorny discussions about Iran's nuclear program for later date. Today, President Trump posting on social media that Iran wants the US to open the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible. For its part, Iran insists they maintain control over that vital waterway and will only give it up when the US lifts its naval blockade. Yesterday, Secretary of State Rubio acknowledging Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz is unacceptable. If what they mean by opening the straits is, yes, the straits are open as long as you coordinate with Iran, get our permission, or we'll blow you up and you pay us. That's not opening the straits. Those are international waterways. They cannot normalize, nor can we tolerate them trying to normalize system in which the Iranians decide who gets to use an international waterway and how much you have to pay them to use it. Crude oil today back around $100 barrel and gas prices rising to new wartime high, further shaking up energy markets. The United Arab Emirates today announcing that it was leaving OPEC, the international group of oil producers. Joining me now is NBC News Chief Washington Correspondent and Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell. NBC News International Correspondent Raf Sanchez is in Doha. And also with me is NBC News Business and Data Correspondent Brian Cheung. Cheung, thank you all so much for joining us. Andrea, want to start with you. You're kind of perfect guest to have in this moment right now given your background, but let's start with the King's visit to Washington. Did anything stand out to you in that speech to Congress, especially given the strained relationship right now between the United States? Absolutely. The King's speech touched on so many issues that were of division between the US, between this president, President Trump, and Prime Minister Starmer, but he did it with such light touch in his own way with great deal of charm. He had so many ovations from both sides of the aisle. You cover Congress all the time and you know how unusual it is. We have not seen anything like this in any recent State of the Union address and this is joint meeting of Congress more appropriately not the State of the Union but the same setting and there was there were ovation after ovation notably for when he said that it was the Magna Carta that gave both of our countries the principle of checks and balances over executive power and both sides of of the chamber stood up for that, but they were there was just so many issues. He praised the British Navy. That's big sore point at home. Trump has, you know, called it silly navy and the silly ships that are organizing to help with the Strait of Hormuz once there's ceasefire. Their view is that there was no imminent threat. They this was war of choice and that that's why they did not join in. He talked about the NATO coming to the aid of the US only once for the first and only time really after 9/11. It's very unpopular after the Davos speech where the president and then repeatedly said that NATO would never come to the defense of the US when British soldiers and other allied soldiers died in Afghanistan and that he talked about the importance of the alliance, NATO, the UN, repeated what his mother had said, Queen Elizabeth back in 1991 also after Gulf War after Desert Storm and after the Falklands War thanking the US for that. Well, he you know, talked about all of these defensive military alliances when President Trump has recently criticized and challenged suggested that maybe they should not have the Falklands which they won back in the you know, the 1991 period. In any case, it was very strong speech about the importance of the environment which is passion of his lifelong and so he did not back down bit. This is of course approved by the government, by by the Prime Minister, by Downing Street because he is head of state, not the head of government, but it was very much with Prince Charles's touch. Yeah, and very different Excuse me, King Charles. King Charles. The monarch. very different vibe inside the chamber today. also want to get your reaction to this photo that the White House posted on social media if we could throw that up on the screen of the president and the King with the caption two kings. What do you make of that? It's rather grandiose. And certainly might ruffle some feathers across the Atlantic even as we're trying, but at the same time this is state visit and think that they're used to the fact that there are breaches of protocol from this American president. There have been in the past at state visits. Raf, do want to turn to you. You're in the region right now. As we noted, we're two months into this conflict. What are you hearing from officials about the status of US-Iran negotiations? Well, Melanie, the short version is these negotiations are really badly stalled right now and as long as they are stalled, the critical Strait of Hormuz is closed and as long as the Strait of Hormuz is closed, we are going to see oil prices continuing to rise and with them the prices that Americans are paying at the pump. Now, the US wants to see big comprehensive deal that not only reopens the Strait but also deals with Iran's nuclear program, deals with its missiles, deals with its support for proxy groups across the region. What the Iranians have proposed is narrow deal that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but it would leave the nuclear issue for another day. Now, the president and national security team talked about that proposal in the situation room yesterday. They are not looking on it very favorably and so right now the Strait remains closed and both sides trying to apply pressure to each other, but it does not appear that these Pakistani mediated talks are going anywhere soon. Melanie. Raf, the other ceasefire we're following of course is between Israel and Lebanon. Where does that stand right now? Well, it's looking shaky. There continues to be significant amount of fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in southern Lebanon. You were continuing to see Lebanese civilians being killed by Israeli strikes. Israel says it does not deliberately target civilians, but there are large numbers being killed in these attacks right now. At the same time, you have peace talks going on between Israel and the Lebanese government. Now, the Lebanese government has very little control over what Hezbollah does. So, while the Trump administration says that these peace talks brokered by the US happening in Washington are making progress, it's really not clear even if you could get deal between the governments in Beirut and Jerusalem whether or not that would end the fighting with Hezbollah. Melanie. Raf, thank you so much for that important reporting. Andrea, want to turn to you and what you're hearing from US officials about the state of the talks between Iran and the US and are we any closer to potential deal than we were week ago when Trump indefinitely extended the ceasefire? think we're farther away. As Raf is pointing out, think that the Iranians are dug in saying you're going to have to lift the US blockade before we let ships pass through, you know, to the tankers pass through the Strait and the US has decided that this temporary deal that they're talking about which would the Iranians proposed last weekend, you know, kicking the nuclear issue down the road and agreeing to disagree but dealing with the Strait first. Well, that's not acceptable according to what we're hearing for it so far which means that there's excuse me, they're still mated. So, they're farther away from any kind of deal and apparently the president is willing to take the pain. They think that the Iranian economy is going to collapse under this pressure, but the Iranians have proved in the past that they're willing to take lot of pain. They really don't seem to care very much about how much their economy collapses when it comes to standing up and not caving in and very frankly, it's lot more radical the group that is now in charge than those who were assassinated. also want to get your reaction to something that the German Chancellor said about the US negotiations with Iran. He said quote, "The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating or rather very skillful at not negotiating letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any results. An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership especially by the so-called Revolutionary Guards." What do you make of that public criticism by NATO ally? It is it's unusual, but it's not unexpected because Starmer and Meloni in Italy certainly Meloni was one of Trump's strongest, you know, allies in the alliance. She's been critical. Europe is really angry about this war. They're badly hurt by it, by the energy implications, by the inflation and they are they're now beginning to believe that they've got to be on their own and that they cannot rely on the US. It was interesting that King Charles also strongly spoke about how important the defense of Ukraine is which is something that Europe feels the US is abandoning. Yeah, an incredibly notable moment there. Brian, want to turn to some other news out of the region. The UAE announced it was leaving OPEC. What does that mean for oil production and gas prices? Yeah, this is major announcement coming from top 10 oil producer in the world. United Arab Emirates saying it wants out of OPEC and OPEC plus and they're going to make that effective this week on Friday. Again, this is major announcement when you consider that OPEC has historically held such strong role in the pricing of oil around the world. It really was at its prime in the 70s and 80s. It has since lost some of its power because of the fact that United States is now the world's largest producer of oil and so for that reason the relevance of OPEC has been declining little bit over time and the United Arab Emirates has already said and been on record as wanting to get out of OPEC even prior to the conflict with Iran. Now, it seems like this is the time that they decided they wanted to do so knowing that the Strait of Hormuz does remain closed and that its exit doesn't necessarily impact prices. Analysts telling us that it's really more in the medium to long term that this would be impactful because now that the UAE would not be part of OPEC, it would not be beholden to the caps that OPEC sets on supply so it could do more it would have more range over the production that it has which should be net positive for supply globally. Well, Brian, as we've also been mentioning the Strait of Hormuz remains major sticking point in the US-Iran negotiations. If there is no resolution, what could that mean for prices? Well, we're now at about two months now of this major thoroughfare by which the the 20% of the world's oil travels through has been effectively closed. That has led to to higher oil prices and as you mentioned, barrels of oil at prices around $100 barrel. That is immensely problematic for those prices that we see at the pump which according to AAA are currently averaging around $4.18 could be more depending on where you are and we now have GasBuddy saying that as result of recent developments, they could see the average price per gallon nationwide rising to somewhere between $4.25 to 430, which again will be the highest that we've seen since this war and even higher than we've seen since 2022. Ryan, thank you so much. As we mentioned, we are awaiting potential press conference at the Justice Department. We will bring those remarks when they happen. But coming up, fear, fallout, and partisan finger-pointing. We have the latest on the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Center as the Secret Service reviews the president's security. And political debate heats up over rhetoric and free speech. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is walking up to the podium now for news conference at the Department of Justice. Let's listen in. Same day, May 15th, 2025, that the defendant, James Comey, knowingly and willfully transmitting in interstate commerce communication that contained threat to kill the President of the United States. Both of these counts carry maximum term of imprisonment of of 10 years. so, think it's fair to say that threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially crime. Threatening the life of the President of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice. Over the past year, this department has charged dozens of cases involving threats against all sorts of individuals. We take these seriously, every single one of them. For example, just today in the Northern District of Florida, there was guilty plea from an individual who threatened multiple political leaders, including President Trump. In the Eastern District of North Carolina, where this case was indicted earlier today, there are multiple threats cases very similar to this one, including one where the defendant pled guilty recently to threatening former President Biden, another one that's scheduled to go to trial this summer, another one indicted an individual was divided for was indicted for threatening Tom Homan. say that to say that while this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute. want to take moment to to thank the hard-working members of the FBI who investigated this case over the past 11 months or so, the United States Secret Service who also assisted in this investigation, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina led by United States Attorney Ellis Boyle, who's standing to my right. This was an investigation that remains ongoing. That's been ongoing for about year. and and that's all we're going to say about it today. will let the US Attorney Boyle speak now, and then and after that, Director Patel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Earlier today, grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned true bill indicting Mr. James Comey committing two felonies. Count one, he knowingly and willfully made threat to kill and to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States in violation of 18 USC 871A. Count two, he knowingly and willfully transmitted an interstate and foreign commerce communication that contained threat to kill President Trump in violation of 18 USC 875C. Mr. Comey will be given every form of due process all citizens are entitled to receive to include trial by jury of his peers. In the Eastern District of North Carolina, it doesn't matter who you are. We take all threat cases seriously and prosecute anyone who violates federal law regardless of title or status. Thank you. Thank you. As you heard from the Attorney General and the US Attorney, former FBI Director James Comey has now been indicted for two felony counts. While many of you may read this indictment and view this matter as simple investigation, it is the furthest thing from that. Every single investigation this FBI and our partners at the Department of Justice undertake, especially those that involve the threats to harm or hurt or even kill individuals, whether they behold public office or civilians in our country, are met with the same measure of investigative prowess and tools and personnel in partnership with the Department of Justice as anyone else. As the US Attorney indicated, James Comey will be afforded every matter of due process under the United States Constitution. And as the Attorney General indicated, this has been case that's been investigated over the past 9 10 11 months. These cases take time. Our investigators work methodically. They are career agents, career prosecutors who work these matters. They call the balls and strikes in the field as they see fit pursuant to the facts of the case and the law. They took that information and made presentment to grand jury, jury of peers in the district in which the alleged crime took place, and that grand jury spoke. And that grand jury returned two-count indictment against James Comey. James Comey allegedly threatened the life of the President of the United States. And as you all now know, shortly after posting that threat, he deleted that threat and then issued an apology. All of that information was presented to the grand jury. And Mr. Comey will have his day in court and his ability to speak to jury of his peers. Thank you. Thank you. we'll just take couple of questions. Mr. Attorney General, the the Justice Department in this filing today also issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Comey. is it your belief that that he is continued public threat? and is there is there request also for detention that you anticipate will be made in this case? So, the Department of Justice does not issue arrest warrants, grand juries do. And so, the grand jury returned an indictment and arrest warrant. expect that there will be communication with with Mr. Comey's counsel, and we'll go from there. This case will proceed like hundreds of others do every year. There will be an some sort of arraignment set by the judge or assigned to the magistrate judge, and when that happens, you'll you'll know about it. But in but in this but this is being handled differently from the last time he was indicted. That's my reference. In this case, the the the Department requested an arrest warrant, right? Well, don't think that it's public or clear what the Department requested. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant. Go ahead. Yes. Sir, how will you prove intent when, as the Director had acknowledged, Mr. Comey said he did not associate 86 with doing harm, and he took it down promptly, said it was political speech, not an intent to harm the President. Well, it's not it's not this this case was indicted today. This conduct occurred about year ago, May 15th of last year. There's been tremendous amount of investigation. And how do you prove intent in any case? You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent to the extent it's appropriate, and that's how we'll prove it intent in this case. And so, think that talking about what Mr. Comey will or will not do if there's trial, when there's trial, it's not it's very premature for me to do that today. General General Blanche, want to ask you quick question about there's number of other different types of conduct Comey has been accused of over the past. One of them is abuse of FISA warrants. wanted to ask if there's anything that we could, you know, talk about today when regards to that. But on separate matter, if may ask, any more updates about the ballistics forensics analysis with the shooting that happened over the weekend? So, on the first question, no, there's nothing else to report about any investigations or anything involving Mr. Comey except the indictment that that was returned today by the grand jury. don't have anything further to talk about with the ballistics that are still being analyzed. And said it all yesterday, and every law enforcement member who is speaking on this issue is saying the same thing as they should, which is that this is an ongoing investigation with really, really smart experts trying to understand what happened in that shooting and and where the bullets went and ended up and where the bullets came from. And and once that is at place where we can definitively say, and to the extent we can definitively say, we will we will let you know. Director Comey posted this almost year ago. Why bring this case now? Did you always feel like this was strong prosecution, or did something change recently? This This investigation just didn't come now. It's the result of of lot of work by law enforcement over the past year. We don't time when we bring when we bring cases around anything other than when the investigation is at place where we should go to the grand jury, and that's exactly what we did in in this case as well. As for- as former FBI Director, you may not agree with what he did. Should he be able to turn himself in as former FBI Director? He's not flight risk. didn't say he can't turn himself in. So, he's not under arrest right now, and he may be able bit don't know whether he's under arrest right now. I'm here talking to you. The grand jury issued an arrest warrant. think that the way that this happens is different in every case. It's fact intensive. It depends on who you're right, who the defendant is. It depends on whether he has counsel. It depends on what the judge wants done. And so don't don't know when the judge will schedule an initial arraignment. If that will be scheduled by the magistrate or the district court judge. am sure don't know if if if you want to speak to that or if it's just something that will come up in in the next coming days. You'll know when it happens. As far as what Mr. Comey does between now and then, I'm going to leave that up to the line prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the FBI agents and and and the work that they're doing. Can you explain why Director Patel maybe you said that it's complicated thing. lot of people might think it's an easy case. Why did it take so long? know that you guys chose to go with this now, but to the layman just looking at this case or lay person looking at the case, it was an Instagram post. He apologized. Why did it take so long? Well, I'm not going to get into the details of the investigation itself, but lot of these cases you could look at that when the threats were made and when charges are brought, they're not easy cases. And so we have to there's communication that's sent in allegedly in this case. And so that means that we have to look at devices. Mr. Comey is lawyer. He has lawyers. So the extent that we're looking at at materials that that are potentially privileged, we have to get wall set up wall and let totally independent lawyers look at those. And so that doesn't happen overnight or quickly and and the statute of limitations of this is 5 years. We brought it in under 1 year. So that that's that's really where we're at. Mr. Lee, it's clear that you don't want to talk specifics today. But to the American public, can you at least give us sense of whether you have hard evidence or evidence that shows that Mr. Comey intended for President Trump to be harmed? And then secondarily, for critics who say where does free speech free speech and an an actual threat of violence begin? don't know what critics say that especially today, but it's not very difficult line to look at and it's not in my mind difficult line for one to cross over one way or the other. We cannot You are not allowed to threaten the President of the United States of America. That's not my decision. That's Congress's decision and statute that they passed that we charge multiple times year. And so whether whether there is defense as you just described, maybe. Maybe there is, but but the government will have evidence. am not going to talk about the evidence that we have. That's unfair to him. It's unfair to the prosecutors, but it's enough to say that the grand jury returned returned an indictment. I'm just take one more question. Thank you, sir. Mary Margaret with the Daily Wire. Should we expect more indictments of this sort? For example, in 2020 Gretchen Whitmer did TV hit with 8645 on her desk in the background. Is that the kind of thing you would pursue? And then just really quickly, should Comey expect to face more charges for his role in the Russia collusion investigations? I'm not going to comment on other investigations involving Mr. Comey. There's he's he had he was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia. That was dismissed on procedural grounds because of the the judge's finding regarding the US attorney. So that's case is under appeal. As far as other investigations that are happening, it would not be appropriate or fair for me to comment on that time. As far as other instances of threats against the President of the United States, those will be investigated. Every case is different. The facts are different. Who makes the threat matters. What the threat says matters. You're you're right. The question about intent matters and we have to prove that. That's something that's our job and that's something that prosecutors will have to do in front of jury at the right time. But you cannot compare. It's not fair to the American people. It's not fair to the defendant and it's certainly not fair to to the prosecutors to compare, well, if you did it here, why didn't you do it there? Every every case is different, but there's one thing that will never be different, which is that you cannot threaten to kill the President of the United States. Full stop. All right, thanks lot, guys. Did President Trump's message to Pam Bondi And you've been listening to Justice Department press conference following the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. Let's bring in NBC News legal analyst Misty Marris. Misty, just break down for us what you heard there and what you make of the strength of this case. So what thought was interesting is we learned that the grand jury returned this indictment today, but it's the result of year-long plus investigation. Todd Blanche was not speaking about any of the other evidence that has been collected or anything outside of the four corners of this indictment. But based on the indictment itself and what we heard today at the press conference, this is going to have tremendous challenge for the DOJ because of First Amendment protections. They will have to prove, as one of the questions pointed out, that Comey intended to threaten the life of the President. So we may see more come out in the course of what will be potentially going to trial as we see more and more evidence. But now the grand jury also did come back with an arrest warrant. That means there's probable cause. And you know, it's very likely now that we will see grand jury James Comey in his in initial appearance in 24 to 48 hours. That's the timeline generally in this case. Misty, thank you so much. Joining me now is Governor J.B. Pritzker, Democrat from Illinois. Governor, thank you so much for joining us. I'd be remiss if didn't point out that am from Chicago, born and raised, but will not press you on whether the Bears are going to stay in the great state of Illinois. do want to begin with the breaking news though that grand jury has indicted former FBI Director James Comey. You yourself, Governor, have been frequent target of the President. So what's your level of concern at this point about potential federal prosecution? Well, the President has in fact threatened to jail me. Not for any particular reason, just announced that he thinks ought to be jailed. so, you know, he goes after his political enemies. That's what he's doing here with James Comey. That's what he tried to do with Tish James. he is in fact weaponizing the Department of Justice against his political enemies. It's it's not right. They've gone and gotten this indictment. You know, any good prosecutor can get you know, grand jury to indict ham sandwich, frankly. And they've done exactly that. Now they're going to have him go through It's whole bunch of lawfare against James Comey that's going to end with what? picture of some seashells that say 8647? And they're going to make the case that James Comey wanted to kill the President of the United States because he tweeted this picture 8647. It's just wrong. mean, we all need to recognize this President, there's something wrong with him. He's getting his DOJ to go after people that he shouldn't. We've all got to stand up and speak out about this. One issue that your party has been grappling with is just how much to focus on fighting the Trump administration versus focusing on the kitchen table issues that many think will win them the midterms. Do circumstance circumstances like this though distract from the affordability message and perhaps is that what the President wants here? You know, you know, you can do two things at once. We can stand up for people's affordability, people's ability to pay their bills, rent home or or or buy home, pay their electric bill. We can deal with that. We can In fact, we do that in the state of Illinois. We've raised wages here and we've lowered costs for people and lowered taxes for working families. But at the same time, we can't let them take our rights away. They can't we can't let Donald Trump go after people, take away their due process rights, go after them because they're black or brown. These are all things that this administration is doing and it's okay to speak up and speak out about this. We're Americans. We're for democracy and frankly, they're taking that away every day. He's an authoritarian and if we are not pushing back every single day, then we're doing it wrong because they're taking our rights away every single day. Governor, what are you doing to push back against that type of rhetoric? Well, appreciate you're asking. Yeah, as you know, the ICE and CBP agents invaded the city of Chicago last fall and they were tackling black and brown people, US citizens, legal residents, people that spoke with an accent and they were detaining them without any due process. They weren't going after the worst of the worst. And so asked the people of Illinois to pull out their phones, take take video of what was happening and make sure that we're keeping record of that. And then we took them to court. We also created an accountability commission that is holding its sixth and final hearing today and they're going to be issuing report on it. And our intention is to hold accountable the people who've committed these crimes or breached their obligations as law enforcement agents. And whether we can hold them responsible today or when there is new Congress or new President, that's what we're trying to do. It may take us couple of years in fact to go after people like Kash Patel, like Kristi Noem, like Tom Homan, like Greg Bivins. But we are coming after them. Well, you mentioned this commission. It doesn't actually have any specific law enforcement authority. So when you say hold people accountable, what are you hoping that actually looks like? We're gathering evidence. This is about creating record so that when the time comes, we can take them to court. That is what I'm talking about. These folks are going to be held accountable by the law, by the Constitution, but not by this president apparently, and not by his secretary of the the Department of Homeland Security, but instead by the courts. And we will do it with prosecutors and leaders of the country who understand that you have to follow the law. do want to get to the fallout from Saturday's assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Dinner. There's lot of finger pointing going on in the immediate aftermath. You've pointed out that the president also has used inflammatory rhetoric about his opponents. You yourself has used some charged language as well. Do you think it's possible in this political climate for either side to take the high road? Well, you know, there's difference between what I'm doing and what the president is doing. I'm calling for peaceful protest. I'm calling for people to speak out. That is our obligation as Americans. And by the way, it's protected by the First Amendment. The president on the other hand is literally using the Department of Justice to take people to prison. He's indicting people and prosecuting people for no reason other than they are his opponents. So, there's big difference between what each side is doing here. Here's what would say about what happened at the White House Correspondents Dinner. All of us need to be very careful about how we speak that on both sides the Democratic side, the Republican side, people need to be careful. We can talk about our disagreements. We can disagree vehemently and peacefully. But what we shouldn't do and what we can't do is call for violence. And that's something unfortunately we've heard frankly from people in the administration. We've heard from people on the Republican side and some Democrats too. But you've seen that the violence isn't just against Republicans, it's against Democrats and Republicans. And we need to prevent that by bringing the rhetoric down by again, we've got to disagree vehemently, but we don't need to disagree by calling for violence. The president sometimes calls for his supporters at his rallies to, you know, punch or take out protester. He's called for the death penalty for Mark Milley, our general of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You know, these are things that shouldn't happen. We all need to bring the rhetoric down. hope the president will learn the lesson that that think the rest of the country has already learned. The other thing want to ask you about is the conspiracy theories that were quickly spreading after the assassination attempt. People saying it was staged attack. Given the current social media climate, do you think leaders like yourself need to be more proactive about correcting misinformation? And are Democrats doing enough to snuff out some of these conspiracy theories? You know, it's social media companies that ought to be making sure that we're snuffing out some of this rhetoric because they are doing nothing. They're literally letting hate speech happen on their platforms. That shouldn't be. We should be very careful about what people are, you know, allowed to post. really believe that hate speech has proliferated because of the failure of organizations of companies like to do something about what gets posted. Meanwhile, yes, of course it's it's our responsibility as elected officials to say the right things, to push back when people are trying to talk about violence or hate online. But there's only so much you can do. You can see how many posts there are in any given minute online. So, all we can do is is police our own rhetoric, you know, what it is that we post online. And would hope the president would do the same. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem capable of that. Governor, thank you so much for being with us. And of course, Go Bears. Same. Joining me now for lightning round is today's panel, Leanne Caldwell, Chief Washington Correspondent for Puck, Mo Eleithee, Democratic Strategist and Executive Director of the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service, and Mark Brunner, Republican Strategist and former advisor to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Thank you guys so much for joining us and rolling with the punches today. got to start with this Comey news. Leanne, what do you make of this given that they have tried to go after Comey so many times? Yeah. You have Todd Blanche who's sort of in this acting job auditioning for the role. Just what do you make of what we saw today? Yeah, mean, on its face it seems like it's political. The fact this is the second time, the fact that Todd Blanche is still auditioning for the job to be Attorney General. He's only acting right now. Maybe they do have really strong case. Todd Blanche said that they've been investigating for nearly year, but James Comey has been one of Donald Trump's number one priorities since he entered office. And so, we'll see where this goes. This last indictment was dismissed by judge. We'll see if this one is too. And Mark, just want to get your perspective here being the Republican on our panel. mean, is the message here from the DOJ after seeing this indictment that there is no room to even criticize the president? Well, we're going to have to see where this goes, but credit to Todd Blanche for going out to the public right away and answering questions from the press. I'm sure there's going to be lot more coming forward, but by virtue of the fact that he was able to actually go out and say, "This will be tough. We do need to prove intent. We do need to go methodically every step of the way." That's really important. And so, think that's really good step that he took, you know, proactively to to start off here. Mo, asked the governor the same question about whether this is just distraction for Democrats from the affordability issue. He said we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but that's easier said than done, right? It's actually not because this is what Donald Trump and his government are doing instead of tackling the high cost of living. Right? This is where think Democrats can go as they head into these midterm elections is this is about priorities. The guy promised he was going to make on from day one his top priority making your life easier. And he hasn't done it. He's made your life harder. Instead, he's focusing on prosecuting his political enemy for allegedly threatening assault with deadly seashell. Like people aren't going to buy that. mean, the base though, Mark, wants to see this stuff, right? So, do you think perhaps part of this is also play to energize the Trump base? Well, Todd Blanche, like where he goes from here, that's going to be really important. But also, you don't want to set up big expectations that then fall. So, that there's nothing more demoralizing to political base than to generate fervor and then to have it fall flat. So, there's fine line here politically and and also procedurally as well. That's really great point. Leanne, also want to talk about conspiracy theories. It has just been remarkable to me. don't know if you guys have experienced the same thing, how many people have actually promoted some of these conspiracy theories online. What do you make of that? And do you think that this is just the environment we're in where there's void, social media, you know, really rushes to fill the space before journalism can get out there? And how can we really overcome this moment? Yeah, it started immediately on Saturday night. was originally surprised about it, but then after afterwards not after you think about it. But this goes if social media, but it's also about the void lack of trust in institutions. It is just multifaceted challenge in this society that we live in that is full of misinformation, disinformation, and lot of that is rewarded. People are making money. The more the more outlandish you are online, people make money off this. And so, candidates for Congress, not that anyone or members of Congress, not that anyone in Congress is doing this right now, but the more bold and abhorrent you are, the more your fundraising dollars are. So, there's just so many cyclical things that is laying the groundwork for an environment like this. And to be clear, some members of Congress have also peddled some of these conspiracy theories as well. Panel, thank you so much for joining us. really appreciate it. We're going to be more up later with some more on NBC News Now. And of course, we're always back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. We thank you for watching. And remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.