Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

The Ball Is Now Back In Senate Republicans Court After Week Of Back And Forth Negotiations Over The When, The What, And The How Of A Senate Hearing; President Trump Has A Traitor In His Midst Or It Was All Just A Joke Or It Is Just The Deep State Being All Deep State; Gunmen Opened Fire On An Annual Military Parade In The Southwest City Of Ahvaz In Iran. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 22, 2018 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:17] S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Welcome to UNFILTERED.

Here is tonight's headline. Will they or won't they? New developments in the Kavanaugh confirmation. The ball is now back in Senate Republicans court after week of back and forth negotiations over the when, the what, and the how of a Senate hearing.

Professor Christine Blasey Ford said she will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee next week about her allegations that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her decades ago when they were in high school.

But there is a lot of vague language in the letter that her lawyer sent to the committee at today's 2:30 p.m. deadline.

It reads in part, Dr. Ford accepts the committee's request to provide her firsthand knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct next week. Although many aspects of the proposal you provided via email on September 21st, 2018, at 2:33 p.m. are fundamentally inconsistent with the committee's promise of a fair impartial investigation into her allegations. And we are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying that have tainted the process. We are hopeful that we can reach agreement on details.

The letter also asks for, yes, more negotiations. So now, we wait.

It's hard to keep up but here's how we got here. Earlier this week, Ford opened the door to giving her testimony to the committee. On Thursday, Ford's lawyer presented a list of terms. Those terms included that provisions be made for her safety, that only senators be allowed to ask her questions. That she not be in the same room as Kavanaugh, that he testifies first and that other witnesses including Kavanaugh's friend Mark Judge be subpoenaed as well.

On Friday, the GOP counteroffered, agreed to hold a hearing this upcoming Wednesday, provided Ford testifies first and independent counsel is allowed to ask her questions. The deadline for response was Friday at 5:00 p.m. that was later extended to 10:00 p.m. Ford's lawyer asked for an additional day to make her decision and Senate judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley once again moved the deadline to 2:30 p.m. today. At which point, Ford agreed to appear next week and here we are.

Here's the deal. This week will be a defining one. Not just for the fate of Brett Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court, but for all of us. How will we decide to mediate these kind of disputes in a politically fraught high stakes emotionally charged election year and a Me Too environment? How can we handle this responsibly?

The truth is we don't know what happened and we likely never will, so yes, we should have a hearing. Yes, Professor Ford should be heard and judge Kavanaugh should be allowed to respond to her accusations.

But at the end of the day, we as a society will have to make a judgment call. Do we base that call on the character witnesses who has more of them or whose are more compelling or maybe the actual witnesses? Well, they seem to favor him. Or is the threshold of the FBI investigation, is that what should be the deciding factor?

Here's what I do know. Anyone who is telling you with certainty that judge Kavanaugh is guilty wants him to be. And anyone who is telling you with certainty that judge Kavanaugh is innocent wants him to be. So ask yourself as we gear up for what will be one of the most important weeks in politics that will set a precedent for decades, maybe even centuries to come, what is the standard we want to set for future generations?

All right, here to help me break down all the latest in this ever- evolving major moment in history, CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash.

Dana, the 2:30 deadline today came. We got the letter from Professor Ford's lawyers. Do we know how the White House has responded?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's frustration which is understandable. It would be the case for any President of any party for a nominee to be in this position because the cards are in the hands of the hill. The Senate Republicans, particularly, Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee, his staff, the leadership on the Republican side and to a lesser extent, the minority. And what is happening, in my reporting, it's becoming more and more clear is that the absolute breakdown, unbelievable breakdown, even for today's times of comity and of basic negotiation and discussion across party lines. Which should happen in any nomination of this import are not happening and it's just the opposite. It is making things even harder.

And so the answers and non-answers that you are getting back and forth between senator Grassley, the chairman and professor Ford and her attorney are even more poisoned because of the poison atmosphere that it's in.

[18:05:43] CUPP: So to the point, is this going to happen? I mean, all the terms are still up for negotiation, right?

BASH: They are. Just as you said, the response from professor Ford's attorney today was, yes, we accept except x, y, and z and the terms that you discussed that you laid out so well are still up in the air.

Look, she wants to get to yes, at least her lawyers are making clear she wants to get to yes. And the Republican leadership should want to get to yes because any other outcome at this point is very problematic, substantively and politically. So it's hard to imagine that they don't but anything goes in this environment, it's sad to say.

CUPP: Well, let's talk about the politics on both sides. On Friday, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell insisted judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you get the sense from other Republicans on the hill though that they are less confident of that or is that basically the line you are hearing? We have the math?

BASH: They don't have the math. They want to have the math and that was a line that Mitch McConnell used. It was, I think, it was aspirational. It was also a political line because of who he was speaking to. He was speaking to a group of conservatives at a very important gathering of conservatives and he also said not just we have the votes, it's, don't get rattled. Which I thought was really fascinating. Because as much as we hear the pressure from the left and even from independents saying, you know, give her a chance, the pressure that I'm hearing from Republican senators and those in and around them that they are getting from the right to say, what is going on here? It's even as big and when you are talking about U.S. senators from really red states where they are a conservative base to make or break them, it's important not to forget that.

CUPP: Wow.

OK. On the other side, do Democrats you talked to believe that once Ford testifies, it's over? It will kill the Kavanaugh confirmation? Is that the sort of underlying belief on the hill?

BASH: No. No, you are right, publicly, when you said in your open is so right that people who say they just believe him without hearing him or without obviously knowing the facts, none of us know all the facts are saying so because they want that to be the case.

But truth serum, Democrats and Republicans, they don't know what's going to happen and that's something we have to keep in mind. Because it's for both parties. It's the public that's going to have to decide this, but it's really these U.S. senators. And in particular, I would say, there are four Republican senators who are the key here. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are probably the most important, Jeff Flake and Bob Corker also.

But for the two women especially, if it goes down the way it looks like it is going to go down and there is a hearing, and he said versus she said, it's going to be the senators who are going to have to decide whom to believe and weighing that against the rest of the judges' background in the context of his experience and credibility and that is a lot of weight to put on them. They are the jury.

CUPP: It's going to be historic, what happens this week or maybe next, whenever. Lastly, before you go, some Democrats, I know, I have talked to, I'm

sure you have to, were not thrilled with the way that Dianne Feinstein handled these allegations. If this doesn't end the Kavanaugh confirmation, do you think this could hurt her reelection bid?

BASH: It's interesting because she's in this unusual situation for California running against a democrat. Right now, the polls show she's doing fine. But, you know, the thing about Dianne Feinstein is that she, I think maybe people would say to her credit, she has trouble playing politics. And she plays the role of a public servant and a U.S. senator.

And I was actually just talking to another Democratic member of the committee before coming on with you because I knew you wanted to talk about this, S.E.

[18:10:12] CUPP: Yes.

BASH: And the feeling is that while there's certainly some grumbling, how could she hold this for so long? She made a promise to Professor Ford that she would keep this out of the mix. That she would keep, not just anonymity but that she would keep her claim out of the mix.

CUPP: Right.

BASH: And it wasn't, and if she had it, that would be the case because that was the initial wish of Professor Ford, but it was leaked and it's now out of her hands.

CUPP: Wow. Well, great reporting, Dana. Thanks so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.

BASH: Thank you.

CUPP: Busy week. Get some sleep. All right.

Up next, can anyone really win in the Kavanaugh confirmation battle?

And a little bit later in the show, was he serious or sarcastic? The answer could determine the fate of the number two official at the DOJ.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:08] CUPP: So will they or won't they? While we wait and see whether Christine Ford and the Senate judiciary committee can agree on terms to testify next week, one thing I know for certain, no one can win this. Not the accuser whose story was leaked, whose life has been up ended, not judge Kavanaugh for whom this allegation, true or not, will forever be an asterisk by his name. Not Democrats who look on abashedly craven and opportunistic, not Republicans unsympathetic to a woman's allegations, and certainly not the American public who is learning just how useless and partisan the confirmation process is.

So with all of that in mind, just what are the stakes here? For more on the political fallout, I have on the right, senior columnist at "the Daily Beast," CNN political commentator Matt Lewis. On the left, CEO of Women in Need, former New York City's council speaker Christine Quinn.

OK. Christine, let me start with you.

CHRISTINE QUINN, FORMER NYC COUNCIL'S SPEAKER: OK.

CUPP: Let's agree, all of us, that Trump and anyone else is wrong to question Christine Ford's timing of this revelation. Why she didn't expose this 35 years ago and I'm going to address it? That's inappropriate and awful. But even Democrats are questioning the timing of senator Feinstein's revealing this months after she had the letter a week after Kavanaugh testified. Are you worried that this looks like a political stunt?

QUINN: You know, I think the best thing that could happen here is they be separated. If people want to ask questions about what senator Feinstein did, I think that's fair.

CUPP: OK.

QUINN: Now I think we can also say if the letter came, as she said, with a request for confidentiality, that's a rock and a hard place, right.

CUPP: Right.

QUINN: But, so I think that's fair. It's really irrelevant to Professor Ford because she did what she thought she had to do.

CUPP: Sure. Right.

QUINN: Why the senate and the congress members to have walked it right over to the senator's office in a timely fashion.

CUPP: Right.

QUINN: I think those are fair questions, but they should not be held against Professor Ford.

CUPP: Sure. No, I agree.

Matt, on the other side, on Friday, Trump said what Republicans hoped he would not which was that Ford or her loving parents should have said something about this years ago. While Republicans and even White House advisers like Kellyanne Conway said she should be hurt, she should not be attacked. Do you think Trump just blew up any goodwill that maybe Republicans had earned over the week?

MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, actually, I think that the Ed Whalen story, that bizarre conspiracy theory actually did more damage. People know who Donald Trump is.

CUPP: By the way, just for our audience, conspiracy theory that maybe this was a case of mistaken identity by Dr. Ford.

LEWIS: Right. I mean, this is a little more inside baseball but actually I think that was a turning point. You know, Donald Trump, people know who Donald Trump is. People, sort of baked in the cake. But I think that Kavanaugh had turned a corner. It was starting to look like Dr. Ford and Democrats were playing this game of delay. She had said she wanted to come forward and then once, you know, Grassley and McConnell were like, OK, let's set the date and started it back.

I felt like Republicans turned the corner. Kavanaugh was gaining momentum.

CUPP: Right.

LEWIS: And then that weird conspiracy theory about the mistaken identity. I actually think that did more damage to Kavanaugh. Now, in terms of midterm elections and are Republicans going to be blamed and thought of as being anti-woman? Of course, Donald Trump plays into that stereotype.

CUPP: Right.

Christine, a number of Democrats have said that she must be believed and that he must be guilty. Senator Mazie Hirono said that questioning her about this was re-victimizing her.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: No, it is OK. Is this a good standard to set that one allegation from 35 years ago with no corroborating witnesses, in fact, witnesses who deny it happened, is enough to kill a political appointment or an election or a job promotion?

QUINN: Look, I want to say, and you said this at the beginning.

CUPP: Yes.

QUINN: I just want to reaffirm that. The questions that have been asked about, why did you wait, et cetera, the senators, those are terrible questions that you have said.

CUPP: Yes.

QUINN: The professor has needs to be heard.

CUPP: Yes.

QUINN: She needs to be heard and she needs to be heard in a way that is constructive and not re-victimizing. Do I tend to believe survivors? I do. I ran a crime victims assistants agency. I think it is incredibly, incredibly rare that someone comes forward and says they were a victim of sexual violence when they weren't, because it's so traumatic.

CUPP: Right.

QUINN: But she has to be heard. Of course, he has the right to be heard if he so chooses which it appears he has chosen.

[18:20:03] CUPP: Yes. QUINN: But the problem is that so many people leap to not believing

the victim. That's where society, not just politicians, but that's where society starts.

CUPP: I got to bring this to a tangential but related topic. Keith Ellison, Democratic congressman from Minnesota, deputy chair of the DNC, running for attorney general in Minnesota, has been accused by two women of domestic violence.

Not only are Democrats insisting they be believed and that he step aside, he easily won his Democratic primary. But at least one of his accusers had said her own party, the Democratic Party, has smeared and isolated her. Here is Keith Ellison last night in a debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you confident no one else has stepped forward with any other allegations?

REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE: Look. You know, in this political environment, I don't know what somebody might cook up, but I can tell you that there is absolutely nobody that I'm aware of who has any sort of, threatening or suggesting or ever made a prior accusation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: How can Democrats explain a very obvious double standard in outrage?

QUINN: Look, there needs to be one standard and the issue of looking into allegations of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, need to be done apolitically and that really is a standard we can't ever veer off of.

CUPP: Yes.

QUINN: And we have to remember, we have made progress in how we treat survivors of rape and sexual assault but we are not in the place we should be as a country.

LEWIS: I don't think it's just the Democrats who have a double standard advice here. I think Republicans too, but I think the media does. Now, you have just showed this, but this probably, admit that a Supreme Court appointment of the Supreme Court is more newsworthy than an attorney general of Minnesota, but this is not a nobody who is or was a Democratic chair or the Democratic national --.

QUINN: He is the vice chair.

LEWIS: Right.

So this is a big deal and venture to say the media is not really covering this, at least not the kind of coverage it might get if he were a Republican.

CUPP: That you would think it would get and maybe should get.

OK, Matt, Christine, really appreciate it. Thanks for coming.

Next, polarization is the name of the game for both parties but are they both ignoring an important voting bloc that could be instrumental in deciding midterm elections?

Coming up, did the President just declare war on the FBI and DOJ?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:24:45] CUPP: Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Beto O'Rourke faced off in their first debate last night and what has become a surprisingly tight race for Cru's Texas senate seat. So it what is not surprising, the two spent the evening sniping and sparring and that carried over into what was supposed to be that time honored tradition of ending on a note of politeness and civility.

Ask so say something nice about each other. O'Rourke praised Cruz's work ethic and sacrifice for public service. Here's what Cruz said about his opponent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[18:25:17] SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Bernie Sanders believes in what he is fighting for. Believes in socialism. Now, I think what he is fighting for doesn't work but I think you are absolutely sincere like Bernie that you believe in expanding government and higher taxes and I commend you for fights what you believe in. As you noted, we disagree on the outcome but you are fighting for the principles you believe in and I respect that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: True.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Most polls have Democratic challenger O'Rourke within striking distance of the incumbent Cruz. This is interstate that Trump won by nine points. But for O'Rourke to pull off the upset, he had have to snap off a very long losing streak. Democrats haven't won a statewide election in Texas since 1994.

We will be back in two minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:28:20] CUPP: In the Red File tonight, this Brett Kavanaugh controversy remember is happening just seven weeks before the midterm elections. You better believe that has the GOP worried and with good reason. A new NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll shows opposition to

Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation that has increased nine points in just the last month. A particular bloc of voters, though, is even more troubling, Independents.

Independents were plus 15 in favor of Kavanaugh in August and are now minus 16. That's a 30 point swing in just a month. And not in the direction Republicans want. So the big question is, will Independents throw their votes to Democrats? Particularly, in key suburban races in November.

Joining me now is CNN political analyst and senior political correspondent for "the Washington Examiner" David Drucker.

David, how much of a factor do you believe the Kavanaugh controversy is for the November elections?

DAVID DRUCKER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it sort of depend, S.E., on how this thing plays out and where it finishes. It could go a couple of different ways. Obviously, Republicans are concerned because a lot of this has to do with sexual assault allegations and Republicans are in a lot of trouble with female voters in the suburbs that you mentioned.

But there's another aspect to this and that is that Republicans, for all of the trouble they are in the house still have a chance to maintain their Senate majority. In fact, they could actually grow their Senate majority because the map is so favorable playing out in states that Trump didn't just win but continues to enjoy a wide margin of support.

But if Republican based voters see Republicans abandon Kavanaugh with these circumstances surrounding the allegations, not changing. In other words, we don't find out he has been lying. We don't have more, well, we any corroborating evidence. And it's just that he said/she said. They are going to look at this Republican majority, which is slim, 51-49 and they are going to say to themselves, the Democrats are running the show. Why bother showing up? So it's a very delicate dance that Republicans in the Senate are playing here.

[18:30:28] CUPP: What about Democrats, though? Do you think that there is there a danger for Democrats in overplaying Kavanaugh?

DRUCKER: Yes. There is. I mean, look. This thing has been so topsy-turvy. It was first breaking last week, Republicans were playing defense. Then in the middle of this week when it looked like Democrats were hedging and all of the sudden, they got the hearing they wanted. And then they were saying wait, this is going too fast. We don't actually want the hearing right away.

CUPP: Yes.

DRUCKER: The credibility surrounding the allegations, I think, from a Republican perspective and possibly from a perspective of independent voters wasn't looking all that good. And then of course, we saw the shenanigans with Ed Whalen's twitter thread trying to create some other, some possibility, sorry for speaking over my words here and so, all of the sudden now this tilted back in the favor of Democratic political momentum even though so much more involved here with politics.

CUPP: Yes. DRUCKER: All that to say, this thing is not done yet. And I think

Democrats do have to be careful about not overplaying their hand and have voters looking at them just trying to do anything they can to stall a nomination that they don't have the numbers to stall.

CUPP: So putting Kavanaugh aside or taking that out of it, if you can, you know, many analysts believe that suburban women will be a deciding factor in this upcoming midterms but could independents be even more crucial, do you think?

DRUCKER: I think independents are going to be key and we have looked at the polling on this over the summer and into the fall. And what we found is that independents are swinging for the Democrats by anywhere from 10 to 15 points depending on the poll.

CUPP: Wow.

DRUCKER: And in fact, in the most recent CNN poll, the Democrats in the generic ballot question of who voters would prefer being in charge on Capitol Hill, Democrats were preferred by Independents over Republicans by 12 point. And true independents, the ones that are persuadable, the ones that can swing, they are fed up with the partisanship in Washington. I supposed they have been for a long time. But, they are looking at the partisanship that currently exists and they are blaming President Trump, they are blaming his tone, and that's one of the reasons they are looking at Democrats and this is a very big deal.

One of the reasons President Trump in fact won in 2016 is he ended up getting a lot of that independent vote, especially where it mattered. And the only thing I guess we could say about this in the same CNN poll, Independents turned off by what they are seeing in D.C. where 12 points less enthusiastic to vote than were Republicans, about eight to ten points less enthusiastic to vote than Democrats. So I think this is a really big deal that people forget about when they just focus on gerrymandering and red states, blue states.

CUPP: Interesting. David Drucker, thanks so much. We appreciate it.

DRUCKER: Thank you.

CUPP: OK. Stunning new reports seem to indicate President Trump's deep state paranoia, seem to.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:37:53] CUPP: According to several bombshell reports, President Trump has a traitor in his midst or it was all just a joke or it is just the deep state being all deep state. Anonymous sources can't seem to agree.

In a story first reported by "The New York Times," much of it confirmed by CNN, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, the second most senior official in the justice department suggested during May 2017 meeting with then acting FBI director Andrew McCabe that he should secretly record President Trump to quote "expose the chaos consuming the administration."

Rosenstein also reportedly discussed recruiting cabinet members including then homeland security secretary John Kelly and attorney general Jeff Sessions to invoke the 25th amendment. A constitutional process that would allow the vice President and members of the cabinet to remove Mr. Trump from office.

Big, if true. Stress on the "if," because according to reporting in the "Washington Post" and "Wall Street Journal" and also included in CNN's reporting, the comment was made in jest. At least one person who attended the meeting described Rosenstein's suggestion of recording the President as a sarcastic comment which not meant to be taken seriously.

"The New York Times" is standing by its story with reporter Adam Goldman telling Jake Tapper that as far as he understands, this was not a flippant remark. For his part, Rod Rosenstein is pushing back against "the New York Times" story.

In a statement Rosenstein said, "The New York Times" story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own political agenda. But let me be clear on this. Based on my personal dealings with the President, there's no basis to invoke the 25th amendment.

All right. For more on this, let me bring in former FBI senior intelligence adviser and former CIA counterterrorism official, CNN analyst Phil Mudd.

Phil, first, do you believe this conversation happened as its being reported?

[18:40:00] PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I believe it did but I think context is everything here. Let me add one phrase. Let's say that Rosenstein said that and he said it with a smile. What would you say if he said it without a smile, you'd say something else.

CUPP: Yes.

MUDD: Look, S.E., if I had cataloged every sarcastic comment I heard from senior officials across government in the FBI and CIA, I also served in the White House, I could write an encyclopedia. I don't doubt that he said it. I question whether he meant it and those are significantly different.

CUPP: Yes. So if we believe this conversation happened, as you and I do, who do you think might have been motivated to leak this information to "The New York Times"? That's sort of the nuts of what are being speculated about right now.

MUDD: There's a couple characteristics to people I saw or who I thought I saw leaking information. One is people who thought they were sidelined. In other words, people who thought they were - had important position in government and they were sidelined in policy conversations. The second, and I think that's what happened here is people who either disagree with the policy direction or disagree with people taking the policy direction.

People who leak have a reason for doing so. They don't like what somebody is doing or they don't like the fact that their ego hasn't been massaged. In my judgment, this is one of both of those categories. My guess is that somebody who doesn't like what they saw out of Rosenstein, they declined to say the fact that he was smiling or laughing when he said it. And they said they are going to smear him. I don't doubt that it happened. I suspect that whoever who said it has an ax to grind.

CUPP: Could that person in your mind be Andy McCabe?

MUDD: I don't think Andy leaked this. I know Andy personally, so let me confess that up front. He was a serious dude. He is smart as you want to get.

CUPP: Yes.

MUDD: I wouldn't rule out that it would be in a document he wrote from a conversation. In other words, when you walk out of a meeting and if you are an FBI officer, you might record the contents of that meeting.

CUPP: Right.

MUDD: In official circles, when you are doing a criminal investigation, that's called a 302. If you are just having a conversation, you might also record verbatim what happened. Verbatim that might have said that Rosenstein raised that in a meeting. It might not say what the context was and context here is about 80 percent of the story.

CUPP: You know, I want to ask you about morale, both inside law enforcement and intelligence. I'm sure you heard what Trump has been saying about the FBI that lingering stench inside the FBI.

If Trump uses this story to go nuclear and fire Rod Rosenstein, maybe even fire Robert Mueller, how do you think law enforcement and intelligence officials, rank and file, would respond? Would you anticipate resignations or just sort of like keep your head down and get through this next latest controversy?

MUDD: Boy, it's a rare one, S.E., I can tell you stumped the chump with this one. I don't think he can fire Mueller. I think if he tried to do that, it would be interesting and this would be a public conversation whether that was legal.

I tell you, I have seen a lot of stress when I was in government. Ninety-nine percent of the workforce does not have interaction with the White House, maybe 99.8 percent. The people they interact with are people like FBI director Chris Wray, who I think has an excellent reputation. The CIA director, Gina Haspel, who I know personally. She is terrific.

I think they look and say, look, our job is supposed to look at things like white collar crime, gang activity at the FBI, what's going on with the North Korea nuclear program at the -- I think 99 percent of the population would say, this is really unpleasant when I go home at night. But during the day, I got a mission. And that mission directive continues regardless of what the President does. I know this sound (INAUDIBLE), but they work for the American people, too. And that work doesn't stop.

CUPP: No. That's actually really encouraging because you know how much I respect and support people in law enforcement and in the intel community. And I like to think that they can sort of tune some of that stuff out. I hope they do. I'm glad you said that.

Phil, thanks for joining me.

MUDD: I think they do.

CUPP: Good.

A quick note tomorrow on "FARRED ZAKARIA GPS," Fareed talks with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg about that potential 2020 run. Tune in to "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" for the exclusive tomorrow morning at 10:00.

And up next for us, tension between the U.S. and Iran escalades as a terrorist attack there. Kills dozens including children.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:49:06] CUPP: Early this morning, gunmen opened fire on an annual military parade in the southwest city of Ahvaz in Iran, killing 29 and injuring at least 70, including military personnel, civilians, journalists and children.

Iran initially cited a separatist group stating it had claimed responsibility, though, that group since denied it was responsible. ISIS has also claimed responsibility but Iran is also blaming the U.S.

In the wake of the attack, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted, terrorists trained and paid by a foreign regime have attacked Ahvaz. Iran holds regional terror sponsors and their U.S. masters accountable for such attack. Iran will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of Iranian lives.

To say U.S.-Iranian religions have been historically tense would be an understatement but certainly the Trump administration is taking a more firm some might say more traditional posture than the Obama White House after the President withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal that his predecessor negotiated.

Just yesterday, secretary of state Mike Pompeo issued a warning to the Islamic republic for missile attacks earlier this month on U.S. missions in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[18:50:24] MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We will not let Iran get away with using proxy force to attack an American interest. Iran will be held accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Joining me to discuss how all of this will play out, our CNN military and diplomatic analyst, retired U.S. Navy admiral John Kirby, and national security analyst, Samantha Vinograd.

Sam, let me start with you. The idea that Iran blames the U.S. for engineering an attack on the Iranian military and citizenry, including children, is that unusual posturing?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: S.E., this is so predictable and also so hypocritical. It is predictable because every time something goes wrong in Iran, they blame everybody except themselves. They have done this when there have been previous attacks in the same province as the attack today, when Arab insurgents have taken responsibility, instead of saying, OK, maybe this group feel disenfranchised and there's issues that we need to address. They do it, when it comes to their economy. They blame us for decades of mismanagement.

And this is also deeply hypocritical, S.E. I lived in Iraq, and I can't tell you how many times I ducked and covered when missiles from Iranian backed proxies struck the green zone in 2007. Iran supports more terrorist groups in the region than stars in the sky. And Zarif making this statement again is look predictable and hypocritical.

CUPP: Yes.

Admiral Kirby, secretary of state Pompeo has unsurprisingly talked tough about Iran, vis-a-vis U.S. missions in Iraq, Syria, Russia. But when he says Iran will be held accountable, that we are going to go to the source, that's a quote, is that an escalation in rhetoric in your view?

REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: I don't think it is much of an escalation for this administration and the way they have been talking about Iran, I mean. And look, even under the Obama administration, we heightened sanctions against Iran and we always said that all options were on the table. And that we would do what we needed to do to protect our interests and our troops over there.

So, no. I don't see this particularly new escalation. But it is very tough talk going in to U.N. general assembly. And make no mistake, S.E., that's what this is about. He is teeing up President Trump and his speech at the U.N. general assembly coming up here next week and what we anticipate is going to be a very muscular, if not pugilistic speech aimed at Iran.

CUPP: Well, I am glad you brought that up, admiral Kirby, sticking with you for just one second. What message do you think President Trump should bring to that U.N. general council meeting next week?

KIRBY: Well, I hope it is not all about Iran. But I have a feeling that is going to be the headlines he is driving at. And I think, you know, look. Obviously we need to be tough about Iran. Sam is right. They are a bad actor in the region and state sponsor of terrorism. And the United States should remain strong and united with our allies and partners against them.

But I don't think it is going to be useful for him to just beat a shoe on a podium like Khrushchev and say that we are going to burry you. We are going to take it to the source. We are going, you know, we are going to eliminate your regime. That is not going to be helpful.

Iran is all ready. You have seen Rouhani talk about this. Zarif has talked about this in relation to the attack. And today, they have already said they are not going to be intimidated. They are not going to be bullied, and they are going to start increasing their defensive power which we take as offensive power.

CUPP: Right.

Well, Sam, to that point Rouhani declared earlier today that Iran will defeat trump saying America would suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein. He also said Iran would never abandoned the quote "missiles" that make America so angry. Was he referring, do you think, to nuclear proliferation or just existing weapons?

VINOGRAD: I think it is probably existing missiles at this point. Because remember, Iran is still trying to get European powers to get waivers for the sanctions that are due to come into effect in November. So I think that Iran is probably going to want to get into a war of words of sort, but they are still going to play the victim.

The United Stated President Trump is actually chairing a special session of the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday which is really about Iran. And he is going to point the finger at Iran, and talk about all of the bad things that they are doing. And Iran will undoubtedly answer back and point the finger at us, but I don't think that they really want to ostracize the Europeans right now and give the Europeans any reason to back away from saying, look, the IAEA said that Iran is not violating the nuclear deal. They kept their commitments. We deserve waivers on sanctions on the Iranian energy sector for this reason. So, I think the Iranians will walk the line.

CUPP: Admiral Kirby, I have 30 seconds. But I'm wondering, Iran is suggesting that Saudi Arabia backed the militants behind the deadly assault. I'm wondering what you think of that assertion.

[18:55:01] KIRBY: Yes, look. I think it is too soon to tell. I mean, Iran has only, you know, not been very. very much victim of Sunni inspired terrorist attacks. I mean, the last one was like in June of 2017 and that was ISIS. So that I think we need to do a lot more work here. I'm not ruling it out. I don't think you can say definitively that they weren't behind this in some way, but I don't think we know yet.

CUPP: Thank you so much, guys, both of you.

That's it for us tonight. CNN NEWSROOM with Ana Cabrera is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)