Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
U.S. Launches Third Consecutive Night Of Strikes On Iran; Judge: Trump Sued IRS For "Improper Purpose"; One Person Killed In ICE-Involved Shooting In Maine"; Interview With Sen. Angus King (I- ME); Second Fatal ICE Shooting In U.S. In Less Than A Week; Harris County D.A. Says Independent Probe Into ICE Shooting Could Take "Many, Many Months"; Lindsey Graham's Sister Appointed To Finish His Senate Term; Ukrainian Strikes Deep Inside Russia Shock Residents. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired July 13, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRAD TODD, CNN COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: We reached out to the V.A. to ask how they would respond to Congressman Bost's letter, and whether the agency will review VFW's accreditation and its financing. The V.A. has not responded to us -- Erin.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: All right, Brian, thank you very much. Fascinating, though, as you point out that there's been that exact same cartoon used multiple times in history indistinguishable from this one. That was fascinating.
All right, Brian Todd, thank you so very much and thanks as always to all of you for being with us. We'll see you back here tomorrow. AC360 begins now.
[20:00:32]
JOHN KING, CNN HOST: A third straight night of strikes on Iran underway as speak. The President has already have plenty say about it, some of it raising the question, "Haven't we heard a lot of this before?"
Good evening, John King here, in for Anderson tonight. Here's some of what the president told reporters a bit earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, we're doing another very major attack tonight. They want to make a deal, they came back. We made a deal two days ago and they want to make a deal. They've been negotiating for 47 years, but nobody has ever hit them militarily. We're hitting them very hard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The new strikes began just before dinnertime, and as before, a U.S. official saying this latest round is targeting Iran's coastal surveillance systems, it's drone and its missile capabilities, and Iranian state media reports explosions in locations in and along the Strait of Hormuz, including Bandar Abbas, which CENTCOM says it hit overnight with naval surface attack drones.
This is video of some kind of port facility being destroyed. CENTCOM calling it the first time American forces have used sea drones in combat. But here is where it gets at least a bit confusing. All of the targets tonight sound familiar. Naval systems, drones, missiles, so, are U.S. Forces restriking targets and capabilities at the present and in the past has said were destroyed or were those past statements about total destruction exaggerated.
This is new video, just in showing what Iran claims to be missiles being fired against American targets in the region.
We cannot independently confirm the authenticity of that statement or that video. But with that as a backdrop, here's the President again tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We've knocked out their Navy in a period of one month. We knocked out their Air Force Air force is nonexistent. We knocked out most of their missiles, most of their drones. We knocked out their drone manufacturing capability, about 92 percent. Their missile capability for manufacturing, we knocked out 89 percent. And they have a little capability, but they don't have any capability for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now, he has said as much before for many weeks, in fact, which again raises the question -- are we refighting the same war here?
The President also weighed in today on Iran's nuclear program, which he recently suggested no longer mattered because, in his view, any highly enriched uranium was, "so far underground, nobody's going to be able to get it except us." Only now he's warning the United States would, in his words, "take out" Iran's fortified complex inside Pickaxe Mountain, near its nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're going to take out Pickaxe Mountain. Tell the Iranians to be ready. We're watching it closely. We see no activity there. They're not doing well with their nuclear situation. Every time we hear about it, we blow it up. So, they don't like talking about it. But we'll probably give Pickaxe a shot relatively soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: There's no indication that it's been hit tonight. But again, if the buried uranium no longer matters, why would it be targeted at all? On top of that, and certainly adding to the sense of deja vu, the U.S. naval blockade is back on effective tomorrow, according to CENTCOM. But there's also a twist, which the President today rolled out on social media, quoting him now, "The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as the Guardian of the Hormuz Strait. But as such, and as a matter of fairness, we'll be reimbursed at the rate of 20 percent on all cargo shipped for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the world."
In short, a toll or a fee which would be a no-no, if you listen to the President's Secretary of State.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: It's an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway that's existing international law. That's the way it is in international waterways all over the world. And that's the way we expect it will be here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: And it's not just Secretary Rubio on record saying, no charging for passage through the strait of Hormuz. Here's Vice-President Vance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How strenuously will the U.S. fight to keep tolls out of the Strait and keep any fees away from the future Strait commercial traffic? And are you going to leave it to the gulf states to kind of fight this battle?
J.D. VANCE (R), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, first of all, we believe international waterways should be free of tolls.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: There was a time, not that long ago, back in May, to be precise, when the President was with them in the no-toll camp.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We want it free. We don't want tolls. It is international. It is an international waterway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now, though, the President says its 20 percent for protection. Iran's Foreign Minister replying in a mocking message saying "... whoever provides safe passage through the Strait should be compensated and offering to do it for less."
CNN's Kaitlan Collins was in the Oval Office today, and she joins us now.
Kaitlan, did the President give you, did you hear any new information about his plans today, where this is headed?
[20:05:30]
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN'S CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND THE ANCHOR OF "THE SOURCE": Well, John, I mean, we had so many questions about it, given, you know, the contradiction that you just laid out between what Secretary Marco Rubio has said about this notion of even charging tolls, essentially in the Strait of Hormuz with what the President is now proposing. And also, when the President is saying that if the United States is in charge of the strait of Hormuz, that it should be reimbursed for protecting it.
Even today, he was floating this number of a 20 percent reimbursement going to the United States for all cargo that passes through the Strait of Hormuz. And obviously, it's not clear who exactly would be paying that 20 percent if it only applies to cargo, if it applies to oil.
And so, I asked the President who exactly he envisioned reimbursing the United States for taking over the Strait of Hormuz, as he proposed today. And this is what he told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You said we will get reimbursed.
TRUMP: And we're not going to put it up. Yes, I want to be reimburse...
COLLINS: Who is going to reimburse the U.S.?
TRUMP: ... because we're protecting a very rich portion of the world. We're spending money. And so, what we've done is we are going to be reimbursed for protection. We're protecting by the countries that we're helping. For instance, you look at the five countries, you have Saudi Arabia, you have UAE, you have Qatar as I always say, you have Qatar, Bahrain, and by the way, you have others. You have Kuwait and you have others, and they will do very well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, obviously, that's a key question because we have not seen any of those countries yet, I don't believe, John, on the record, commit to reimbursing the United States for doing as much. Obviously, they're the ones who are also being attacked by Iran right now as it's been firing off its missiles and weapons in the last few days as this has gone back and forth.
And so, that's still a huge open question in terms of whether or not this is even something that moves forward. But I think, John, at the heart of this was the President is resuming these strikes. He's reinstating the blockade. That is exactly what obviously it had been in place for the first several months of this war. It has not resulted in Iran saying that they will not have a nuclear weapon and putting that down on paper with the United States, it's not clear why this time well achieve a different result either. But the President believes, you know, that this is the next step for them.
KING: Certainly, it is where we are at the moment. Kaitlan Collins, thank you so much. And well of course, see you at the top of the hour for "The Source".
Joining me now to discuss further, CNN global affairs analysts, Karim Sadjadpour, who also serves as senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Brett McGurk, who's held National Security positions under the last four Presidents, including in President Trump's first term and is just back recently back from a trip to the Middle East.
Brett, let me just start with you. The President said a lot of things there, some of them conflicting. Some of them sounded familiar, some of them, in my view, which is why you're here, a bit confusing based on everything you heard from the President today, where do we stand right now? Are we back where we were before the Memorandum of Understanding? Back before the ceasefire, where are we?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Right now, John, I mean, as I was preparing to come on air, the UAE announced two ships, two civilian ships off its coast have just been hit by Iranian cruise missiles. Apparently, one crew member, an Indian crew member, was killed in that attack. So, this is very much escalating.
I'm thinking of something we discussed on this program when this war started four-and-a-half months ago, John, that if you don't define your objectives very clearly going into a military campaign, they tend to be defined for you. And now the objective is all the Strait of Hormuz. That is what this is all about.
The Revolutionary Guard, I think there are rumors there's a power struggle going on in Tehran. I wouldn't put too much stock in that. The Revolutionary Guard is in charge. They are demonstrating they have power, capability and willingness to shut down the Strait by shooting civilian ships.
And you add another wrinkle now, the Iranian backed Houthis in Yemen, John, are threatening to shut down the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, which they had done in 2023 and 2024. So right now, we're in a state of escalation and whether or not there can be backchannel diplomacy to get it back into some sense of containment, we'll see. But that's where we are right now.
Yes, so we are kind of back to where we were before the MOU was even signed.
KING: To that point, Karim, as Brett notes, you would need diplomacy to de-escalate. The President talked a little bit about that today on the "Hugh Hewitt Show" today. Listen to his description of how he believes the Memorandum of Understanding worked. And on the other side, see if you agree.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It was a test. We didn't know. It didn't -- look, Memorandum of Understanding when you're dealing with sleazebags don't mean much and they don't mean much when you're dealing with honorable people too, because it's a Memorandum of Understanding, it doesn't mean much. And I said, why are we even, you know, it's a standard tactic in the U.S. that you go to a Memorandum of Understanding and then you go to the deal.
I said, just go to the deal first. But you know what? It was sort of a test, and they weren't there. They didn't honor the test.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:10:18]
KING: Third night in a row, of strikes, Kareem, those words from the President there. Sometimes you have bluster before you have breakthrough. What do you make of that?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, there's obviously zero trust between the United States and Iran, John. And unfortunately, I see these two adversaries, Trump and Tehran, in a kind of a face off of gangster diplomacy.
For the Iranian regime, the lesson they unfortunately learned from this war is that you extract concessions, not with diplomacy, but by attacking your neighbors, by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, by not responding to U.S. threats.
And, you know, multiple generations of U.S. statesmen understood that, you know, America's most important, one of Americas most important geopolitical assets is its credibility. And unfortunately, right now, neither our adversaries like Iran nor our allies, take our words seriously.
KING: Well, that is troubling as you try to get a breakthrough. Brett, some of the specifics today, the President posting on social media, the United States is going to charge 20 percent of all cargo ship. It's going to be, the guardian of Hormuz Strait.
His Secretary of State, his Vice-President, even the President in the past have said that's not the way to do it. it's not the way they want it. it's not what international law says. Is it clear to you at all how this would work and is it feasible? Is it legal?
MCGURK: I think, John, I think that statement is actually quite unfortunate to extend. It's even serious because one thing that the U.S. is going for it here is the Gulf States are unanimous that they will not accept a tolling mechanism, which Iran is insisting on. Even Oman, which has been working with Iran on some of this, has been rejecting that for us to now come in and say, actually, you'll pay a fee to us, I think just kind of, forfeits a lot of legitimacy we have here and keeping that international Strait open.
So, look, President Trump has said a lot throughout this conflict on his Truth Social feed. And I hope I would stock that up to something that is not particularly serious. What is serious here is whether or not the Strait of Hormuz will be open again, which again is a question, John, not just of military power, but of confidence to international shippers to make the journey. And we're very much back to the future here of where we were about a month ago.
KING: All right. We're talking about the military, the kinetic activity right now, because obviously three nights of strikes in a row. But in addition to that, we're going to have the economic domino effect playing out as we go through. Karim, you mentioned a very important thing about credibility, both with adversaries and with allies. I was playing some of the sound of the President at the top of the show. A lot of it sounds familiar, he says, we just, he said in the early days, number one, he said in the early days it would be over within days. We're four-and-a-half months later, he said, they were totally destroyed. This was totally destroyed. That was totally destroyed. Are we, in your understanding, re-bombing things that have been bombed before, or was the President grossly exaggerating in the past, and there are still targets to hit?
SADJADPOUR: In short, John, I don't think there are any military silver bullets here. We know from history over the last 47 years, this Iranian regime has only agreed to meaningful compromise a couple of times. And that is when it faces what it believes is existential pressure, coupled with a credible diplomatic exit. At the moment, I don't see either right now.
They feel that they've prevailed in this war that don't feel like they're facing an existential threat, and there are no military silver bullets. I don't believe in the near term, and nor do I see credible diplomatic exit, given the President's public language. So, I don't unfortunately see any end in sight in this conflict. And the Iranians, you know, continue to feel emboldened.
KING: Gentlemen, Karim Sadjadpour, Brett McGurk wish it was a more positive conversation. But appreciate your insights tonight, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Up next for us, a federal judge says the President tried to manipulate the judicial process. But that's not all she said about the President's lawsuit against the IRS or just about everyone involved in it.
Also tonight, officials weighing in for the first time but plenty of questions remain. The second fatal ICE shooting in less than a week.
And later, all we're learning about Senator Lindsey Graham's death and the political repercussions it has now set off.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:18:45]
KING: A stinging ruling today. In the case follow along, essentially amounted to the President suing the IRS, which he oversees, then settling with it as President in a deal that only he could get as President, namely a $1.8 billion fund now abandoned, we think, which he tried to steer to some January 6th convicts. That and keeping the IRS from investigating the President, his family or his businesses for past tax issues.
Today, a Miami federal judge called his lawsuit an attempt to manipulate the judicial process and said the President acted in bad faith in bringing it. Quoting now from the judge's ruling, "This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. There was never adverseness between the parties. There was never a case or controversy, and there was never a question as to who would prevail."
In addition to ordering sanctions for the attorneys involved in this case, the judge also ordering her opinion be submitted to attorney disciplinary boards in New York and Washington, which are now reviewing already preexisting professional ethics complaints against both the Associate Attorney General, Stanley Woodward, and the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, whose confirmation hearing begins later this week.
Joining us now to discuss our CNN legal analyst, Elie Honig. It's a pretty scathing rebuke of the attorneys, of the case itself. What kind of penalties and what happens now?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, the judge is pissed when you read this ruling. I mean, there's no other way to put it. You can feel it coming off the page because the judge feels like she got played, like she was misled by the parties to believe you used the word adverseness.
When you have a lawsuit, it's supposed to be two parties that actually are against one another. However, this was essentially Donald Trump private citizen versus Donald Trump's IRS.
And so, the judge goes back and says, I've now looked back at the filings. I've considered all the facts, and I believe I was misled. And therefore, the penalties, they're as bad as serious as a judge could do.
She's referred various lawyers, including Todd Blanche, for potential disciplinary action.
[20:20:43]
Also, you'll remember the parts of the settlement. You mentioned before, two parts of the settlement. There's the slush fund, which DOJ has said they're not going to use anymore. And then there's this immunity for Trump. And what the judge does there is a little confusing.
The judge says, I'm not going to knock down that immunity, but I'm also going to prohibit you from using it in any official proceeding. So, it's essentially --
KING: Help me with the language here because I want to read the language, "The parties are prohibited from referring to the purported settlement agreement in future legal proceedings."
Again, again, you could read that -- well then that's done, you know, they can investigate or what? It's vague enough that were not exactly sure?
HONIG: So, let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say three years from now, there's a new administration and they start investigating one of Trumps companies for potential tax violations. This order says Trump or his family cannot say. But hang on a second, your honor. We have a settlement that says were immune. So essentially, the judge says, I'm not going to kill this thing, but you also can't use it. So, it's essentially been put on the shelf.
KING: Timing matters always in life. The acting attorney general has a confirmation hearing this week in Washington. It is certain that this is going to come up both the specifics, the scathing nature of the words in this ruling. But also, he has said and you said the slush fund, as you call it, is off the shelf now. But he has yet, if I'm right, refused to sign a piece of paper swearing to that.
HONIG: I promise you, you will hear Democratic Senators on the judiciary committee quoting from this ruling, because it is so scathing. And one of the things that Todd Blanche needs to be asked about is this whole mess, the slush fund and the immunity deal. All he said so far is, okay, we're going to let the slush fund die. After there was pressure from Senate Democrats and Republicans, but he's never owned up. He's never acknowledged this was wrong. This was a terrible idea. This was a corrupt use of taxpayer money.
And so, I think it's one thing for him to back off, which he's done now. But I expect senators to be pushing him hard on how he justifies it.
KING: Well, that hearing to come. Busy week ahead. Elie Honig appreciate your time.
HONIG: Oh yes.
KING: Next, protests in the wake of yet another deadly ICE shooting. Just today, and the first official words about it. Nearly 12 hours after the fact. What we're learning from the scene in Maine and the Maine Senator Angus King, joins us to discuss.
Also, Houston's district attorney on the ICE shooting just a few days ago there, and his take on the federal investigation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:27:09]
KING: For the second time, in less than a week, there's been a fatal ICE shooting. First one in Houston, Texas, more on that and the investigation there in a moment.
First though, the shooting this morning in Biddeford, Maine, that's just South of Portland.
A warning, the video you're about to see is disturbing. Several federal agents surrounding the victim on the ground. An immigrants' rights group, says he's a 26-year-old man from Colombia who was authorized to work, that group says here in the United States. Protesters took to the streets in town after the shooting, calling for ICE to leave the State.
Tonight, nearly 12 hours after the shooting, the department of homeland security released a statement. It says, "ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residence in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene, and, fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon."
That statement continues. "The driver of the vehicle was struck. Emergency Services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries. The Biddeford Police and the FBI responded to the scene. DHS OIG, as the Office of Inspector General has been notified and like all discharge of firearms, this will be investigated."
That statement did not explain why the ICE officer thought the driver was a threat. Joining me now to discuss Maine Senator Angus King, an Independent Senator King, grateful for your time tonight. Troubling day for your state, obviously. You said in your first conversation with the DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, he used the phrase "weaponized the vehicle".
In the later official statement that was just released. DHS did not use that language. It said, quote, "the vehicle attempted to flee the scene and fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon."
It seems to me like an important distinction. What do you make of that? And do you have an updated understanding of what happened here?
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): I think that is a very important distinction, John, and there's also a point that sort of glossed over in that statement. The person that was killed was not the person that they were seeking. They sort of made it unclear but the person they were after was not the guy they ended up shooting. And then, as you say, the statement does not allege that the officer felt that he was in danger.
There's a lot of law, John, on police officer shooting at vehicles. And the bottom line is you have to either fear for your own safety or the safety of others. And so far, we haven't seen evidence of that. The key here is an unvarnished, transparent investigation. And, John, here's the problem. The people of Maine don't trust the federal government to do that.
And so, what I've been pushing and what I talked to the secretary this morning, the Maine officials, the State Police, other Maine officials, the attorney general's office should be involved in this investigation, if it's going to have any credibility.
[20:30:00]
KING: Well, did he give you any assurance they would be looped in? In the past, you mentioned the police protocol about vehicles. We saw this play out in Minneapolis, sadly. A very similar circumstance not that long ago.
You know the Secretary. He was your colleague in the Senate. When he replaced Secretary Noem, my words, part of the conversation was, this was more of a grown-up, and this is someone who would understand and respect Congressional oversight. Are you getting that?
SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Well, I do have to say that when I called him this morning, number one, he took my call immediately. And number two, he talked to me about what he understood at the time. And he said at the time, when I first talked to him this morning, that the fellow that was shot was the target of the investigation.
To give him some credit, he called me about three hours later and said, I have now learned that he was not the target of the investigation. So there was some good faith there. But he did use weaponization of the vehicle. And, of course, that's what we saw with Renee Good in Minneapolis. And that's what really the investigation is all about.
What were the facts? Did this young man actually try to run over an ICE agent? Or was he in danger of running over other people in the street? And was there a reasonable expectation of bodily harm or deadly force to justify this shooting? The larger question, John, is why do we have these guys on our streets? Why are they in Biddeford, Maine?
The whole premise of this project is false. They've talked -- you've heard over and over and over that it's all about the worst of the worst. Well, they were in Maine in the winter, went through this big crackdown, if you will, arrested over 200 people. About 19, I think, 19 or 20 of those people had some kind of criminal record. Ninety percent had no criminal record.
So this is not about the worst of the worst. This is a broad sweep with people with a quota. They've been told they have to arrest 2,000 people a day by the White House. That's a terrible way, an instruction to give law enforcement. And that's -- this -- what happened today in Maine is a result of that kind of overarching, I think, bad faith.
J. KING: One way to answer the big question, was deadly force in any way justified here, would be body cams. There's been a lot of screaming, forgive me, my word, again at DHS from the beginning of this. If you're going to put this -- I know you don't want them on the streets -- but if you're going to put them there, put body cameras on them like local police, like security guards if you go to a sporting event have body cams on them. Why are we, at the point, where they're still not wearing body cams?
A. KING: Well, that's a good question, and that's one that I think DHS has to answer. They've got unlimited money. They were funded last year in the reconciliation bill. They've now been funded, believe it or not, and I voted along with many of my colleagues against the bill. They've been funded to the end of Trump's term. So they've got tons of money.
Why they don't have body cams, I think, is a very fair question. They should. That should have been one of the things that came out of Minneapolis, and that's been called for for almost a year now, for eight months. And clearly that would resolve this kind of factual issue that we're going to be trying to resolve over the next several weeks here in Maine. J. KING: As we do try to resolve it, Senator King, number one. I'm grateful for your time tonight. Please stay in touch as this goes forward.
A. KING: Sure (ph).
J. KING: Appreciate it, sir.
Now we move on to new developments in that other fatal ICE shooting just this week, ICE-involved shooting, the killing of Mexican national Lorenzo Salgado Araujo while on his way to work by an ICE agent last week in Houston. As we've reported, ICE claims he rammed their vehicle and says the shooting was self-defense.
An attorney says the men who were with Salgado Arauno -- Araujo, excuse me, told him ICE's version of the event is simply false and that the agent's lives were never in danger. As a result, the Harris County District Attorney's Office launched its own independent investigation but says that process could take many, many months.
Joining me now, the Harris County District Attorney, Sean Teare. District Attorney, grateful for your time tonight. You just heard Senator King's frustrations about getting information shared. He hopes that improves in the days ahead.
You've been at this for several days now, sadly. Is the government, the federal government, sharing the evidence you need to allow your investigation to go forward?
SEAN TEARE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS: Well, John, thank you for having me. And to this point, the answer shortly is no. But we are equipped, I think unlike a lot of other D.A.'s offices around the country, we have over 100 sworn police officers who work directly for our office. We are the third largest county in the United States.
We handle officer-involved shootings and run a parallel investigation in every one of them, sadly, over 100 times a year. We know what we need to do, and we are doing it. We've issued almost 20 subpoenas already for different pieces of evidence and different individuals to come testify.
We're working through this as if we would in any other case. And it's just such a sad commentary that we're not all in the same room working together to do it because, as the Senator said a minute ago, the community deserves the transparency, and quite frankly, they deserve the trust of a local entity investigating these cases.
[20:35:19]
J. KING: The trust issue, I think, is paramount here. You said your investigators weren't allowed access to the scene until hours after the incident. That's one of the reasons, I assume, that you need those subpoenas for information. Is that normal?
TEARE: No, it is not normal at all. And just for some context, it's not just when a state or local law enforcement officer discharges a weapon and takes a civilian's life. We regularly work with the FBI when these types of cases involve them. And we've never had an issue with collaboration and working side by side, getting to the truth, which is what we have all historically cared about.
So, no, it is not normal that we're not invited to the scene moments after the shooting. It is not normal that I'm having to issue subpoenas a week later. And it's certainly not normal that I don't know the identity of any of the agents that were involved in this shooting seven days later.
J. KING: To that end, the DHS says the officer felt life was at risk. Three witnesses who were there with the victim say that's not the way they saw it. Your office has set up a portal asking citizens, if you have any information, if you have video, post it, send it in to us.
At this point, understanding it's early in the investigation, have you seen anything -- well, from what you have seen, does it support the witnesses who say, no, there was no life-threatening action here? Or does it support the ICE account?
TEARE: So we have gotten dozens of different angles of all three of the vehicles involved spreading over blocks before and after this shooting. What I can tell you is that from every angle that we've seen, from every witness statement that we've been able to put our hands on, it certainly doesn't appear that the car was ever used as a weapon.
Now, we are absolutely in the infancy of this investigation. There are going to be continuous changes in all of the evidence. And until we have all of it, we can't come to a determination about what happened. But from the beginning stages and the things that we've seen, it does not appear that any agent's lives were in danger at the moment that the fatal bullet was fired.
J. KING: Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare, sir, grateful for your time. And again, just like the Senator, we'll stay in touch as the investigation plays out. Thank you, sir.
Up next for us, Senator Lindsey Graham's life and his political legacy. And later, a CNN report from Moscow as Ukraine continues a wave of strikes on Russia.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:42:10]
J. KING: The governor of South Carolina has appointed Lindsey Graham's sister to fill the late senator's seat for the final six months of Senator Graham's term. The senator died over the weekend at the age of 71. Here's what Darline Graham Nordone said this afternoon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DARLINE GRAHAM NORDONE, LINDSEY GRAHAM'S SISTER, APPOINTED TO HIS SENATE SEAT: Lindsey has always been there for me. And now I will be there for him. And I promise to work hard over the next several months to support the President and carry forward the efforts of my brother on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina and the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
J. KING: The two were extremely close. CNN's Jeff Zeleny now more on the senator's life and his legacy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From a South Carolina hometown to the Senate floor to the White House. The political world paid homage to Senator Lindsey Graham. Even as a quiet scramble emerged among Republicans to fill his spot on the November ballot.
Lindsey Olin Graham served four terms in the U.S. House. And was elected to the Senate in 2002 to fill the shoes of Strom Thurmond, the longest-serving senator in American history. For nearly a quarter century, Graham spanned the eras of the Republican Party. From George W. Bush and John McCain to Donald Trump.
From a salty adversary --
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.
ZELENY (voice-over): -- to a loyal ally.
GRAHAM: I did nothing illegal except be Trump's friend apparently.
ZELENY (voice-over): Graham long embraced the spotlight and proximity to power no matter who held it. While he was the rare senator willing to strike a bipartisan compromise, he became one of the President's most unapologetic champions. After the January 6th attacks on the Capitol, it seemed as though the admiration had reached its limits.
GRAHAM: Trump and I, we've had a hell of a journey. I hate it being this way. Oh my God, I hate it. All I can say is count me out. Enough is enough.
ZELENY (voice-over): Yet for Graham, it was clearly not enough. He soon embraced the President again and played a key role in Trump's return to power. Trump, of course, welcomed the pivot.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Lindsey used to be a great enemy of mine. Now he's a great friend of mine. I really like Lindsey. Can you believe that?
ZELENY (voice-over): Graham's weekend death caused by aortic dissection or a rip in the aorta, according to preliminary findings, could have major implications in a narrowly divided Senate, given his role as budget chairman, a key member of the Judiciary Committee and a fierce foreign policy hawk.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a huge loss for institutionally for the Senate, but it's a huge loss for those of us who knew him well. ZELENY (voice-over): At the same time, several South Carolina Republicans are eyeing the rare Senate opening, including members of Congress, Ralph Norman, William Timmons, Russell Fry and Nancy Mace. The state's lieutenant governor, Pamela Everette, who just lost the gubernatorial primary, is also considering it, party officials told CNN.
[20:45:02]
A special primary election is set for August 11th. The winner faces Annie Andrews, a Democrat who is already running against Graham. As lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill today from a long July 4th recess, Graham's absence was still being absorbed by his colleagues.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need good people who are willing to be respectful of one another and to work hard to find common ground.
ZELENY (voice-over): As one of the most consequential senators of the last quarter century is gone from their ranks with his sister, Darline, now set to fill his seat for the rest of the year.
Jeff Zeleny, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
J. KING: Joining us now the former Republican South Carolina governor, longtime friend of Senator Graham, Mark Sanford, also our CNN political commentators, S.E. Cupp and Van Jones.
Governor Sanford, I will start with you. First of all, obviously, it's a painful time in South Carolina for you personally. Senator Graham was a friend, godfather to your youngest, Blake.
MARK SANFORD (R), FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR: Yes.
J. KING: Controversial at times, complicated always. How would you describe his legacy?
SANFORD: I think he just did. I mean, the beauty of Lindsey is that Lindsey was Lindsey. And so, times we agreed, times we disagreed. But he was heartfelt in where he was coming from and I had always admired that. I mean, he was a guy that sort of led with a heart, if you want to call it that, and would forge off in this direction, forge off in that direction.
He had a keen political nose. He had an amazing sense of humor. And he had a real ability to stay close to power and therefore have the ability to wield the tools of power.
J. KING: S.E., you knew the senator for about two decades. I was reading in the notes he called you his little libertarian. Is that right?
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: My little libertarian.
J. KING: My little libertarian. CUPP: It's a -- there's a funny story to it because when I came up in conservative politics, I was known as a big hawk. The joke we would tell is I was warheads on foreheads. But -- and that endeared me to Lindsey, I think. But I wasn't as hawkish as he was because I still believed in things like, you know, congressional reauthorization and congressional approval of the Constitution.
To him, that made me insufficiently hawkish. So his joke was to call me my little libertarian, even though I was, you know, a pretty big hawk. And just as recently as last summer, I was up on the Hill in a meeting with some senators and some Cabinet members, and he walks in the room and he goes, oh, there she is, my little libertarian. So this was a 20-year sort of pet name.
J. KING: Van, obviously, philosophically, ideologically, on the other side. But you watch and are very prominent, obviously. In the decade of Trump, what did you learn about Lindsey Graham?
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, first, you know, you never speak ill of the dead, at least I was raised not to. And, look, if you're -- tonight, if you're a Ukrainian, you're sad. He went to Ukraine 10 times as a senator, trying to help those folks stay alive against Putin. If you're an Israeli, you're sad. He was a staunch defender of Israel and tough on terror.
And there were times when he reached out to us in the Democratic Party and we were able to do some bipartisan deals with him. I think there was disappointment in our party when he went back into the arms of Trump. But he has a responsibility to his citizens and to his party, and he did a good job on those terms.
J. KING: Right. Governor, Van makes a good point. It's not to speak ill of anyone. I'm just trying to get your understanding. You guys came to the House together. You ran for governor, he ran for Senate. When Donald Trump hit the scene, you made different choices.
Senator Graham went back and forth. He was in Camp Trump, then he was out of Camp Trump, back and forth, back and forth. You were out pretty much from the get-go. What were your conversations like about that, especially in the context of South Carolina politics?
SANFORD: You know, the mark of, you know, 30-year friends is there are times you just sort of agree to disagree and you kind of leave that area alone and you sort of accept the things that you enjoyed about the other human soul and make light of the things that are sort of in between and just sort of leave alone the things that are sort of no- fly zones. And that was probably a no-fly zone for us. So I wouldn't say we discussed it greatly.
You know, he was very upfront about saying, look, I've got to be close to power if I'm going to wield the tools of power. And in that regard, I understood it. And I would also say this. So, you know, think about the Gang of 11 on immigration issues like that. He actually took political risks.
I think that, you know, we live in a political environment where a lot of folks won't take any political risks. And I admired the times that he did. I think he stood out in those moments.
J. KING: To that point, it was in Jeff Zeleny's piece there when after January 6th, where Lindsey Graham said enough, that's it.
CUPP: Right.
J. KING: So that was going to be the final pivot. And yet it was not.
CUPP: It was not.
J. KING: There were others. Senator McConnell stepped forward. Senator McConnell never came back into the Trump fold, but he didn't try to essentially block Trump (ph).
CUPP: Yes.
J. KING: What happened there?
[20:50:08]
CUPP: Yes, I've been thinking a lot about something he said in March of 2021, Lindsey. And you have to remember, Biden had just been inaugurated. We just had January 6th. And the conversations on the right, both amongst conservatives like me, but also MAGA, was what now? What do we -- what lessons do we learn from this loss?
And -- or are we going to move past Trump? Are we going to stay inside of MAGA? And someone asked him that. And he said, if we abandon Trump, we will lose half the party. To which I think I said at the time, like, promise.
But I was struck by this, because the half he wanted to keep was not the Adam Kinzingers, the Liz Cheneys, the Mitt Romneys, the good conservatives. They were already being pushed out. The half he was worried about leaving were the folks that showed up at the Capitol on January 6th. The insurrectionists, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the white supremacists. The ugliest elements that I think destroyed the Republican Party.
And I think about that moment. And if someone of Lindsey's stature had said something different, had said, we don't want to be the party of comfort for these elements anymore. And if Lindsey had summoned all of his influence and power that he had accumulated for 30 years and got other Republicans to come where he was, it would have been tough.
But could that have changed the trajectory of the Republican Party in that moment between these two Trump presidencies? I think about that a lot.
J. KING: Could it have?
JONES: You know, you never know. Leadership matters. And, you know, on the issues that he cared about, where I agree with him, like Ukraine, you know, having somebody like him standing in the breach matters. I wish he had done more of the things S.E. Cupp was talking about. He was brave on immigration. And almost got across the finish line. We'd be a different country --
J. KING: Brave in his party on Ukraine --
JONES: Yes.
J. KING: -- in the current context --
JONES: Yes.
J. KING: -- especially when Trump first came back.
JONES: Absolutely.
J. KING: All right. Governor, you don't have any question the seat will stay Republican, correct?
SANFORD: None.
J. KING: None. None. Governor Mark Sanford, S.E. Cupp, Van Jones, grateful for your time tonight.
Up next for us, a CNN's special report from inside Russia and Ukraine strikes deep within the country.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:56:34]
J. KING: A White House official tells CNN President Trump will now support a new sanctions bill targeting Russia that was spearheaded by the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. The sanctions would clear the way for the President to impose heavy new tariffs on imports from nations that buy Russian oil, uranium and natural gas.
Senator Graham was one of Ukraine's most vocal supporters in Washington and he had just returned from Kyiv before he passed away over the weekend. The sanctions would come at a time when the war in Ukraine is increasingly being felt deep inside Russia.
CNN's Matthew Chance is in Moscow with this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These are the scenes of Ukrainian strikes inside Russia. The Kremlin is finding impossible to ignore.
Even state television, which often plays down drone attacks, is broadcasting these images of the latest hits in which government officials say at least three people were killed.
SVETLANA PETRENKO, OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE (through translation): We have launched a criminal case following the terrorist attack targeting civilian infrastructure. Ukrainian nationalists used fixed wing drones to attack several districts of the Moscow region.
CHANCE (voice-over): One of them, caught on CCTV, slammed into an apartment block in the town of Solnechnogorsk. Shocked residents, hundreds of miles from the Ukrainian front lines, are increasingly feeling the impact of what the Kremlin calls a special military operation, not a war.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): I've been living here ever since it was built. I spent all my childhood here. It's so sad. It brings tears to my eyes.
CHANCE (voice-over): There's no such emotion for the Kremlin leader here, meeting Russia's own drone manufacturers at an exhibition in Moscow and vowing retaliation for Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia.
PRE. VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIA (through translation): Wherever they attempt to strike Russian territory, we will respond in kind, only with several times greater force. The adversary will feel this, I hope they already do, and they will continue to feel it on an escalating scale.
CHANCE (voice-over): But waves of Ukrainian strikes, mainly on Russian energy facilities, appear to have dented the Kremlin's war effort, leaving one of the world's biggest oil producers with weeks of acute fuel shortages, part of a key change in this conflict.
For years, the Ukraine war has been ferocious but distant, the horror and bloodshed out of sight, and for many Russians, out of mind. The problem for the Kremlin is that the casualties and the destruction are now coming home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHANCE (on-camera): And tonight, John, there's been more bad news for Russia, with reports that more than a dozen Russian vessels, including several oil tankers, were struck in Ukrainian drone attacks on the Sea of Azov, which is a key shipping route for Moscow close to the Ukrainian coast. Ukraine's drone campaign is now clearly pacing enormous pressure on Russia, both on land and at sea.
Back to you, John.
J. KING: Matthew Chance, thank you for that fantastic reporting.
We'll see you back here tomorrow night, I hope. The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
