Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Blanche, Clayton Grilled in Heated Confirmation Hearings; Trump DNI Pick Refuses to Say Biden Won 2020 Election; Interview with Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ); U.S. Attacks Iran for Fifth Day; Trump Weighs Options to Expand Military Action in Iran; Iran's Foreign Minister Says No Plan for Negotiations; FBI Search Warrant Alleges Drugs Found in Van After Fatal Houston ICE Shooting; Trump Reverses ICE Pause on Traffic Stops After Fatal Shootings; White House Officials Probe Leak of Qatar-gifted AF1 Security Concerns. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired July 15, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: ...and right after the truck passes, the bison appears to charge Carl. But he's telling you, if I'm right here, that this was not the first time that he saw the bison, right. It wasn't in just the seconds before the attack. When did he first see the animal?
MIKE MACLEOD, PHOTOGRAPHER WHO CAPTURED BISON ATTACK: Right, well, it wasn't just him. He and his grandson saw it while they were eating dinner, and it went right past their campsite. And the people who were next to them told me in Instagram the very same thing. So, and there was no incident then, the bison just moving along eating.
BURNETT: All right, Mike. Well, thank you very much and I hope we'll talk to you again soon.
MACLEOD: My pleasure, thanks for having me on.
BURNETT: And thanks so much to you for being with us. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:48]
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT AND HOST: Confirmation hearings and tough questions for the men President Trump wants in two critical and sensitive jobs, Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence. John King here in for Anderson, the Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton, both as you see facing senate committees today. Neither one a shoo-in for confirmation. Blanche is already leaving one Republican Judiciary Committee member lukewarm at best on his vote. And remember, just one GOP defection could be enough to keep that nomination from progressing to the Senate floor.
Blanche is a tough sell to some Senators because he had a big role in a good number of Trump controversies. One is Blanche's record at the Justice Department in connection with the Epstein files and Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer to a low security prison camp. Also, the January 6th pardons, the President's lawsuit against the IRS, which a federal judge this week ruled was self-dealing. And that so-called slush fund and tax immunity deal that sprang from that lawsuit. Blanche had a hand in all of it and was asked about all of it today.
He was also the Presidents criminal defense attorney before joining the government, though, for a brief moment today, the was became his.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Are you and President Trump friends?
TOD BLANCHE, ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm his lawyer, was his lawyer, and now I'm the Deputy Attorney General.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: A slip quickly corrected, but a fascinating moment nonetheless. It is no secret the President believes even the Attorney General should be loyal to Trump above all else. Blanche did assure senator some Democrats were skeptical, but Blanche assured them he knows the constitution comes first.
Blanche today defended his handling of the Epstein affair. He acknowledged failures in redacting some of the victim's identities, but offered nothing new when asked about an issue absolutely critical to Epstein's survivors. Does the government have evidence about others beyond Epstein?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: Other than to himself, who, if anyone, else did Mr. Epstein traffic young women to?
BLANCHE: We did not identify evidence, and by we, I mean career prosecutors. Not me, not my leadership, but career prosecutors in New York and career prosecutors in Florida who worked this case hard did identify other participants, some of whom, as has been discussed, were also victims themselves of Mr. Epstein. But we did not have evidence, as of now, of other men who were, that were trafficked, that Epstein helped traffic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: A survivor will testify before the committee tomorrow. Blanche said today that lower-level justice lawyers are always available to meet with the survivors, but he would not commit to meeting with them himself. The deputy attorney general was also challenged on his role in the mass clemency for January 6th convicts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI) You denied that Trump encouraged any violence on January 6th. You've cleaned house of every attorney who worked on a case related to Trump, and you bragged that bringing justice for violent rioters meant that every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted. BLANCHE: When I talk about what happened with the January, the convicted January 6th defendants, I talk about what President Trump did. He has the absolute right to pardon anybody for any reason he sees fit. And every one of them got pardoned or commuted. I am not celebrating that. It is a fact
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Keeping them honest, the words bragged and celebrated are subjective. The record of what Mr. Blanche said about the January 6th attackers is not. So, take a look, decide for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: We have already done more in one year than any administration has ever done before. If you look at what happened to the to the men and women convicted because of January 6th, by 5:00 P.M. on January 20th, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted, okay. So, when folks say you've done nothing, I say you have a very short memory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: His words convicted because of January 6th, not because of what they did on January 6th. As for the so-called slush fund that was designed to be open to even violent capital offenders, here's an exchange on that with Republican John Cornyn.
[20:05:14]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): But just to be clear, the President of the United States, who was the plaintiff in this lawsuit has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund. And there's no guarantee that he or one of the other plaintiffs might raise that issue by way of a lawsuit, a breach of contract lawsuit in the future.
BLANCHE: Well, Senator, the plaintiffs have no power over the fund. The fund was administered solely by the five commissioners and through the Department of Justice. So, no, they don't have any power with respect to the fund at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: After the hearing, Senator Cornyn spent some time with CNN's Manu Raju.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Did (Trump) satisfy your concerns about the weaponization fund.
CORNYN: Well, basically confirmed that it's not dead.
RAJU: Does that concern you? CORNYN: Yes.
RAJU: So, you're truly undecided right now?
CORNYN: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: And as we mentioned at the top, confirmation hearings also began today for jay clayton, the President's pick for director of National Intelligence. Right now, he's the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. And though he told members of the intelligence committee he is not a 2020 Presidential election denier, he would not say Joe Biden won it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CLAYTON, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR NOMINEE: I believe he had the most electoral votes.
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): So, he won the election.
CLAYTON: He followed our process, had the most electoral votes, was declared the winner.
OSSOFF: Who won the 2020 election?
CLAYTON: Uh, you know, I'm not, I'm not going to do this with you.
OSSOFF: Who won the 2020 election?
BLANCHE: I think I answered the question. We can keep doing this.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): We've tried umpteen different ways to give to the ability to just acknowledge that Joe Biden was the President. It was fairly--
BLANCHE: I've acknowledged, Senator, that Joe Biden was the President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: As you see he would not answer, at least not directly and the Georgia Democrat, Jon Ossoff, who you saw a bit of there, would not leave it at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSSOFF: You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a Presidential election. But you asked to lead Americas intelligence community. Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the President's delusions?
We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?
CLAYTON: I think I gave you the answer. (END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Between that and the Blanche hearing, a whole lot to discuss.
Joining us now, the former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin, former Trump campaign adviser David Urban and former Federal Prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin. Let's focus on Todd Blanche, the Attorney General's job.
Jeff, he frustrated the Democrats at times, frustrated some of the Republicans a little bit, exasperated people at times. But at the end of the day, is his path to confirmation there.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, AUTHOR AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it is. You know, the thing that really came across in that hearing is how tribal the United States Senate is. There's a Republican tribe and there's a Democratic tribe. People thought Thom Tillis, the Republican Senator from North Carolina, who is a lame duck, was going to be a swing vote. He spent most of his time attacking Joe Biden.
John Cornyn, we heard Manu's interview with him. You know, he technically is undecided. It doesn't look to me like there's any way he's going to vote against him. Are there four votes -- so, I don't think he gets rejected in the committee. They'd need four Republican votes in the full Senate. They're not four votes in the Senate.
So, I think, this was you know, he got beat up a little bit, but I think he's going to be the attorney general.
KING: I want to come back to the math and some of the substance in a minute. But Alyssa, you've been inside the White House with Trump. Why is it so hard for people who work for Donald Trump? What are they worried about? Afraid of what's the right word to say? Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's essentially a deal breaker if you want the appointment, if you want to get confirmed and get into that job, you cannot admit that. I think that's the only way you can really handle it. But on Todd Blanche, I think from a performance standpoint, he did something markedly different than Pam Bondi. Pam Bondi performed for the audience of one.
She was extremely combative. She almost had these made for cable news, kind of quips that were very much playing to the MAGA base. Todd Blanche gave concessions where he could. I think the big area that Tillis, that Cornyn are looking for concession is this IRS slush fund. And if he can definitively say that's dead, were not moving forward with it. I agree with you. His path to confirmation is very much sealed.
KING: David, to that point, you're good at math. And you know, these Republicans. Look, Thom Tillis has been a thorn in the Presidents side for quite some time, and he's not running for reelection. So, he's someone who could decide, I'm going to make a last stand here. John Cornyn, still mad at the President for Ken Paxton getting involved in the primary in Texas. But he'll be leaving the Senate soon. So, you could you know, you could say he would do it. But in the end, the math is interesting.
Number one, you can't lose a vote in the committee. There are ways to get it to the floor. But if you want to do it, the normal process, you can't lose a vote in the committee. And then, we're not sure if Mitch McConnell can come back and vote. So, whether it's three or four on the Senate floor could be up and back. Do you see any reason at this moment, the Republicans, despite some of them, have issues, grievances, pick your word for it with President Trump that they would actually torpedo the attorney general pick.
[20:10:23]
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, I think, I think Todd Blanche will, I don't want to say sale to confirmation, but he will be confirmed as the as the next attorney general.
Look, I agree both with Jeff as well as Alyssa here. I think the bar was pretty low for Todd Blanche. He just couldn't go out and be a jerk. He answered questions deferentially. He was responsive, tried to be responsive, said I, you know, I take an oath to the constitution. Said all the things that I think most of the senators wanted to hear.
Look, there are some technical issues that John Cornyn is spinning around on. I'm not quite sure why. Theres no doubt that any Democratic President elected after Donald Trump would ever enforce any of these things that are that are remaining out there, whether it's the slush fund, whether it's the, deal they cut. And guess what? Theres a news flash. Even if he does not get confirmed, he's still the attorney general.
He'll just be the acting attorney general for the remainder of the Trump administration. So, it is -- it's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's nice to be confirmed. it's nice to be the attorney general versus the acting, but Todd Blanche will be the A.G. until the end of the Trump administration one way or the other. And I don't think there's a Republican that's going to stand in that way.
KING: It was Senator Cornyn who talked a lot about the slush fund weaponization fund. Call it what you will. Todd Blanche keeps saying it's dead, but the senators are saying we have to pass legislation to make sure it's dead. Todd Blanche did say we will work with you on that. Why is that necessary? And so, the President would have to sign that.
TOOBIN: It's not, it's not necessary. I mean, I found it peculiar that the senators fixated on this when, Todd Blanche would have to administer this fund. He would have to name trustees. He's not going to do that. I mean, I think the trust fund is actually dead, and the way, Cornyn and Tillis, I think will get around this problem is he will issue some other statement, perhaps in writing. That will be a real pinky promise that this thing is dead, but it really is dead.
It is odd that out of all the issues about his qualifications to be attorney general, this is the one they fixated on.
KING: The Epstein files also came up a bit. A lot of the Trump base is disappointed with the White House, and the Justice Department thinks a promise made last year when Biden was still President before the campaign hasn't been kept.
Blanche kind of tried to answer questions. His predecessor, Pam Bondi, threw him under the bus. When she left, she said he was responsible for it. I you to listen to the Vice President because here's a brief moment of candor today from the Vice President of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE (R), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Again, I say this with all candor. Like we absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files like we just did. But do I think the reason we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? No.
If people want to say we mishandled the Epstein release, guilty. We did mishandle, especially the communications of it.
JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST, "THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE": What do you think should have been done?
VANCE: I think that we should have just dropped everything at the very beginning. And like, obviously it takes a little time to review the stuff, to find the stuff, to redact things where you have victims and so forth. But we should have just done it as quickly as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Maybe should have sent that memo to Todd Blanche before he went up to the Hill.
GRIFFIN: A remarkable statement by the Vice President, by the way, having worked for Trump's former Vice President, Mike Pence, it's so rare that you see a V.P. so directly break and go off message with the President. He's absolutely right. By the way, the comms of this was utterly botched from Pam Bondi saying the client list is on my desk to that binder full of Epstein files, but it's more than the comms of it.
I think most Americans who care about Epstein care that there's not been what they see, sufficient accountability, and that there are still troves of documents that haven't been released by DOJ.
I think that's a significant sticking point. The testimony from an Epstein survivor could carry some weight. But to your question over why are Republicans hung up on this IRS slush fund, this plays terribly with the base and the moment that the country is in economically, it was just getting excoriated by republicans. Whereas January 6th, I hate to say it, most Republicans have put in the rear- view mirror. So that's a big win he can deliver.
TOOBIN: One more one more point about Epstein. And this only came up briefly, but, one of the more bizarre aspects of his tenure as deputy attorney general was this trip he took to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, which a deputy attorney general simply don't do that kind of thing.
And then after the interview, she gets transferred to a to a nicer prison. And he's asked about that and he says, well, you know, she was she was being threatened. You know, how many prisoners in the federal system were threatened a lot.
You know, how many get transferred? Very, very few. And so, the idea that she got special treatment and why she got special treatment remains a bizarre aspect of this story. And that's not a comms problem. That's a substance problem.
KING: David, something else. Let's just mention to put some things in the rearview mirror. I wish we could have put this one in the rearview mirror a long time ago. But you heard the President's nominee for director of National Intelligence, Jay Clayton, ducking questions or not answering directly about who won in 2020.
Finally, admitted at the end of the hearing that President Biden had been, "fairly and duly elected under our process." Number one, why is it so hard? I asked Alyssa this earlier, why is it so hard for people to say this? But I ask in the context, number one, Jay Clayton wants the job in which he's going to see a lot of sensitive intelligence. But number two, the President, United States is supposed to address the nation tomorrow night. He says he has big news about free and fair elections.
And are people around the President of the United States who will stand up to him and say, sir, that's not true. Sir Joe Biden won and if not, isn't that a problem?
URBAN; Yes, John, look, I do believe that happens, right? I do believe people tell him that. And the President hears what he wants to hear, right. I believe there's lots of people that tell them that, you know, I've mentioned it to him. I know others have directly, from the day, you know, days after the election until just now. But look, you said tomorrow night is going to have a whole is going to have a whole big show.
We're going to tune in and see what he has to say. But listen, what took place there with Jon Ossoff is just pure political theater. Let's not make no mistake about it. And I admire Jay Clayton. I would say to Jay, if I was in Jay Clayton's situation, I would have said, you know, Senator, you're entitled to ask as many questions as you want, and I'm entitled not to answer them. And you're entitled not to vote for me. And that's it, I'm not going to answer your question. You're not going to get a viral moment out of me.
I mean, that's what he was looking for and I don't blame Jay for not giving it to him.
KING: I get your point, but he also could have denied him a viral moment by saying Joe Biden won the election. We all know that, sir. Bang, over, done, facts. Alyssa Farah Griffin, David Urban --
URBAN: Yes, but I mean, listen, Jay Clayton, doesn't want to be bullied around by Jon Ossoff. I'll tell you that about Jay Clayton.
KING: Okay, all right. I think he also doesn't want to have to go to the White House if he said Joe Biden won the election. But maybe both things can be true at once. David Urban, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Jeff Toobin, grateful for your time tonight. Thank you.
Up next for us, the Arizona Senator, Mark Kelly, on his questioning of Jay Clayton today. It got complicated, even though, again, the question is pretty simple.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Can you tell me why Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: And later, breaking news on Iran, new reporting on a White House Situation room meeting that could dramatically reshape this war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:21:32]
KING: More now on President Trump's pick for director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, and his testimony on Capitol Hill today, Clayton was grilled by multiple senators about who won the 2020 election. It should have been an easy question to answer. It's also one that has taken on new urgency this week, as the President teases a Thursday night address, that's tomorrow night to the nation that will include the topic of what he called free and fair elections.
The President is promising big news. Here's more of Senator Mark Kelly's exchange with Clayton today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: Can you tell me why Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election?
CLAYTON: I really -- I'm going back to my constitutional law here, but I don't want to continue to have a debate about this. But I believe he had the most electoral votes.
KELLY: So he won the election.
OSSOFF: So, he won the election.
CLAYTON: He followed our process, had the most electoral votes, was declared the winner.
OSSOFF: And who has the most electoral votes? Is it the person that wins or the person that loses?
CLAYTON: I think that's your characterization.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Senator Mark Kelly joins me now. Senator, it's good to see you. You heard probably some of the Republicans in the last session. You know, a lot of them think and a lot of people watching might think this is Democrats want to get the Republican, you know, get the Trump people to say this.
But you went on to make a more important point, I think, which is if he won't say a simple fact that Joe Biden won the election, will he stand up to the President when the President needs to hear tough intelligence, or when there's a debate or dispute with the President about key facts and maybe a sensitive National Security situation?
Did Jay Clayton give you confidence today that he will be that man if he's confirmed to this job?
SEN. KELLY: Absolutely not, and it was, John, it was rather disappointing. I mean, the entire hearing, I didn't hear anything that gives me any kind of reassurance that this guy is going to do the job the way the American people deserve. This is a critical position, and the American people's safety is on the line here.
He's going to direct 18 intelligence agencies and David Urban, before I was watching the clip, said this is bullying, asking a very straightforward question with a simple and factual answer. That's all that Clayton had to do is say, Joe Biden won the election.
And what we're trying to get at here is if he can't in that room, I mean, the President's down the street at Pennsylvania Avenue. I mean, he's not looking right at him. What is he going to do when he's sitting in the oval office or the Situation Room? And the President disagrees with him, but he has studied the intelligence, and this is a critical National Security issue and the safety of the American people are at risk. Is he going to tell the President that he's wrong?
And I don't see any evidence that he would do that. So, I was incredibly disappointed today.
KING: He was also pressed on why not his predecessor, because he is an acting in there, but why Tulsi Gabbard, who first had this job in the Trump administration, was down in Fulton County during that FBI raid.
Number one, did he give you a decent answer? Number two, do you have assurances from him whether in the public testimony and private meetings, that he understands, maybe that's not part of his job?
KELLY: Well, also, he claimed that he didn't really know about it until Ossoff informed him yesterday. I mean, how can you be the nominee to be the director of National Intelligence and not understand that your predecessor went to Fulton County, Georgia and grabbed tens of thousands of ballots at the direction of the President? How do you miss that?
[20:25:12]
So I sent a question over in writing to him today. I want to understand where does he get his information from? I mean, is he living in some kind of news silo? I think most Americans that are interested in these issues would know that.
And then when my colleague, Senator Ossoff asked him about what he basically do, the same thing that Tulsi Gabbard did, he -- you know, he didn't confirm that he has any kind of a line that he wouldn't cross for the President of the United States.
KING: As you know too well, Senator, you mentioned your colleague Jon Ossoff. He is from Georgia. That's one of the states. You're from Arizona. That's another of the states that the President tends to obsess about when it comes to 2020, an election that Joe Biden won. Joe Biden won. I can say it again, Joe Biden won.
The President is promising a speech tomorrow on free and fair elections. I want to ask you, in the context of this, if my math is right, you've been on the Intelligence Committee two-and-a-half going on three years. Is that correct?
KELLY: That is correct.
KING: Have you seen -- have you seen -- we are waiting to see what the President says tomorrow night. But all indications are he is going to go back to 2020 again. Have you seen any Intelligence in that period of time where you sat on this committee that give you any concern about foreign interference in 2020, or any interference in 2020 that could have changed the results in any state?
KELLY: Not to change the outcome of an election.
In the information space, Russia, China, the Iranians, even the North Koreans, they put misinformation out there. But as far as are able to tell and there have been reports and investigations about this, none of that has altered the outcome of an election.
And the President litigated this. I think he lost 60 cases on this issue in 2020. You know, and I find it really interesting, John, that when Donald Trump was elected President in 2016 and again in 2024, when he won the election, who was running the government, there were Democratic Presidents and Democratic administrations in office. I think people fail to recognize that.
I don't understand this obsession that this President has with one election out of three that he lost.
KING: But zero, you've seen zero new intelligence that would give you any concern. That's a yes or no question. Nothing. Right?
KELLY: Not that would give me a concern about the outcome of an election. No. Absolutely not.
KING: I want to ask you before you go, because of your experience in the military, the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, announcing a new policy today. Let's play. We will talk about it on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF WAR SECRETARY: I am authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members.
Under the supervision of our world class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment. Those under 30 can voluntarily choose to get the test as well. If treatment is recommended. it's entirely your choice to receive testosterone replacement therapy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Is this necessary? Is this a good idea? A bad idea?
KELLY: You know, it's a weird idea. I mean, what have we seen from this Secretary of Defense so far? We see him run around on a stage talking about lethality and killing people. Now, he is talking about testosterone. This isn't what we need. What we need is better leadership. And it starts at the top. It starts with the President. It starts with Pete Hegseth.
KING: Senator Kelly, I appreciate your time. I suspect we will be checking in with you after the President's speech tomorrow night. Thank you very much, sir.
KELLY: Thank you. Appreciate it.
KING: Up next, what we are learning about a Situation Room meeting the President had as he threatens to ramp up attacks on Iran and some breaking news in the ICE connected fatal shooting of a Mexican national in Houston last week. And the President's about-face on the administration's about-face just yesterday on ICE vehicle stops.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:33:14]
KING: New video tonight. You see it right there from CENTCOM, which says it's of an American aircraft firing a missile and disabling an empty tanker trying to reach an Iranian port. It's part of a naval blockade which resumed yesterday. And as Day 5 of airstrikes unfolded today, CNN has learned that President Trump has been receiving options for expanding military operations.
According to two people familiar with the matter, it came up in a Situation Room meeting yesterday. Also, just a short time ago, president went online announcing the release of an American woman who he says was detained in Iran in 2024. And a source familiar with the matter tells us she was detained, charged, and released on bail, but not allowed until now to leave the country.
Joining us to discuss, CNN Global Affairs Analyst, Brett McGurk, also former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, Dana Stroul.
Brett, let me start with you. So the president has a Situation Room meeting. Word leaks out that he's looking to expand military operations. Does that suggest to you that they are trying to pick new targets, get more aggressive, or does it suggest to you they have a meeting and they leak this out again to try to get Iran more serious back at the table?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yeah, John, a little bit more on the latter. I think the word I would use here is signaling. This is really a day of signaling. Obviously, you have the military exchange going on. That's signaling.
But you have this, I think, leaking that we are considering an expanded military campaign, that's a signal that if there isn't a diplomatic path, the U.S. is prepared to escalate. You've also had signaling on the Iranian side today. You had Ghalibaf, who is the Speaker of Parliament and Vice President Vance's counterpart in these dormant talks. He gave a national address today, very defiant, but also saying a diplomatic path is open.
And then just in the last hour or so, as you mentioned, you've had this, what I would call, a goodwill gesture, what the president referred to it with the release of this American who was in a travel ban.
[20:35:00]
That's very good news. That also is signaling. But where is this heading, John? The crux of it is the Strait of Hormuz and if you go to Ghalibaf's statement today, very defiant on the Strait of Hormuz. He said it is our national security, that Iranian arrangements will control the Strait. And until you can break that impasse, there could be signaling but there's not an off-ramp here in sight.
KING: Well, that's I guess then, Dana, that's the question, if you have signaling and gestures, and gestures and signaling, there's almost a who goes first in the idea of de-escalating. Let's say that that doesn't happen. And the president sitting down saying give me more targets, what are we talking about here? Kharg Island? Bombing Pickaxe Mountain? What options are there?
DANA STROUL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR THE MIDDLE EAST: Well, on the one hand, it's reassuring that at least the president is consulting with his national security team. That's actually a pretty typical Washington, D.C. process where the president says, I want to know my options. And generally, the U.S. military provides a set, both the low option, a middle option, and then a bigger option.
I would say, over the last several days, what we've seen is the middle option, very expanded scope, but only military targets. And what President Trump signaled in recent days with words is that he was willing to expand to civilian Infrastructure in Iran. And so, this is him signaling, OK, I'm taking the next step just as Brett said, I want to see what those options look like.
The challenge here is that Trump is pretty undisciplined in what he says. He very rarely adheres to whatever his senior leaders advise them, assuming they even do give them advice. And so again, in terms of signaling, how that is heard by Iranian ears, I think, is very much in doubt.
KING: And so Brett, according to U.S. officials, that Memorandum of Understanding was signed electronically by the United States and Iran back on June 14th. So we're around 30 days out of the 60 days that was agreed in order to negotiate a nuclear deal. Is that even relevant anymore? Has any progress been made toward that deal? Or is that document moot at the midway point?
MCGURK: John, you know, we said that early on, it's one of the strangest international agreements I've ever read. It is kind of, there's so many gaps and potential areas of misunderstanding and yet it was signed by the president of the United States and the president of Iran, the first time ever that this has ever happened since the Iranian revolutions, ever had such a high-level signed agreement.
But the crux of it, the Strait of Hormuz, in Article 5, it basically says Iran will determine the arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz. The Americans have said, I've heard this from Middle East mediators as well, that there is actually a side agreement that all ships should be going through. It should be unfettered.
But whatever happened after the MOU was signed, the Iranians and the Revolutionary Guard have determined we are going to control the Strait of Hormuz. We'll attack ships that are violating our understanding. And until you can break that impasse, we are stuck because this has all come down to the Strait of Hormuz, which of course was not an issue before the war. But that's where we are.
And if you can't get that solved, John, you're just going to have the military tit-for-tats going on. You might de-escalate it from time to time. Dana and I used to live through this in a much kind of lower level way with Iran attacking our forces and then we would strike back. There'd be some back-channel diplomacy.
But now, it has global implications after this major war and, again, the signaling, there's some positive signs. I just don't see the way out and that MOU, I go back to it, it doesn't really lend an off-ramp because there's such divergent interpretations.
KING: You mentioned the signs and you tried again trying to find how do those signs lead to something that's actual progress. Dana, as we discussed, the president did post on social media about this American who was "wrongfully detained," been allowed to leave. And he said, at the end of that statement, Brett says that's a good gesture by Iran. President at the end said he appreciated the gesture of goodwill. Nice words, a nice action followed by nice words. How do you get to the next step and get progress?
STROUL: First of all, it is such positive news whenever we have an American citizen who's been wrongfully detained free. So this is good news regardless of what Iranian tensions would be in and I agree it's an important good faith gesture.
Right now, the Trump administration is pursuing what it thinks is a squeeze play. So there's the continuous military strikes, but there's also a naval blockade, which is a separate and very serious act of war, in which Iranian ships are not getting in or out. And the extremely generous terms of the MOU that Iran experienced for 30 days enabled this very significant cash windfall, cash influx into Iran because it was able to sell its oil at market prices.
And so, what the Iranians are fighting about right now is only, as Brett said, who gets to determine transit in the Strait of Hormuz. But if this regime is going to survive in the medium term, it needs economic relief. And so this is where Trump could do something that's less than this big MOU, but perhaps something that signals to the Iranians he's willing to get back to the table.
[20:40:00]
KING: We'll wait and see what comes of it perhaps in the next day or two. Dana Stroul, Brett McGurk, grateful to both of you, thanks.
Up next for us, Breaking News in the Houston ICE shooting. The FBI now alleging drugs were inside the victim's van. What supporters of his family have to say about that?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Breaking News now on that fatal shooting of Mexican national, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by an ICE agent last week in Houston. A search warrant filed by the FBI says investigators found drugs in the van he was driving.
According to the filing, "The packaging and appearance of the controlled substance in the target vehicle is consistent with methamphetamine." This photo, included in the warrant, claims to show three small plastic bags "with a white crystal-like substance" on the dashboard. And in a second photo, another bag on the floor. The warrant does not say who agents believe the bags belong to.
Salgado Araujo had three passengers with him, including his brother.
[20:45:00]
They were all detained after the shooting. CNN's Ed Lavandera joins us from Texas with more. Ed, what more did we learn from this warrant?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, not much more and it actually raises a lot of questions, at least in the eyes of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo's family and lawyers and activists who have been helping the family since he was shot and killed on the streets of Houston last week.
We should be very clear about what this warrant does not definitively say. It does not say that the substance in those bags that you were showing the photos of there, John, that it is definitively a drug of some kind. In fact, it just says that it appears to be. We've reached out to the FBI in Houston to find out if that substance has been tested, if those results are back in any way. We have not heard back.
But there's a great deal of skepticism over the contents of this search warrant, especially in light of the way federal investigators have described how the shooting situation unfolded there last week in Houston. And because of that, you know, there's a lot of questions swirling around the shooting now. Even this is kind of sparking a new round of controversy.
We should also point out that there was an autopsy done on Salgado last week. And the medical examiner in Harris County said that Salgado, you know, obviously, was -- died of a homicide. He was shot in the torso. But there was no definitive results from a toxicology report that was released so far.
KING: And so, you mentioned skepticism on the ground. What can they do about it? Is there anything the family can do about it or they just wait for the investigation to unfold?
LAVANDERA: Well, we've heard like renewed round of calls for an independent investigation. I spoke with one lawyer and activist that has been helping the family over the course of the last week. They said that they believe that this is federal investigators trying to change the public discourse in this case, that they believe this smells of a smear campaign and a cover-up.
ACLU -- the ACLU, which is now also helping the family, the Salgado family as well, says that the Trump administration lacks the credibility to investigate itself. They're calling for continued calls for -- of an independent investigation. And on that front, we should also point out, John, that the Texas Department of Public Safety, State Authorities and the Texas Rangers said today that they will be conducting their own investigation into this shooting as well.
KING: Ed Lavandera on the ground for us in Texas there, thank you very much.
Joining me now to discuss further the former Acting Director of ICE, John Sandweg, and retired FBI Special Agent, Richard Kolko.
Richard, what do you make of this warrant? And if you look at the court docket, it appears to show it was filed under seal and then released. Number one, what do you make of it? And number two, is that normal procedure?
RICHARD KOLKO, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, John, having a search warrant unsealed during an investigation, a little unusual, not crazy unusual. But any time you go in to do an investigation, if you're doing a search and you find something different, you've got to get a search warrant amended. So the agents there would have been doing what's called an AFO, assault on a federal officer. That's a very standard investigation after this shooting occurred.
And then once they found something in the van, they would have had to go back and get a search warrant. They can't just grab it because that's not part of the AFO investigation.
KING: And John, as you heard from Ed on the ground, there's skepticism, a little bit of outrage about the timing of this. People think the Feds are trying to essentially change the public narrative. Number one, would that happen? And number two, is that skepticism in your view warranted?
JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: You know, John, look, it's real hard to sit here and suggest that there was any sort of plant or anything of that nature. I think what it highlights for me, though, is, again, you know, the critical need to -- when you get out these public statements following these shootings, this is something we saw in Minneapolis, this rush to kind of describe it in a way that is justified.
But the problem is you just don't have all the facts. And having worked in Washington and worked for a cabinet official, you know, everyone's trying their best to get you all the information. You're working on a public affairs statement. But you just -- that initial reporting you're getting is often wrong. You don't have all the information.
And again, I think the point here is, now, you roll out a statement about a version of what happened. Turns out the story might be far more complex. And you're amending that statement, and that's what's creating that skepticism. I think, unfortunately, it's a little bit also of a product of the way they did handle things in Minneapolis which has really, you know, put the credibility of ICE in question here and allows people to kind of be more suspicious when something like this happens.
KING: Regardless of what the substance is, one of the questions, Richard, will be, was it justified to use deadly force on this vehicle? Obviously, if you're standing outside the van, you can't see clearly what's inside it. So those are two very separate questions, correct?
KOLKO: Absolutely, two different questions. This is a high-risk vehicle stop. It's a very complex law enforcement maneuver, requires a lot of training, practice, and coordination, not the choice of how law enforcement wants to arrest people. I mean, it's last on the list, just about. You want to just go to the home. Hopefully, they'll come out. If not, conduct surveillance, wait until you can catch them outside of the house, on the way to work or something.
[20:50:00]
Other than that, or third and last is that felony car stop. This is something you train for at the academy, but it's something you have to keep up with in your practice. So whether the ICE agents are keeping up with that kind of training, and it's very specific. I mean, you're using cars for cover. You're using verbal commands. It's not where you're -- you know, we saw some of that video where they were actually almost face-to-face with the car, chasing the car. That's not standard procedure, so they need to review that.
KING: John, this time last night, we were talking about what we thought was a pause in those vehicle stops. You said it was absolutely necessary they do that because of this tragedy in Houston, also because of the tragedy in Maine. But this morning, President Trump reversed the pause. And tonight, the Border Czar, Tom Homan, was asked about it and this is some of what he said. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: Vehicle stops are a main tool for us to do our job, and we've got to continue that. I think it was blown out of proportion a little bit. I don't think Markwayne Mullin ever intended people to think we're doing away with the policy. He wanted to do a short-term pause just to make sure that the agents out there on these operations have the vehicle stop training, and do they have the tools necessary to keep safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: John, what do you think about it? And as you answer, notice Tom Homan said Markwayne Mullin. It was Tom Holman who announced the pause, said there would be a short pause. Apparently now, he's saying it was Secretary Mullin's fault. And I'm guessing that's done in part because we're told that the president was furious he didn't get a heads-up about this.
But after listening to that and listening to what the president said, where are we now?
SANDWEG: John, I apologize. You broke up there a second. Look, this is an example of politics getting in the way of good law enforcement. This is really disturbing to me. The president's own hand-picked DHS officials, his hand-picked ICE Director Dave Venturella, who has tremendous ICE experience, felt it critically necessary to put a pause in place.
The reason, because the public was in danger. The subjects of these targets were getting shot, 17 cases in a year and a half. But the ICE officers themselves were in danger. As we just heard Richard explain, these types of traffic stops are incredibly complex.
They are not a core part of what these ICE ERO officers do. And for them to be using it in these cases where there's no clear exigent circumstances, I mean, the results speak for themselves. It is very disappointing that it appears that this pause hasn't (ph) been put in place. And it's hard for me to understand exactly what the president's rationale was rather than listening to the guidance of his hand-picked law enforcement professionals.
KING: John Sandweg, Richard Kolko, gentlemen, thank you so much.
Up next for us, why some at the White House are being told to hand over their cell phones.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:56:51]
KING: Exclusive CNN reporting tonight on the investigation into leaks about security shortcomings of the new Air Force One. Last week, you'll remember, the president flew the old plane instead of the new one when he left the NATO Summit.
The White House claims it was so that U.S. service members could tour the new one. The New York Times said it was because the Qatari-gifted plane lacked key defense systems, and the president was incensed by that reporting. Now, we've learned some government officials have been asked to turn over their phones at the White House as part of a leak probe.
CNN's Evan Perez joins us now with more. Evan, what more have you learned about this White House probe? EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, this was an extraordinary scene at the White House last Friday where Kash Patel, the FBI Director, and Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff, essentially helped orchestrate what was hours-long numbers of people from the White House, people who may have known about the president's trip were brought in, their devices were taken from them in some cases, and they were being questioned by FBI agents because of this leak hunt.
The FBI, of course, is trying to figure out who in the government could have possibly leaked this information to the media and the president, as you pointed out, John, is very, very obsessed -- very much obsessed with this. And that, again, took place at the White House.
We have a statement from the White House about this unusual scene. They said leaks that jeopardize the safety of the president, his staff, and a traveling press pool are dangerous and a threat to national security. The White House takes these leaks seriously and would do everything legally to ensure the individual or individuals are caught, and it does not happen again.
That's, of course, from the White House this evening.
KING: And Evan, we know the president was furious about this reporting, the disclosures. Is it easy enough to just connect the dots here? That's why the chief of staff and the FBI director are involved in this?
PEREZ: Right. No, it's not going to be very easy. And keep in mind, I mean, that's the reason why they issued those subpoenas to the New York Times reporters last week, because the president is very much focused on trying to figure out who could have leaked this information.
It's a very unusual set of circumstances, again, because, you know, obviously the president is always mad at the press, but in this case, he took it very personally, the fact that he had to fly back on the old aircraft and not the new one that he was so proud of, John.
KING: And the reporting by you and your colleagues on this says the FBI director not only involved, but going to the White House and setting up shop for a while. How unusual is this?
PEREZ: Oh, my God, that is not done, right? First of all, the FBI director and the chief of staff of the White House would never be involved personally in an investigation, in part because if you do bring a prosecution now, they could possibly be witnesses in this investigation. So that's the first problem with this.
You have competent career FBI agents who were doing this investigation. They were the ones who were, you know, would normally be doing the interviews and would normally be looking at the devices, looking at computers or anything like that to try to trace back who could have talked to reporters. So the fact that these two individuals were involved is highly, highly out of the ordinary, John.
[21:00:00]
KING: In the reporting, at least one person refused to turn this over, is that correct?
PEREZ: At least one person declined to turn it over, and we know that some agencies told their employees that they should call lawyers if they were asked to do so. So we will see where this leak hunt finally does turn up, John.
KING: Remarkable. Evan Perez, thank you. And the news continues. "The Source with Kaitlan Collins" starts now.
