Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Says U.S. & Iran Will Meet Next Week, After Maintaining Airstrikes "Obliterated" Nuclear Sites; New Reaction To Stunning Result In NYC Mayoral Primary; Bove Denies Advising Lawyers To Ignore Court Orders. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 25, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: American 1665 (INAUDIBLE) got flames coming out of the engine.
PILOT: Yeah, we're going to have to return.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: OK, would you like to make a left close traffic?
PILOT: Yeah, left close will work.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: OK, left close traffic for runway one left sir.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: American Airlines says the maintenance team found no evidence of a fire in the engine. The aircraft now is being taken out of service and evaluated.
The FAA is investigating. CNN aviation correspondent Pete Muntean assures me that flying is safe, even though it feels like we're getting a lot of these stories. That may make you a little bit nervous.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Very good to know.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right. Breaking news here in THE ARENA. President Trump says the U.S. and. Iran will meet for talks as he insists that Iran's nuclear sites were destroyed.
I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. We're joined by Anderson Cooper live in Tel Aviv, who's going to be with us throughout the hour?
Right now, President Trump is headed back to the U.S. from the NATO summit. After announcing this morning that American and Iranian diplomats are expected to meet next week to discuss a potential nuclear deal. But the president also repeated his claim that U.S. airstrikes had destroyed Iran's nuclear sites.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, the intelligence was very inconclusive. The intelligence says we don't know. It could have been very severe. That's what the intelligence says. So I guess that's correct. But I think we can take that we don't know. It was very severe. It was obliteration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: A preliminary assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency first reported here on CNN suggests that's not the case, that the program was set back months, but not, quote, obliterated.
This morning, a spokesperson for the Iranian government described the sites as being, quote, badly damaged. A new Israeli assessment claims that at least one site was rendered inoperable.
Let's get now to Anderson Cooper, who, as we said, is live in Tel Aviv -- Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yeah. Kasie, Israel, excuse me, released a statement from its atomic energy commission saying that the strikes destroyed in their words this -- the critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. It went on to say that it -- they believe it set the program back many years.
The bottom line is, you know, bomb damage assessment is still being done by multiple intelligence agencies, no doubt by Israel, but certainly by U.S. intelligence agencies as well, and as more intelligence comes in signals intelligence, human intelligence and the like, assessments will continue to be updated.
I think a lot remains to be learned about exactly what occurred. I want to bring in CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes and CNN chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto, as well.
Kristen, let's start off with you.
Obviously, this has become a big issue for the White House. It is understandable that bomb damage assessments take time. And these are preliminary reports, as CNN indicated in its reporting, when this broke yesterday. And there will be other reports coming.
What are you hearing from the White House? What are you hearing from -- from other quarters on this?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, look here at NATO, this preliminary intelligence survey did really hang over the entire summit. As we heard, President Trump pushing back on it. And as you noted, since yesterday, I've been talking about the administration's stance, which was that they believe this is a preliminary report, that they don't have the entire picture yet, that they're pushing back on the notion that this should be viewed as any kind of conclusive intelligence. And that's what we saw again today. We saw President Trump asking both
his secretaries of state and secretaries of -- secretary of defense to back up that those nuclear sites were destroyed. We also saw them putting out that same Israeli atomic energy commission statement that you just talked about. They were putting out the Iranians comments that their infrastructure had been badly destroyed.
But also, there was a little bit of other news in all of that, Anderson. They also talked about where we go from here, including meeting with the Iranians and a potential nuclear deal. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONAD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to talk to them next week with Iran. We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary.
I mean, they had a war. They fought. Now they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not. We -- the only thing would be asking for is what we were asking for before about we want no nuclear, but we -- we destroyed the nuclear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Well, obviously, Anderson, there he's saying we destroyed it. We don't need a deal. But I will tell you that his administration is working frantically to get a deal. They want it on paper, and they want to make sure that Iran would not start developing or enriching uranium in the future. That's part of what the nuclear deal would likely say. That's what President Trump has been asking for.
But I do want to just note one other thing, because there was one other interesting nugget out of this NATO summit.
[16:05:00]
We heard President Trump really talking in candid terms about the war in Ukraine and Russia, saying that he thought it was going to be easier to solve. He thought that Putin wouldn't be so difficult to work with, at one point praising Zelenskyy in the meeting that they had just had something that we know is not common.
So, it was interesting there to hear him saying that he also thought that Putin wanted that settled. Now we have no indication that Putin wants that settled. But he also said at one point he said that it was possible that Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. Now, that is not something that we have heard President Trump really go into before.
So that was another noticeable moment from the summit.
COOPER: Jim, it's interesting to hear President Trump say essentially, you know, maybe there will be agreement, maybe there won't. He doesn't really care if there's one that that they're going to go back to their world. I mean, their world is still our world. And Israel's world very much. And there's a lot of people here who obviously do care about what happens next.
And if there's some sort of process in place for actually not only finding out exactly where Iran's nuclear material is, was it moved? The president seems to believe it was not moved, that it was in those sites, and it's entombed in those sites. Obviously, that's going to take time to find out. But whatever, there has to be some sort of whether it's diplomacy or negotiations or just agreements about what happens to the nuclear material, what are the next years like for Iran in terms of development of nuclear capabilities?
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, the president, in saying that phrase, we destroyed the nuclear, quote, unquote, and therefore don't need a deal, is not supported by even the latest Israeli assessment. I spoke to early this morning to the former head of Israeli military intelligence, who said, listen, no one believed -- American or Israeli, that they could completely destroy the entire Iranian nuclear program because it is so dispersed.
Multiple sites hidden underground. He said to me, Iran has been preparing this for 20 years, that they expected to set it back and significantly, but not completely eliminate it. And you heard, for instance, Representative McCaul say quite similar on CNN's air yesterday.
That does not mean that these strikes did not do very significant damage. And I could say this because I've been speaking to Israeli intelligence sources all week. They've been quite consistent all week with saying that the cumulative effect of U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran set back the program two years, perhaps more. That's significant.
And the other point, I think this is key to make as well, Anderson, that the former head of Israeli military intelligence said to me is that the biggest step forward here, is that a U.S. president, for the first time struck Iranian nuclear facilities -- well, by military means, right, first time it's done that to any rogue state, whether you're talking about Iran or North Korea or anywhere else in the world.
And in his framing, it's that that's the message here, right? That if Iran attempts to reconstitute, that you have hanging over your head, in effect, not only the possibility of Israeli military action, which they have been made quite clear, but also the possibility of U.S. military action.
But again, I would just return to that point that there is no assessment that is saying that the program has been entirely erased.
COOPER: Yeah. Kasie -- Kristen Holmes, thank you. Jim Sciutto as well.
Kasie, let's go back to you.
HUNT: All right. Anderson, thank you.
All right. Our panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel, CNN chief political analyst, former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod, and CNN political commentators Ashley Allison and Brad Todd.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Jamie, I want to start with you. Just because I know you talked to intelligence sources day in and day out, and one thing that I'm really interested in here is the Israeli assessment of what's happened, because it does strike me that if the Israelis felt like this wasn't set back in a way that was acceptable to them, it's not clear to me that they would be listening to the president when he says, hey, we need you to stop.
What do we know about that piece of the equation?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, let me just say, the Israelis, I think, want to stay on good terms with President Trump. This has been a very helpful thing to them.
But if it is correct that this sets back the Iranian nuclear program in a significant way for two years, that's a good deal. My sources tell me. I spoke to intelligence sources, military sources, and that is significant. And they will take that.
I think what we saw here today is the issue is President Trump doesn't like being contradicted. And the words he used, quote, completely and totally obliterated simply did not match up with these early, very preliminary reports.
[16:10:04]
So, he got annoyed by that.
But let me just say one other thing. A former very senior intelligence official said to me in a normal administration, there is a normal national security adviser who walks down the hallway to the president and says, you should say this, but don't say that. That doesn't happen in this White House.
HUNT: (INAUDIBLE) president listens.
GANGEL: Exactly.
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah.
HUNT: David, I mean, you've been in those kinds of meetings.
AXELROD: Yeah.
HUNT: How would you characterize the state of play in the Trump administration, the people surrounding him?
AXELROD: This whole episode was sort of a parable of how President Trump operates. Jamie's -- first of all, the sort of the strange in and we're in, we're out, we're not involved. We are involved. We own the skies over Iran, all in a dizzying few days. These contradictions. But this is very typical of him. He is a salesman, and he wanted to
sell his accomplishment. And so, I mean, he said today that the intelligence community should wait until they know what happens to issue their report.
But he went out hours after this thing and claimed complete and total obliteration.
HUNT: He said he shouldn't wait.
AXELROD: So -- and now, you know, his acolytes around him, including the secretary of defense, feel compelled to use the word obliteration and support his first declaration when it's very, very clear no one knows. General Caine was very straight about this on Sunday morning.
HUNT: Yeah, he was indeed. And, you know, we heard today from Senator Mark Warner. He's currently the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Previously the chairman, of course.
He talked a little bit about why how we talk about this is so important. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Trump even said today still that these have been obliterated. He keeps saying that.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I would like nothing more. But if that is not the truth, you know, this is not -- this is how you destroy trust with your friends and also with your foes. If people are misrepresenting or lying about the effects of this attack, who's going to trust us going forward, and who would we be lulled into a false sense of security if Iran still has these capabilities?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Brad Todd, what do you make of that?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think that Mark Warner is has been a pretty fair player in most of these things on intelligence matters. And I think he wants to give the president credit. I think he's a little nervous to do so.
I've been a little disappointed more Democrats haven't given the president credit for having the guts to do this. You know, I can give President Obama credit for accelerating the development of the MOP bomb. I'm glad -- I'm glad he did it.
Chuck Schumer said it would be the best military antidote to Iran's nuclear program. And Chuck Schumer was right. I can give him credit for that. I think Democrats need to be able to say --
HUNT: It's a little easier when he's not actually president of the United States. But to be fair.
AXELROD: Don't you think if he had just said what General Caine said and said, we think we did very substantial damage and were waiting for the -- the after -- the battle assessment that to make our determination. But we've clearly set this program way back. There wouldn't be an issue here.
TODD: But there's not many Democrats giving him partial credit either of let's see. It looks like it might be good. Let's see.
I mean, the fact that Democrats have been so partisan when nonproliferation has been so core to what Democrats believe for 50 years, and that this is the biggest incentive nonproliferation in our lifetime.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But I think -- I think that, like we're skipping some details. Last week before -- the night before the bomb happened, Congress hadn't even been briefed on what was going on. There are steps --
TODD: Some of them had.
ALLISON: Well, they weren't saying they had, okay?
HUNT: Chuck Schumer did get a phone call, although he specified later that there was no information in such phone calls other than something is about to happen.
ALLISON: The problem is the president being an honest broker with the American people. If this destroyed Iran's -- Ive been very clear. If this destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons or set it back drastically, that is a good thing for America. But I don't know if that's the truth right now. And I have to use past behavior as an indicator of what current and future behavior will be.
And the president hasn't always been honest about his policies, his approaches. So, I agree with David. He could have been more measured.
The last four days, five days for Americans. People have been extremely terrified, afraid because it's not just what happens in these next days. It's what's going to happen next year. If we did not destroy and we actually don't have a clear assessment, are Americans at greater risk, not just domestically but also abroad?
And I just don't know that question. And I would want to be able to trust my president to tell me the answer.
HUNT: Jamie Gangel, how long will it take our intelligence community to have a what they would consider a full picture of what happened?
GANGEL: We may never have that, actually.
AXELROD: It's a long time.
GANGEL: That is a long time.
[16:15:00]
I spoke to someone who's been through this a lot in the past this morning, at the very least, it's going to be weeks and then maybe we'll get a good picture or a partial picture. But sometimes, you don't really get the full picture because what would it take? The best thing is to have human intelligence, someone who can go down there, take a look, eyes on the ground.
Frankly, I'm told we're not the best at that in Iran. It will not surprise you to know the Israelis are.
HUNT: Yes.
GANGEL: And so we will be relying on their intelligence. But they're going to be a lot of assessments, I would say, before we get a pretty good picture of what happened.
AXELROD: I think the most important thing, or one of the most important things, is to ascertain. The president asserted again today that there that the nuclear materials that they've already enhanced were all buried in this attack. Theres all kinds of questions about that, and that's pretty important, because that material can be -- can be weaponized. And if they got some equipment out, they can make a dirty bomb.
And that's why when he says, I don't care if we have an agreement -- I mean, this is where you kind of spin and forward from your original sin when you say, we've destroyed it all, to say we don't need an agreement. Yeah, actually, we do need an agreement because there's still danger here.
HUNT: There is still danger for sure.
All right. We are going to continue covering this story, live in Israel with Anderson through the hour.
Also this hour, the extremely tense hearing today on Capitol Hill involving. It's a theme this week, the F word. Also, one of Donald Trump's former lawyers.
But, first, the new reaction coming in right now from President Trump and top Democrats on that big surprise in the Big Apple.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Breaking overnight, a major upset in New York City's. Democratic primary for mayor.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Zohran Mamdani.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It could be a seismic shift in Democratic politics. Thirty-three-year-old State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My goodness, look at the full spectrum inside the Democratic Party is on display today in terms of the reaction to it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Zohran Mamdani -- Mamdani is his name.
(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:36]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I will fight for a city that works for you, that is affordable for you, that is safe for you. I will work to be a mayor you will be proud to call your own.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Thirty-three-year-old State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, born 1991, delivering a major upset in the New York City mayoral primary last night, a contest that some are saying could forecast the future of the broader Democratic Party. President Trump, weighing in on Mamdani's expected victory just within the past hour, slamming him as a, quote, 100 percent communist lunatic and warning that, quote, Democrats have crossed the line.
A self-described Democratic socialist, Mamdani poised to beat former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had been backed by prominent figures in the party's establishment after running on a platform that he says should serve as a model for the National Democratic Party.
Zohran Mamdani's rise, though, was fueled by a massive presence on social media that clipped, in many cases, performances like this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAMDANI: I have never had to resign in disgrace. I have never cut Medicaid. I have never stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from the MTA.
I have never hounded the 13 women who credibly accused me of sexual harassment. I have never sued for their gynecological records. And I have never done those things because I am not you, Mr. Cuomo.
And furthermore, the name is Zohran Mamdani, M-A-M-D-A-N-I.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Wow! David Axelrod --
AXELROD: Ouch! That was a spanking right there.
HUNT: I mean, candidates matter. I guess. What do you take away from this?
AXELROD: I think that exchange went viral in a really big way, and in some ways encapsulated the dynamic of this race, because Andrew Cuomo got into this race to try and come back from being forced out of the governorship, you know, from being disgraced by what happened. And this was his -- but there was always this sense that he, you know, wasn't all that interested. And when he attacked, you know, it's a fair point to ask Mamdani about
his experience, but he just opened himself up to that. And it reminded people that he was the past and that it was time to move on. And I think that was part of the dynamic that governed this race.
HUNT: What do you think this means? Big picture. Like, how much should we be taking away from what we've seen here?
AXELROD: I think there are things we should take away, and there are things that we shouldn't. I mean, winning a Democratic primary in New York is different than winning a primary somewhere else, or an election somewhere else.
But there are certain things that I think do travel. One is the issue of affordability is one that that you can feel in every district in this country. And that is why he ultimately won, because he owned that issue. He drove it in a really, really effective way.
And I think the New Yorkers who voted for him were very much a move. But I also think there's a message in here about young people. He brought young people out in a way that we haven't seen in a long time. And I think there is a message from young voters in this country that the same old, same old, the status quo isn't working.
You know, I said yesterday when I was on the show, 25 percent of the early voters had never voted in a primary before.
[16:25:01]
And many of them were young because they felt like he was genuinely addressing their concerns, affordability being at the top of the list with proposals that we can debate, but at least they seem tangible. They weren't the same old political jargon, and I think there's a lesson in that as well.
HUNT: So, you are a longtime political hack, right?
AXELROD: Yeah. I wear that.
HUNT: Everyone should listen.
AXELROD: Those two.
HUNT: One of the things about this race that fascinates me is the political reporter, and I'm curious what you think. You know, Cuomo seemed to run a very traditional, you know, TV, media, you know, paid media-based campaign.
In my personal life, I make a point to filter out that kind of stuff in my own personal Instagram and other accounts. Mamdani was all over, like I learned about Mamdani from my own personal, from friends, and from that ecosystem.
Do you think that one of Cuomo's big failures was not doing it that way? AXELROD: I think every aspect of his campaign was yesterday.
Honestly. And Ashley, really, Ashley lives in this world of social media talk about that.
HUNT: Rightfully.
AXELROD: Yeah. No, no, no, but talk about the techniques that he used, which I think were -- a lot of it has to do with the messenger, too.
ALLISON: The messenger, yeah.
AXELROD: Because he's utterly authentic.
ALLISON: Well, I don't even think of Cuomo actually ran the tried to run the campaign that Mamdani did. He could have because he could -- he is not a translatable candidate on social media.
You had great clips that were engaging, seeing him on the subway, like Cuomo even live in New York City is the question to be on the subway first.
HUNT: When was the last time Cuomo took the subway?
ALLISON: Exactly, to actually get somewhere, right? And so, people who ride the subway, they know the good and the bad of the subway. And so, he brought it. But then he had other people conveying his message also, people who didn't look like him, people who weren't of the same faith as him, people who weren't of the -- in the same economic class of his.
I think that the lesson that I am learning for this is, and I want Democrats to listen hard, it's like, why was Andrew Cuomo actually even the option for Democrats to be choosing against in that moment? He was rebuked by many Democrats, eventually came out and endorsed him, which is compromising.
And young people notice that. It feels inauthentic and the whole November election, we went back and forth, and you told me everything was too expensive. So, we had a candidate talking about everything being too expensive. And guess what? He won. Look at that.
TODD: You're right. That slipper fits Cinderella and he's Cinderella in this case.
But I think that this election matters to Democrats, not in New York, but in other places around the country because this morning, in congressional districts all over, left-wing fruit loops woke up and said, why not me? And so, they're going to run as candidates against their incumbent Democrat Congress, member of Congress in primaries. They're going to run in open seats.
I've seen this movie before, Republicans. We had this problem in --
AXELROD: You had a few fruit loops of your own.
TODD: Yeah.
ALLISON: But you know what --
TODD: I readily admit it.
ALLISON: -- mattered in this one is ranked choice voting actually is another thing that really mattered. And in this campaign did a strategic job of having people cross endorse, particularly on like the Lander and Mamdani cross-endorsement actually was big because there were some questions about being vulnerable with Jewish voters and that endorsement mattered. And that was a strategic political operative, aggressive approach that actually --
AXELROD: Can I tell you, I woke up this morning and you will appreciate this, not to date you in any way. But I woke up this morning and this and this Bob Dylan lyric was in my head. Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway. Don't' block up the hall. For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled the battle outside. Ragin will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls for the times. They are a changing.
That's what young people in this town were saying. We're tired of the same kind of brain dead politics, the hypocrisy and so on. And they expressed themselves in this election yesterday.
GANGEL: Could I just add, though, that what happened in New York, I think in some places in this country, it will be similar, but in a lot of places it won't.
Andrew Cuomo was not -- it's polite to say he was a flawed candidate, and Mamdani was energetic, charismatic, out there, working hard. But if you go just next door to New York, to New Jersey, where Mikie Sherrill is running, if you go to Virginia, where Abigail Spanberger, those are two centrist Democrats likely to win their races.
HUNT: There is one thing I would like to play also this -- you know, Cuomo worked to make this an issue in the race, but also many Jewish people who live in New York have raised questions about Mamdani. And this is a clip of an interview that he did with Tim Miller over at "The Bulwark", where he was pressed about the phrase globalized the intifada, which has become something that has come up in these pro- Palestine protests.
I want to play how Mamdani answered that question. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIM MILLER, THE BULWARK: The phrase globalized intifada from the river to the sea. Does that make you uncomfortable? Or do you think --
[16:30:00]
MAMDANI: Okay, those are different. Those are super different.
MILLER: They're not really.
MAMDANI: They're different genres.
MILLER: I'm sorry, I'm asking, Zohran, they're not really different to me. And so, some people, they're not different.
MAMDANI: You know, I know people for whom those things mean very different things. And, to me, ultimately, what I hear in so many is a desperate desire for equality and equal rights.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, this is part of why Ashley was underscoring that the alliance between Mamdani and Lander was so important because it inoculated in some ways some of these criticisms. But, David Axelrod, you know, globalized the intifada is viewed as a call to violence against Jewish people, and this is the most the most Jewish city in the world.
AXELROD: River to the city has that same implication.
HUNT: Yeah.
AXELROD: Listen, I've said it before. I'm the -- I'm the son of a Jewish refugee. I feel I was devastated by what happened on October 7th. I also weep for the children of Gaza.
I want to know that he weeps for the people who were brutalized and sexually assaulted and murdered and kidnaped on October 7th. And that, you know, there is an understanding that, you know, that that rights are -- should be pervasive, that respect for human dignity should be pervasive. And so, I think he's going to need to communicate that to Jews and non-Jews in this city.
TODD: This is a big problem for Democrats. They've increasingly got out of the lane where the center of this country is.
I mean, Democrats -- Harry Truman is one that recognized Israel's statehood. Democrats have long held an advantage. Bill Clinton did. Barack Obama, we have a long line here.
I'm not saying that the mayor of New York or the presumptive mayor of New York is going to drive the entire party, but it is a thing that if I were a Democrat strategist, I would be paying attention to how do we fix our antisemitic, anti-Zionist position?
AXELROD: People don't have to agree with everything that this guy says. And I think that's one thing that we have to recognize. And if -- and if you feel strongly on this issue, then repudiate him for saying it. But he also has the opportunity to express himself on this in a way that might allay some concerns.
ALLISON: And he has been asked in many other iterations where he is condemning antisemitism. And I think actions will speak louder. And he talked about how he was going to be a mayor for all of New Yorkers, including Jewish Americans, and he was going to put part of the budget in New York city on an anti-hate crimes, specifically targeting antisemitism. So, if he becomes the mayor, he will need to live up to that because
those words are not -- should not be acceptable. And I think he has shown, at least in the campaign has --
AXELROD: He's going to have plenty of opportunities between now and November because there is going to be an election in November. The mayor is on the ballot and perhaps others will be on the ballot. It doesn't sound like Cuomo is, but this is going to be an issue.
ALLISON: It's going to be a race.
HUNT: For sure.
All right. Coming up next, we're going to go back live to Anderson with new reporting in Israel.
Plus, one of Donald Trump's picks for the federal bench in a heated confirmation hearing today, defending his relationship with the president and responding to a shocking whistleblower report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): In the complaint, it says, Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts, fuck you and ignoring any such court order. Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?
EMIL BOVE, JUDICIAL NOMINEE: Senator --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:45]
COOPER: Welcome back. I'm Anderson Cooper, live in Tel Aviv.
The ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran continues to hold. Amid that peace, though, there are questions remaining, of course, about the status of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Today, the IDF chief of staff said that their program had suffered severe damage that would set them back years.
A lot to get to. I want to bring in CNN's Jeremy Diamond who is here with me in Tel Aviv, and retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.
Jeremy, first to you. We also heard from Israeli authorities an early assessment by them.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. That's right. The Israeli atomic energy agency released this assessment saying that they believe that Iran's nuclear program has been set back by years. What was interesting about that assessment is not just the conclusions, but also who that statement was released by. It was released by the White House and also by the Israeli prime minister's office. So, you can take that as you will, that there is clearly also a
political angle here to support what President Trump has been trying to say. The case that he has been trying to make for days now, that this program has been entirely obliterated.
Now, the statement doesn't go quite that far, but they do talk about years. And then we got the Israeli military's assessment of this via Israel's top general, General Eyal Zamir, who says that this delivered damage not just of a pinpoint strike, but a systemic blow to Iran's nuclear program. He talks about broad, deep and severe damage that will set back that program by years. So, there's some similarities there in terms of the conclusions, we don't know exactly what this intelligence is based on, although presumably it would include satellite intelligence signals.
And then President Trump today also talked about Israel having people on the ground. Thats not something that the Israelis have confirmed, but it was quite interesting to hear him say that ultimately it. One other thing that hasn't been addressed is this notion of those stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Neither Israeli nor U.S. intelligence seem to have a firm view on exactly where that is, whether that has been obliterated.
COOPER: President Trump has intimated that he believes that they were buried in those facilities.
(CROSSTALK)
DIAMOND: But there were assessments as well, that some of it may have been moved.
COOPER: Nobody -- it seems nobody knows for sure. There's not a full assessment.
DIAMOND: Exactly. And that, I think, is just kind of speaks to how early we are in this process and the fact that it may take some time to get the full assessments here.
[16:40:02]
But ultimately, the Israeli prime minister has also made clear that should Iran try and reconstitute rebuild this nuclear program, Israel will act once again.
COOPER: Colonel Leighton, I want to bring you in here because obviously the White House is upset. President Trump personally seems very upset at the reporting about the leak. Our reporting on this leak has been accurate. It's understandable to be upset about a leak. They say the FBI is going to investigate, but the reporting on the leak has been entirely accurate, and we have entirely pointed out that this is early assessment. There will be other assessments and bomb damage assessments takes time.
Can you just -- from your experience, just talk a little bit about assessments, how they're made, what you make of this, this whole drama that is playing out? CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yeah, Anderson. Absolutely.
So, bomb damage assessments are now battle damage assessments are really looked upon as the way in which you assess whether or not you hit the targets that you intended to hit. So, originally, this was something that was designed back in world war two to actually find, you know, whether or not our bombing campaigns back then were effective. And the process has evolved quite a bit.
So, now, we get to the modern age where you have precision weapons that can hit something within a, you know, basically a few inches of, you know, of the desired impact area. So that's the kind of thing that we're looking at here is how accurately were the targets actually hit, and did they have the desired effect. So, you can hit something quite accurately, you know, within, you know, one or two inches, one or two feet.
But if you don't have the desired effect, let's say the explosives didn't go off as intended, then you may have to restrike the target in order to have the effect that you want to have. So, it's a complex process. And Jeremy was right, you know, when he pointed out that this may take some time to actually assess, but the idea is you bring all the intelligence disciplines to bear as many as you can, as many as are covering the particular target you're looking at, and then you go from there.
You assess whether or not you effectively took out the target or damaged it in the way that's acceptable to you, to your particular operational aims. And then you go from there. Either you're done prosecuting the target as it's called, or you have to strike the target. So that's the basis for bomb damage or battle damage assessment.
COOPER: Given that so much of this is we're talking about underground facilities, there's obviously surface structures and that's easier to assess from the air. The -- this is a complex series of targets given the depth to which so many of them have been built. I assume that will add to the time it takes to try to figure out what is underground, what has been completely destroyed, what is simply maybe what is just buried?
Where is the enriched plutonium? Was it entombed in these sites? Was it moved previously?
And some of that will be more than just overhead satellite imagery. It might be human intelligence. It might be signals intelligence. Correct?
LEIGHTON: That's correct. Yes. And in fact, it's, you know, any type of intelligence that can shed light on the particular issues. So, when you look at a hardened target and deeply buried target, like Fordow, for example, that is so deep underground and the damage that we've seen from the satellite images indicates that a lot of dirt was moved when the massive ordnance penetrators came into the Fordow site.
So that makes it exceptionally difficult to go underground and determine how much damage occurred underground. So human intelligence is one possible way of assessing that, assuming you can get in there. Another way, as you mentioned, with signals intelligence.
And a third way is what's called measurement and signature intelligence. Thats a type of intelligence that is designed to measure things like radiation levels, for example. And that's the kind of area that, you know, it kind of discipline that would lend some knowledge to whether or not one of these stockpiles was struck, for example.
But there also are ancillary areas. So, there might be something on the outside that would give you an idea of what is happening inside. So, for example, if the power stopped flowing to a particular area, that would mean that they're not using that area at this particular point in time.
And that may have resulted from a bomb strike. And it could be something that would indicate that they're not producing anything or not using anything in that particular location.
COOPER: No. Colonel Cedric Leighton, I appreciate your expertise. Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much.
Kasie, back to you.
HUNT: Anderson, thank you so much.
Coming up next here, dueling fireworks today on Capitol Hill as top DOJ officials face lawmakers.
[16:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: You're trying to play a gotcha question with the president of the United States. And it's not going to work. We're here to talk about our budgets for public safety.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOVE: I am not anybody's henchman. I'm not an enforcer. I'm a lawyer from a small town who never expected to be in an arena like this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Welcome back to THE ARENA.
President Trump's pick for a circuit court judgeship, Emil Bove, defending himself there before a skeptical Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
Bove, who once served as Trump's personal attorney, faced several accusations of corruption during his confirmation hearing, including questions about a whistleblower complaint alleging that Bove, who would be appointed for life if he were to be confirmed, stated that the DOJ might consider ignoring any court orders to stop the deportation of migrants to an El Salvadoran prison.
[16:50:24]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHIFF: In the complaint, it says Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts fuck you and ignoring any such court order. Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?
BOVE: Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind.
SCHIFF: Did you suggest telling the courts fuck you in any manner?
BOVE: I don't recall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I don't recall.
All right. Our panel is back.
Brad Todd, I want to start with you on this one because you have kind of the inside track on what Republicans are going to do, because ultimately, that's what's going to matter if Emil Bove is going to be appointed to this lifetime role.
Do they have the stomach for it?
TODD: Well, the judiciary committee in the Senate is maybe the most partisan place in the most partisan city in our country. And so I would predict that if Adam Schiff and Democrats decide to raise a big stink about this, Republicans will be pretty galvanized. If it's a more introspective ease into a dissent, maybe we will, maybe we won't. Then I could see some Republicans probing further, but I predict the Democrats on this committee will not be able to resist making it partisan.
HUNT: David, what do you think?
AXELROD: Well, it's not a necessarily an irrelevant question to ask if you were advising people to tell the courts to fuck themselves, that's -- that seems like a relevant question.
But look, he carried out a lot of chores for political chores for the president when he first got there, including firing the prosecutors or driving the prosecutors out who wouldn't -- in the Eric Adams case when they wanted to drop that case.
And so, there are a number of things here. And, of course, he's here because he was the president's lawyer in some of these criminal cases. So, you know, yeah, there's going to be -- I mean, I expect he'll probably get confirmed because it's not a high enough profile thing for Republicans. That's not the cross they want to die on.
So, but I'm sure these questions are going to be raised. I don't think people are going to be introspective about it.
ALLISON: You know, the interesting thing about this all is if he is confirmed, he could actually be on the receiving end of somebody saying, F him. I'm not going to say it. My mom is watching.
HUNT: I think that's officially the first F bombs been dropped in the Senate.
ALLISON: I know I'm like --
HUNT: I came this close one day, but I --
ALLISON: It's 4:00 p.m. people.
AXELROD: It's mainstream now.
HUNT: Well, yes.
ALLISON: Clearly.
AXELROD: I mean, once the president does it, isn't everybody entitled?
ALLISON: But I mean, yeah, he could be on the receiving end where you have lawyers. Now, this is actually something that he said that he -- his judicial ruling could be pushed against. We don't want to be in that situation because we have these institutions, one being the judicial arm, that we want people to respect. The decision of the court.
So, I think it's an important question to ask. The way he answered could have been an easy no, but I do not recall. Gives me great --
TODD: Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said he was in the meeting and he did not say it.
ALLISON: Well, then why didn't -- why didn't just say that?
GANGEL: Talk about -- exactly. So let's use the word allegedly here, since we're talking about courts and judge, allegedly defying the courts or suggesting you should is not a good reference for becoming a federal judge for life.
I think it's also important to remember who this whistleblower is. He was -- he worked for DOJ and he was the person who went into court and who said, we made a mistake when we sent Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.
Just to come back to the way he answered that question. That's how you answer a question when you're under oath, and you don't want to --
ALLISON: And you don't want to allegedly lie.
HUNT: Yeah. Brad? TODD: Well, we certainly see --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: I don't recall, I don't recall, question is it dodge answer, right? That's a well-prepared witness will have I don't recall at the ready. You know?
So, I -- one thing I would point out, Ashley, though I agree with you. He -- if he's a judge and he gets someone who wants to defy the courts, though, he will be in a position to send a contempt, hold him in contempt. We'll see.
ALLISON: Yeah, but he could be in contempt too. I mean, I guess I'm just saying, like, the grass is never greener.
AXELROD: Self-loathing judge.
ALLISON: Yeah.
HUNT: I will say, I think one of my very first assignments in journalism was to count the number of times Alberto Gonzales said, I don't recall when he was questioned on capitol hill for what became the U.S. attorneys scandal, that he was eventually pushed out for.
[16:55:00]
All right. Well, very spicy conversation to end this afternoon.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to all of you for joining us today. And thanks to my panel also, guys, thank you very much for being here. If you happen to miss any of today's show or any of our shows, you can always catch up our podcast for THE ARENA is now live.
You can scan the QR code below on your screen, follow wherever you get your podcasts. You can also follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
But now, Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, great to see you.
