Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Supreme Court Limits Ability Of Judges To Stop Trump; Supreme Court Sides With Religious Parents Who Want To Opt Their Children Out Of LGBTQ Books In Schools; Top General Tells Lawmakers That U.S. Did Not Use Bunker-Buster Bombs On One Of Iran's Nuclear Sites; Sean "Diddy" Combs Defense To Jury: "He Is Innocent". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 27, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:03]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, this is 80 days after markets were plunged into what looked to be a bear market because of President Trump's sweeping tariffs. But we should note here the president announcing just a short time ago that he's terminating trade talks once again with Canada, a huge trading partner. So we'll have to see how that impacts trading going into next week.
But I don't know. Maybe you can check your 401(k).
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: It's a good idea right now. Maybe in a few weeks when those trade deals are due. Well, we'll have to wait and see.
You won't have to wait and see "THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" because it starts right now. Thanks for joining us.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's Trump versus no one. Did the Supreme Court just fundamentally shift the balance of power in the U.S.?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
Right now, President Trump vowing to move ahead with some of his most controversial executive orders following a major ruling from justices. And the grave warning from some justices who say the court went way too far.
Also this hour, the president leaving the door open to dropping more bombs on Iran.
And new CNN reporting on what wasn't used in the recent strikes. The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be here live.
Plus, closing arguments in the case of Sean "Diddy" Combs, expected to wrap up any minute. What the defense is telling the jury just before they start deliberations.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Friday. Always nice to have a summer Friday.
As we come on the air, though, a seismic shift in American democracy. The Supreme Court today, driven by six emboldened conservative justices, effectively giving away many powers of the judiciary, shifting those powers to the presidency. The majority giving the green light to President Trump's efforts to restrain lower courts across the country, limiting the ability of those courts and judges to put a national pause on presidential executive orders. And for a president known for governing by executive order, you might be able to guess how he feels.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thanks to this decision. We can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases were talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, what might some of these policies be? Well, some orders that the lower courts have put on hold. Other than that, birthright citizenship E.O. are things like the presidents attempt to get rid of the Department of Education. Firing people who work for the federal government. Pulling money for various programs like USAID, and allowing doge to get access to private Social Security data.
And giving the president this power comes from a justice that he appointed and has criticized recently, Amy Coney Barrett.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly, as well as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas. Great people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Coney Barrett, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas. There are, of course, three justices that the president did not mention. Probably no surprise there. The courts three liberal justices publicly blasting their own institution in a way that's becoming more and more common.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing the dissent. She says, quote, no right is safe, end quote, under what she called, quote, the new legal regime created by this ruling.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote her own solo and scathing dissent, warning the decision will enable the, quote, collective demise of the United States because, in her words, quote, eventually executive power will become completely uncontainable and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.
So, in our system of checks and balances, where the Supreme Court is supposed to be the check, balancing out the power of the presidency, are we today where the Founding Fathers meant for us to be?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: It's inevitable that the courts decisions become the focus of popular attention and debate, and certainly our Founding Fathers expected nothing different, but about one point at least, there's can be no disagreement whatsoever. The Supreme Court must continue to demonstrate that independence and integrity that have always been its hallmarks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Ronald Reagan, Republican President Ronald Reagan, addressing the justices there in that clip.
Our panel is here to weigh in, but we're going to start with our reporters, CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid and CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
[16:05:01]
Paula, let me start with you. Just how significant is this ruling in terms of what it means for the president's use of executive power?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's incredibly significant, Kasie, because, once again, this conservative supermajority is affirming Trump's expansive view of executive power. As you mentioned, Trump loves to govern through executive action. He has issued a record number of them. They often face legal challenges. And before this opinion, any federal judge anywhere in the country could block one of those actions for the entire country.
Now, this is not a Trump specific phenomenon. All modern presidents, Biden, Obama, Bush, they all face so-called nationwide injunctions. But because Trump uses executive action as he does, he's faced a record number of these injunctions. It's become a real pet peeve issue.
And that's why today's opinion is so significant, because here the court is limiting the power that judges have to block these policies. So now he can sign an executive action, and it will go into effect, likely in large parts of the country where it is not blocked while it continues to face legal challenges. This is going to be a little bit of a mess, a little bit messy.
It's going to be a lawyer, full employment act. I think one of the easiest examples to follow over the next several months will be the future of birthright citizenship. The justices did not weigh in on whether Trump has the constitutional power to limit that right. But we expect that that is a question that will go before the Supreme Court next term. But in the meantime, it appears that that executive order could potentially, depending on what happens with some class action lawsuits, be live in certain parts of the country.
So, it's going to be messy. But this is a huge win for Trump and his lawyers, who have been telling me, Kasie, since he was inaugurated. They were playing a long game. They said, we're going to lose on these issues of executive power at the lower court, but if we can just get before the Supreme Court, were going to win. Turns out it didn't take that long.
HUNT: Right, just June here, the president having been sworn in in January.
So, Kristen, we did hear from the president somewhat extensively today. He seemed quite pleased. What are you hearing?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, they were celebrating, and they still are celebrating. And I think the most telling part of all of it was when he went through a list of things that will go into effect, essentially because of this ruling. He talked about the various executive orders that had been paused. He talked about funding to sanctuary cities, stopping funding for transgender surgery, suspending refugee resettlement. All of these had been put on pause because of these lower court rulings.
It goes to show you, just as Paula was saying, how much the president plans to do now that this ruling has gone into effect. And he was asked by reporters in the room if he saw this as essentially greenlighting his agenda. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you believe this ends the power of the lower court judges to stop your agenda? Do you see this as a full green light for your agenda going forward?
TRUMP: Well, you'd have to really speak to the lawyers about that. But this is really also a decision based on common sense. It didn't work the other way. It was a disaster where somebody from a certain location in a very liberal state, or a liberal judge or a liberal group of judges, could tie up a whole country for years because their decision would sometimes take years to overturn.
We've overturned many of the decisions, but it would take years to do it. And we have to act quickly when it comes to illegal immigration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: And, Kasie, I just want to touch on one other thing here, which was his praise of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, because, as we had reported just a few weeks ago, he was privately bashing her behind closed doors. Several of her rulings, several of the decisions that she has written. Now, of course, he is saying that she is brilliant.
The other interesting part of this is thinking, Justice Roberts, somebody that we know again behind closed doors, he has not been happy with. In fact, we actually heard Vice President J.D. Vance kind of take on Roberts recently over some comments that he deemed political. Very interesting times and of course, very interesting to hear President Trump thinking all of the Supreme Court justices, especially just the Republican ones.
HUNT: Of course. All right, Kristen Holmes, Paula Reid, thank you both very much for getting us started.
Our panel joins us now in THE ARENA.
Congressional correspondent for "The New York Times", Annie Karni, CNN political analyst, national political reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson, CNN's senior Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.
Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate it.
Joan, let me start with you. Youve covered this court for a long time how much did they give away here?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: They gave away a lot from lower court judges, not from themselves, I have to say, picking up on what Kristen just said about Amy Coney Barrett and the others, that Donald Trump thanked. You know, I go to the courtroom to hear these announcements made. And when they started today, they had six opinions to give. And this was going to be the biggest.
So, I presumed it would come last. And probably Chief Justice John Roberts would take it for himself as Chief Justice John Roberts always takes the biggies for himself.
[16:10:03]
And he said today, Justice Barrett has our opinion, and Trump versus CASA, which is this challenge to birthright. And she starts reading. And what strikes me immediately is that he's giving it to the junior justice on the team because, you know, usually they go in order of seniority there, and he's given it to her. He's given it to someone who not only has she been criticized by Donald Trump, but she's known for at least trying to take a narrower path among the conservatives.
Now, I'll tell you about Justice Sotomayor in a second. But what she said here was that based on history and tradition, which is the new conservative pattern, they're looking to history and tradition that there is no analog for these kinds of universal injunctions that they just come in the 20th century and they've skyrocketed.
And she went on that way. Then she reads from her opinion for about ten minutes. Everyone's quiet. And then Justice Sotomayor, who today only by virtue of the fact that Neil Gorsuch didn't attend the session, he had another commitment. She was sitting right next to Justice Sotomayor.
Justice Sotomayor then goes on for more than 20 minutes saying, you know, the majority. Justice Barrett has just said this has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. It's only about the power of lower court judges. Don't be fooled.
This is about birthright citizenship, and it's about all other kinds of rights that this president or any president can start undercutting. So, it was incredibly dramatic there, and it just shows, again, the six three split, which we've talked about. Chief Justice John Roberts does not like to have that on display, but it was so vividly on display.
And again, with someone, Justice Barrett, who sometimes has inched over to the other side being with them fully.
HUNT: So, what's the symbolism of that, Elie?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I would like to propose that this is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. It just so happens that at the moment, we have Republicans in the White House and Democrats opposing the White House. But if this had happened two years ago, it would have been flipped. In fact, in the closing days of the Biden administration, his solicitor general made the same argument that the Trump administration just made, and one on here.
What this is, though, is a seismic shift in power as between the presidency and the courts. It means that district courts, that's our federal trial level courts. Theres 600 or so district court judges around the country can no longer, generally speaking, ban some sort of presidential action, block a presidential action for the whole country.
However, the notion that this is the end -- I'm looking at Justice Jackson here in her dissent. This is our collective demise. The constitutional republic will be no more. Thats overstated.
I mean, we survived 200-plus years without these nationwide injunctions. They only really started happening in the early 2000s under George W. Bush. So it's going to change -- what happens in district courts. It's going to give rise to chaos and uncertainty. It's going to be messy and ugly, but it's not going to end our constitutional republic.
BISKUPIC: Can I just give one little postscript? He's right that Democrats have complained about these and conservative and liberal justices have both complained. But it's only now that the court has done something about it.
And that was a point that the dissenters made. The court had a chance to do this under other administrations. But this is the administration that got it.
HUNT: So, Alex Thompson, what are you hearing from your sources and from Democrats about the significance of this?
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think they're actually not looking at this decision. They're looking at the fact that there could be one or even two vacancies in the Supreme Court this summer or next summer, on the Republican side. And what will happen if Trump nominates a judge?
And I think they are looking at this very closely to make every single word and period. And, you know, every single part of the decision, a part of that confirmation process.
HUNT: So, Andy Karni, I want to play a little bit of what Senator Josh Hawley said earlier this month during a Senate judiciary hearing, just because it does seem to capture the kind of the political dynamics of what's going on here. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Which was done really only once Trump came into office for the first time. You don't think this is a little bit anomalous? You don't think that's a little bit --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A very plausible explanation, Senator, you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, you can see it in the chart, right?
ANNIE KARNI, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I mean, there's more injunctions because he's done more executive actions. I mean, that's, I think Josh Hawley is a really smart guy. He knows that, too.
What we saw on the Hill today was basically a political split like the one we saw on the court. Republicans were arguing that this is just taking us back to where we were a few decades ago, that they were pointing out that, you know, a judge blocked the distribution of mifepristone during the Biden years, and Biden was upset with that, that its it is a win for executive power, not for Trump and Democrats, Chuck Schumer on down were saying this is, you know, another step towards autocracy and the only power now to stop an unchecked president who wants to maximize executive power is Congress, and we've -- Congress's role in this administration, where it's controlled by Republicans, is really to fall in line. So that's not going to happen.
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: But I would just add to that, like we haven't seen the politicization of the Supreme Court like this since we saw that the Warren court and like the '50s and '60s, it's been like half a decade, half a century since we've seen.
KARNI: I mean, the -- first of all, I found it really remarkable to watch the president, United States, from behind the podium in the briefing room, thanking Supreme Court justices. That's bizarre to me like that, that, I mean, they're a separate branch of government. They don't work for him. It was just a strange moment to me.
THOMPSON: And all the reporting is that they're uncomfortable with it.
KARNI: Right.
THOMPSON: Like all the Republicans that he's praising, they don't feel comfortable with him praising them.
HONIG: I cringe so hard when he did it. He's done it before. And I guarantee you, the justices I guarantee you the justices hate that, right?
BISKUPIC: And he has held them up as trophies. When Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in and he named each one of them who had showed up for that special ceremony as if they were blue ribbons. And then, Kasie, I know you remember this. Remember at the first joint session of congress when as President Trump came down, he shook hands with John Roberts and said, thank you, won\t forget it. And he later said it was, you know, for swearing him in which every chief justice does swear in the president. But it was. Can I just say thank you for the immunity decision?
HONIG: A quick practice pointer to any federal practitioner in front of any federal judge. I was taught as a prosecutor, never thanked the judge. If they give you a good evidentiary ruling, you don't go. Thank you, your honor. Judges will go. What? What are you thanking me for? I'm not giving you. I'm not doing you a favor.
HUNT: I'm not --
HONIG: From the Supreme Court down to the district court, don't thank them.
KARNI: Politically speaking, though. Also, Democrats are focused on that. Trump is obsessed with ending birthright citizenship. He wanted to do it in 2015. It was one of the first executive actions he signed coming in for this second term.
And he is really like his theory on birthright citizenship. According to legal experts, is really like legal fringe, like it's like really a constitutional right that if you're born here, you're a citizen. So I think that, like Eli said, what's going to happen now is chaos. Lawyer fees like much more chaos and fear about what will happen to you if you have immigrant parents.
HUNT: Lots of questions.
All right. Elie Honig, Joan Biskupic, thank you guys both very much for getting us started today. I really appreciate it.
Annie, Alex, are going to stand by for us.
Up next, the other big rulings today from the Supreme Court, including that decision on a case involving public schools, religion and LGBTQ rights. We'll dig into that.
Plus, new comments from the president on Iran, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be here live.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: If the intelligence reports conclude that Iran can enrich uranium to a level that concerns you, would you consider bombing the country again?
TRUMP: Sure, without question, absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:02]
HUNT: All right. We do have a little bit of breaking news here from Wall Street. The stock market closing at the top of the hour, worth noting, the Nasdaq and S&P 500 hit all time highs. It really marks a stunning turnaround for markets that had been flirting with bear market territory just two months ago.
Stocks almost missed this milestone after President Trump late today said that he was ending trade talks with Canada. The Dow Jones today also rose 432 points, but still has about 1,200 points to go before it would hit a new record.
All right, let's turn back now to today's historic day at the Supreme Court. President Trump hailing a decision today that allows parents to opt their children out of school curricula that includes LGBTQ storybooks as a major win.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think the ruling was a great ruling, and I think it's a great ruling for parents. It's really a ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child.
And this is a tremendous victory for parents. And I'm not surprised by it. But I am surprised that it went this far.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: In its 6 to 3 decision, the court sided, sided with a group of religious parents in Maryland who argued that their school districts policy of withholding opt outs infringed on their religious rights.
Now joining our panel, Democratic strategist Meghan Hays, and CNN political commentator, Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton.
Thank you, guys, very much for being here.
And I'll start with your side of the table, because for me and Meghan Hayes, Democrats obviously grappled with the issue of how far to go in terms of protecting, balancing the protection of transgender rights with the rights of interests of some others who felt as though theirs weren't always in alignment.
But it really kind of encapsulates the culture wars that we have seen playing out most recently.
What do you make of the decision that the court made here, and what it says about where we are?
MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think it's very, very political decision, obviously. I'm not a parent, so I'm not exactly sure what is best for kids to be reading in school. I don't think this culture that we're creating where we are being hateful towards people is necessary. And I think Democrats are learning that you have to be able to find a balance here, because being a bully is also not acceptable. But I understand why some of these transgender issues of playing in
sports are problematic for people and for families. So, I understand both sides. I just wish we could live in a world where people were not so hateful and being bullies while they were doing this.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think Republicans will argue that this is about parental choice. This is an issue that Republicans and conservatives have argued going all the way back to George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas, running to be president of the United States.
And so, this is a consistent theme that you've seen within the Republican ethos.
[16:25:03]
Donald Trump made it a big deal in November, running ads in Pennsylvania on the issue of trans students playing sports. And we found the polling to be very effective. Survey results showed even many Democrats actually agreed with the conservative or Republican disposition on this issue.
And so, I would imagine Republicans going into midterms next year was attempt to codify the strategy around this issue, even more so, particularly with sort of vulnerable Republicans in purple districts where they think they can move some of those independent, left leaning individuals to the right.
But you also saw, I mean, to your point, there are a lot of Democrats that saw the exact same polling that you mentioned, and they have been relatively muted about this, about this decision. But as a result, you also see members of the Democratic base being why aren't you sticking up for us at this moment when they, you know, believe that their rights and also just the expression of their, you know, their entire humanity is under attack?
HAYS: Yeah, I'd say that I was I mean, what the ruling was like part of a winning streak for religious freedoms at the expense of other rights like gay rights and trans rights. I notably did not see in my inbox today any Democrat statements about this ruling. It was all about the birthright citizenship ruling, and the injunctions which were bigger rulings. Those were the top headlines of the day, but I didn't see a lot on this, and I think it's for the reason Alex is talking about that.
This is, you know, the trans issues. Democrats don't want to leave those people behind and not stand up for trans kids. But it's a small part of the population. And they -- it's not what they would like to be talking about right now.
HUNT: One person who did weigh in on this ruling was Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, who represents most, if not all. I'm not exactly sure where the lines are, but most of Montgomery County he represents.
Let's watch a little bit of what he said on CNN's air earlier today. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): You can opt out of mandatory classroom readings because it offends your religious objections. You can do it because it offends your philosophical, you know, beliefs, your political beliefs, your moral beliefs, or what have you. And the court basically says, well, we'll deal with all that down the road.
I think it's going to cause chaos going forward in terms of trying to figure out what it means to have a public education system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Alex Thompson, I think it's worth noting. I mean, this ruling was about elementary school kids, right, and it was about books that were available in the classroom. There seemed to be some questions about exactly how they would be mandatory or not, but what these parents were looking for was a way to say, I don't want my kid to have to do this. I want to be able to opt out of it. Not that they want the materials removed from the classroom entirely.
Does any of that make a difference?
THOMPSON: Well, Democrats are on their back foot when it comes to public education, and it goes back to honestly, COVID. And then it goes back to trans women in sports. And that's I think, why what Annie was saying before is why she also isn't seeing, you know, she covers Congress. She didn't see many comments because Democrats feel like this is like commenting on public education, especially when it comes to gay and trans rights, has been a losing political issue. That doesn't mean it's not an important issue, but the -- you see a lot of Democrats being mute in a way they weren't before.
HUNT: I mean, Meghan Hays, this has been a place where, you know, you have seen school boards become really -- I mean, political battlegrounds.
HAYS: Yeah, absolutely, but I think that what the Democrats, our base needs to understand is you can't protect them if you are not in power. So, you can't change any laws or do anything to help protect their rights if you are not in power. So sometimes Democrats are going to have to take a back foot on this and not say something and take and be more quiet about a stance because they need to win back the House. They need to win back the White House to make any changes or protections.
You saw -- I mean, Barack Obama had put out ten years ago. He did the whole thing where he lit up the White House and they had ACA and they had gay marriage. They had all these things that they are now celebrating, but they were able to do those things because they were in power. So, you know, this is where elections at all levels matter.
SINGLETON: Look, I think Democrats recognize that this is a politically toxic issue for them. I mean, even had Gavin Newsom on his podcast, I think, two months ago trying to find a moderate position on this issue when he was talking about it. Youve seen other Democrats that have been asked during interviews. Well, what are your thoughts? Where do you stand?
And they have tried to say, well, it's an important group. We recognize the humanity. But I also understand what parents are upset about.
And so, I think the Democratic Party is trying to figure out what their identity and stance will ultimately be on this. But, Kasie, they haven't figured it out, which is why it is still a strong point for Republicans.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, new CNN reporting on Iran and what wasn't used in the recent U.S. airstrikes. We're going to talk with the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Senator Jack Reed will be here live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:34:22]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I'm almost sorry I went to this briefing because almost everything that was there is in the public domain. There has been no evidence presented in the public domain. Let's just talk about the public domain that talks about obliterating.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: House Democrats on Capitol Hill, emerging from their classified briefing today on Iran, largely unsatisfied. Republicans, on the other hand, saying they're confident in President Trump's decision to strike the country's nuclear facilities.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you feel like that Iran's nuclear program has been obliterated?
REP. ROGER WILLIAMS (R-TX): Absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:35:01]
HUNT: And as we're learning more details about yesterday's briefing to senators, joining me to discuss is Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
And, of course, the longtime chairman of that committee when Democrats ran the Senate. Senator, thanks so much for being here.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you.
HUNT: So obviously, we heard from house members, it seems to me, based on my own reporting and conversations, that perhaps you all in the senate received a more fulsome briefing from this administration. So, let's focus on that.
Are you confident based on what you heard in that briefing, that the Iranian nuclear program was, in fact, significantly set back by what happened?
REED: I think the program was set back. But the question is, how long? And one of the factors that has been publicly revealed is the belief that they retain significant amounts of highly enriched uranium, which is the key aspect of developing a nuclear weapon. And then the next question is, can they either themselves surreptitiously, surreptitiously create the technology to convert that into a weapon? Will they get the assistance of other powers in the world?
That was a question that I think we have to answer, and we have to be completely and thoroughly diligent about checking to see if there's a surreptitious collaboration between Iran and others. So complete elimination of their capacity? No significant degrading? Yes. How long? That still is being determined by the analysis.
HUNT: So, is the completely obliterated line from the president accurate in your view?
REED: I don't think its accurate. I think it was more just a reaction to watching bombs fall on the site, but via video. And you know, thinking it was blown up. But in fact, I think more effective analysis suggests that there's a undetermined yet point at which they could reconstitute.
HUNT: Do you have confidence in President Trump's national security team?
REED: I don't think his national security team is as capable as it should be. I think many were selected not for their particular skills, but for their faithfulness to the president. I think also, too, that we've seen some gaffes on the comments by the secretary of defense at NATO that undercut the Ukraine by saying they would never be in NATO effectively.
And we've seen scenes the humiliation of Zelenskyy by the vice president undercutting the King of Jordan by publicly declaring that he has accept millions of Palestinian refugees.
So, it's been inelegant at best.
HUNT: Very polite way to put it.
REED: Yeah.
HUNT: Sir, are you confident that what's done is done in Iran? Or do you think that the United States is still at risk of becoming more deeply involved in the region because the president launched these strikes?
REED: I think we are deeply involved in the region. We were. But now I think it's a new dimension of the -- Iranians I think will quickly try to and it might be difficult to reconstitute their proxy forces in different countries Iraq, Syria. I think they will try to reconstitute or at least have the capacity to reconstitute their nuclear capabilities. That's been severely damaged.
But again, if they get any cooperation from foreign nuclear powers, that that could accelerate. And I think also to the question for the regime in Tehran is how do we maintain power? And then how do we continue this resistance, which is the sole rationale of their regime?
So I don't think that this is just, you know, one and done, were over, et cetera. I think we have to look at the, the day after and usually in the Middle East, the day after is more complicated than the first few days of the strike.
HUNT: Understatement as well.
Sir, I spoke with your colleague in the Senate, your Republican colleague John Kennedy, yesterday on the show. He came out of the briefing and said he was told that Iran was days from a nuclear weapon. Is that what you heard as well?
REED: I can't comment on what I heard. I can tell you, though, that us, you know, as late as March of this year, publicly, Tulsi Gabbard indicated one they were not close to a nuclear device.
[16:40:06]
And two, that the ayatollah had indicated that he was not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Now, all of that was cleared, I think, through the White House. So that was the position of the administration.
HUNT: But then the president was out there saying Tulsi Gabbard was wrong.
REED: Well, that's -- I think he's probably saying he made a huge mistake and appointed her to be the DNI. And so, you know, that's just kind of dismissing the reality of what was said. And what was it cleared by the White House just months ago.
HUNT: Were you surprised that Tulsi Gabbard was not in this briefing that you received?
REED: No, because I think, again, it the Trump administration is more like a court than an administration. And if you're out of favor, then you don't get to go and participate in things.
HUNT: So, Tulsi Gabbard has been thrown out of Trump's court is how.
REED: I would say, yeah. So at least she's on probation sir.
HUNT: Sir, do you think that the administration was relying more heavily on Israeli intelligence when they launched the strike than they were American? REED: I think they rely on Israeli intelligence, but the collaboration
between the Israeli intelligence and U.S. intelligence has been very close over many, many years. And also, the Israelis have significant insights into Iran. The fact that they had Mossad forces on the ground in Iran is quite a feat, which they accomplished.
So, we listen closely. We make an independent evaluation. I think it was less about the intelligence, and it was more about the political dynamic that was facing Netanyahu, and by the situational relationship. Ultimately, President Trump had to react to.
HUNT: All right. Senator Jack Reed, so grateful to have you on the show, sir.
REED: Thank you.
HUNT: Thank you much for coming. I hope you come back.
All right. Coming up next here, hear the closing arguments from Sean "Diddy" Combs defense team as the jury prepares to decide his fate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:41]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Fidgety and nervous, that's how our reporters inside the courtroom are describing Sean "Diddy" Combs demeanor as his attorney gave closing arguments in his high profile sex trafficking case. High profile, an understatement there.
CNN's Kara Scannell joins us from outside the federal courthouse in New York City. We're also joined by CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson.
Kara, first to you. You were inside the courtroom. Take us through the arguments and the rebuttal from prosecutors.
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, lawyer for Sean Combs really pulled no punches on both the government's theory of this case and the two women who testified as alleged victims, Cassie Ventura and the former girlfriend of Combs, who testified under the pseudonym Jane.
As for the evidence, Combs' attorney said that this case was about personal drug use and a lifestyle that involved threesomes. They said that is not a racketeering conspiracy. And as to the women, they said his lawyer, Combs, his lawyer, said that this these women had the ability to leave these relationships anytime they wanted and that they participated willingly in the freak offs or the hotel nights where they had sex with prostitutes, male prostitutes particular to Cassie.
Combs's attorney said that she had a lot of agency that she was dating Kid Cudi the rapper, at the same time she was dating Sean Combs. He said she was beautiful. She was sexy, that she was not afraid of anything or anyone. And he said that she was keeping it gangster by dating both of these men, including by having a burner phone to conceal the relationships between each of them.
As for Jane, he said that she was motivated by money that she liked nice things. He also said that it was possible that this fight that we heard about in June of 2024 at Jane's house, where Jane testified that combs then forced her to have a hotel night with a male escort. They argued that jane was perhaps setting up that night by initiating a fight with Combs. So, it was something that she could use later.
Now, on the government's rebuttal, they said that it was ridiculous to think that these women wanted to participate in this, and that they were motivated by money. And they also said it was preposterous that Combs didn't know that they no longer wanted to participate in these nights, even if they did, at one point -- Kasie.
HUNT: Okay. So, Joey, as a criminal defense attorney, what did you think of the defense team's argument that prosecutors exaggerated this case.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So, Kasie, I think that it was predicated upon two real things. The first thing is, is that when you have a RICO situation, you have a conspiracy, arguably, where you have people who are in your enterprise, who are conspiring that is agreeing with you to engage in illegality and in these cases, generally, what you see is you see people who turn states evidence.
What does that mean? It means a person who is close to you in your inner circle, testifying about the terrible things that you both plotted to do. In this particular case, and you generally see a lot more defendants sitting at the table. In this particular case, there's Diddy, and it wasn't that other people in his organization didn't testify. But the defenses argument was they mostly admired him, and we didn't see them coming in to bury him.
And so, with respect to a generalized RICO case, Kasie, it's not really the conventional case we see. And I think that's what they were trying to say.
The second thing, I think they were trying to make the argument with really relates to the issue of the whole coercion and what they have been saying and the theory of the government, Kasie, throughout, right, and the indictment has been that he's had this organization for a decade, more than a decade, and he used it for the purposes of sexual exploitation throughout. But then now the government is arguing that, hey, any one time that you find he coerced either Jane, who was named in one count or another, that you could find him guilty.
And that's why I think they're arguing that the defense that there was an exaggeration here.
HUNT: So, Kara, when is the jury going to start deliberating on this? Do we know?
SCANNELL: So, the judge said that he is going so late in the day and that the government is wrapping up their rebuttal. He said he was going to wait until Monday to instruct the jury on the law, so they would have it fresh in their mind as they embark on deliberations. Now, he also said that he was going to leave it up to the jury to set
their own timetable. So exactly how long this deliberation takes remains to be seen.
HUNT: All right. Kara Scannell, Joey Jackson, thank you both very much for that. Appreciate it.
All right. Coming up, something totally different. The first pictures just coming in of the wedding dress worn by the newly minted Mrs. Jeff Bezos.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:55:57]
HUNT: Oh, we should have come in on the breaking news CNN logo, because look at this. We're getting our first look at the new Mrs. Jeff Bezos and her wedding dress. It's by Dolce and Gabbana.
The cost of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez wedding reportedly around $55 million. This is what the segment is named for. I'm sorry. What?
Earlier, Lauren Sanchez was spotted getting into a water taxi heading to the wedding venue. Oh, actually. That's beautiful. She looks like Jackie O. there.
Here's what you can't see in this video. The two huge diamond rings. It appears Sanchez moved her engagement ring onto her right hand and is sporting a much larger diamond on her left ring finger. I think that has earned a second -- I'm sorry. What? Look at that.
So, let's just put this all in context. According to online wedding registry Zola, the average cost of a wedding in 2024 was $33,000.
Our panel is here. I don't know how many dresses so far that she has worn in the context of this extravagant event.
Annie Karni, you apparently only own one floor length gown. Is that still true?
KARNI: This is my --
HUNT: We have a picture of it. We have a picture of Annie and her wedding dress, and this is because she wore it to work one day.
KARNI: That was in 2019. I was on the Trump trip to Japan. They sent us guidance. The night before that we needed a floor length gown. And I don't have it, I didn't, I still don't have any other ones. So, I put that in my suitcase, I folded it into my suitcase.
THOMPSON: You look great.
KARNI: And I wore it.
But this is why, you know, I don't think Lauren Sanchez could get away with wearing that. This -- this is sort of just like a long white dress.
HUNT: Well, I don't know how you would. I haven't done it in a suitcase on the last second. I'm -- so there, look, here's the cover of "Vogue" with her on the cover.
I mean, it's a beautiful. It's a beautiful, stunning dress. And the one thing though, I do, you know, clearly she's very happy. We wish the happy couple all the best.
There's a reason this is getting protested in Venice, right? Like were at a point in our, you know, in the history of the world where there are billionaires that have so much money that they're spending $55 million on a wedding like this, when a lot of people are struggling to eat and it's not going over well.
THOMPSON: Listen, if you have F-you money, like spend as much money on the wedding as you want, but also the fact that you have that much money to spend on a wedding is why you also have populism on both the left and the right being a huge, powerful force not just in America, but across the entire western world.
SINGLETON: You know what's interesting, though? People are upset about the amount of money that these people are spending. But a Pew Research survey that came out two years ago asked participants if you became wealthy, what would you do? And most of them said they would buy nice houses, planes, and most Americans said, I still want to become wealthy, even though I don't like the wealthy.
So there's still this sort of aspiring thing about wanting to become rich.
HUNT: Well, and of course, you know, Donald Trump is the -- the every man's rich man.
SINGLETON: Yeah. I would just say that your second wedding should be more of your personality than and not as traditional as your first wedding. So, this is obviously being over the top. And I think it encapsulates who they are. And I think to Alex's point, they just don't care. And they're going to do what they want.
HUNT: I mean, I could really just watch these pictures on a loop -- I'll be honest.
KARNI: Watching.
SINGLETON: I just -- I just hope -- I hope --
THOMPSON: I would also say to Shermichael -- to Shermichael's point, I feel like people always wanted to be rich. People always wanted to be successful. But what is different in this context is that the level of inequality, the level of wealth, is so much bigger than we have seen in a century. And that is different.
KARNI: And it's much more obvious because of social media. Right? Instagram and TikTok really puts that on display for people because you go through and you can see everyone in their Birkin bag and their this and their that, and its most of it is fake. But people don't -- on social media don't realize that. And so, it does make people want to be wealthy in a way that they cannot attain.
SINGLETON: Look, even the Republican Party, you had, I think, Senator Josh Hawley advocating for a minimum wage increase. I mean, even Republicans have sort of tussled with this idea of having to change some of our traditionally held previous conservative beliefs to meet this new populist movement to Alex's point.
HUNT: The populism you're talking about.
SINGLETON: Yeah.
HUNT: All right. Jake Tapper standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, our panel could clearly sit here and talk about this wedding all day. But I know you have a lot of other news to get to.
