Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Just In: Trump DOJ Says It Will Abide By Federal Court Ruling Pausing $1.8 Billion "Anti-Weaponization" Fund; Platner's Extramarital Sexting Complicates Key Senate Race; Trump Suggests Canceling Concert For America's 250th Birthday. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 01, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: It's true.
Dominic, before we go. Yay or nay, the finale of "Euphoria", what did you think?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Literally yay or nay? That's all we have time for.
DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE.COM: Oh, I loved it. I'm down. I am -- I am euphoric over the end of "Euphoria". For one reason more -- for two reasons. One, it was really well done. And secondly, nice way to just end it. If you're going to end it, go large or go home.
KEILAR: They went large. All right, big debate on this. We'll bring it to you tomorrow after.
(LAUGHTER)
KEILAR: THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's good to have you with us on this Monday.
We have breaking news as we come on the air. The Justice Department saying just within the last few minutes that it, quote, "strongly disagrees" with a decision to block, at least temporarily, the president's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund, but confirms that they will abide by that decision and put it on pause. This fund is something that's caused major friction among Republicans. It's basically prompted senators to grind things to a halt over concerns the money could go to people who assaulted police officers on January 6th.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told our team on Capitol Hill about an hour ago that the administration should just, quote, shut it down. The House Speaker was at the White House earlier this morning meeting with the president to try and find a way forward. And this new news now comes in from the Justice Department.
Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is going to be here, but we're going to get started with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, what more are we hearing from the administration?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, the statement is incredibly significant for a number of reasons. One, it's still unclear what this means for the fund's future entirely. As you noted, it says the department will abide by the court's ruling, which essentially puts a pause on any kind of work on the fund for the next two weeks. Does that mean eternity? Is that just the next two weeks? That's what we're trying to get to the bottom of right now.
But the reason why this is so significant is the Justice Department wouldn't put out a statement like this without the approval of Donald Trump. This is something that President Trump cares deeply about, this anti-weaponization fund. It's something that he has pushed for.
So the idea that he himself is essentially or would be essentially signing off on anything the Department of Justice puts out about abiding by that, that goes to show you that this pushback we've seen from Capitol Hill, you mentioned some of it, is really getting through to President Trump.
One of the things I want to note is that the Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, also told our colleagues in that conversation that they had spoken -- that he had spoken to President Trump over the weekend about the fund and reiterated his views that it should be completely dropped. We know that Johnson was set to talk to President Trump about that today, to talk about the enormous amount of pushback.
And we've heard from White House allies, from Trump allies, from administration officials themselves all saying that they don't believe that this is a good idea, that while they understand the concept behind it, that there have been enormous -- that because of the enormous amount of pushback, that maybe this wasn't the best time for it.
So it appears as though at least some of that message messaging has gotten through to President Trump. Again, one of the things we aren't clear with is how long this kind of pause on the fund lasts. Is this something to try and get funding passed on Capitol Hill? Remember, the senators had come to a standoff on funding because of this weaponization fund, essentially leaving Capitol Hill a week and a half ago and not holding a vote on that. Or is this something more long term?
And what are the senators going to be demanding any kind of assurance for how long this is going to go on, this pause, is what I'm speaking about at this moment. So that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of right now.
But of course, again, leadership, Republican leadership across the board has been telling President Trump, either pushing back themselves or reiterating to him the views of many members of the caucus.
HUNT: Some pretty serious pushback, not something we always see, but really underscores what's at stake here.
Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for that reporting.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. National political reporter for "Axios" and a CNN political analyst, Alex Thompson; Capitol Hill correspondent for "Puck", Marianna Sotomayor; CNN political commentator for former DNC senior advisor, Xochitl Hinojosa; and former senior advisor to the Trump campaign and a CNN senior political commentator, David Urban.
We are also joined by CNN senior legal analyst, former state and federal prosecutor Elie Honig.
Thank you all for being here today. I really appreciate it.
Elie, let me start with you. Just kind of big picture here, you know, the DOJ puts out this statement. It says they disagree, but they're going to comply. Is -- do they have an option? Like, was not complying an option?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, it's not much of a concession, Kasie. You have to comply with a valid order from a federal district court judge, whether you like it or not. You certainly can appeal.
But coming out with this long announcement, dramatically announcing that they will comply, I think Kristen Holmes' assessment we just heard is spot on. There's got to be a reason for that. There's got to be some signaling and some messaging behind it.
And, Kasie, bigger picture, I think anywhere you turn, political branch, judiciary branch, this slush fund is doomed. It's running into dead ends left and right, and I think it's only a matter of time before the plug gets pulled altogether when you assess the landscape out there.
HUNT: So, David Urban, I mean, from a political perspective, is this exactly what Elie is essentially outlining here? Like, they needed to send a message to Republicans on Capitol Hill so they make a big deal about announcing something that, you know, they have to do?
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I think I'm not so sure. It's like in that Monty Python movie where I'm not dead yet and they're dragging people out to the cart. It may not -- it may not be completely dead, but it's pretty dead.
And I think what's helped in this a little bit is that Mike Johnson maybe talked to the president, John Thune talked to the president. And I don't know how those conversations went, but if I were either of those gentlemen, I would say, hey, listen, you just took out Massie. You really made Nancy Mace angry.
These people are going to go crazy when you get up here. They're going to make this so difficult for us to do. And Thune could have the same discussion. Now we've got all these wildcard Republicans. They're going to make it impossible.
And so, Johnson, neither Johnson nor Thune has to be the bad person in that conversation. If we could point out to the president, it's going to be impossible for us to get this through. So let's focus on something else, right? And maybe the president heard that at this final, you know, finally, and now we have this court order there.
So, you know, Not dead yet, but pretty close to dead.
HUNT: Well, let's look at -- and, David, I really I do take your point on the way you talk to President Trump to try to get to do something if you're a Republican. As many have learned, it can be tricky business.
This is probably not someone he necessarily was listening to as these decisions have been unfolding in Washington, but it's still pretty noteworthy that Donald Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, spoke out over the weekend about this so-called weaponization fund. Here's what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: It's deeply offensive to me that you could have a fund that could even possibly compensate people who assaulted police officers or vandalized the Capitol on January 6th. And I think that's broadly held by most Republicans and most Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: David, let me just stick with you.
URBAN: Well, Mike Pence is like, listen, wait, hold on. You're going to -- you're going to give people who are trying to kill me money? Like, I find that offensive. I think that's Mike Pence's take on it all right.
HUNT: Well, and it seems to be a fair take.
URBAN: I'm not speaking to former vice president, but you don't have to be a genius to kind of get where he's coming from.
HUNT: Yeah. Alex Thompson, when you kind of are reporting and are talking to people on Capitol Hill, Republicans, Democrats, I mean, what do you hear about this fund and why it, more than anything else, has been such a problem for the president?
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, some of this is just timing, and it's a sign that the Republican Senate is no longer a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. And some of that's a consequence of Trump's own actions, because Trump endorsed against Bill Cassidy, against John Cornyn. They only have 53 votes. You also have Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell, who aren't automatic yeses.
They do not have automatically the votes. And so what you're going to see -- you are seeing a Senate Republican leadership pushing back against Trump in a way they used to not because they -- I mean, they've always known that loyalty one-way street with Donald Trump. But Trump is actually going through with it and displacing their own colleagues. And that is part of the reason why you're seeing this.
HUNT: Yeah, we didn't even mention Tom Tillis, who probably is the most freedom of all of them having decided to resign himself. One other person who had some comments about this over the weekend that stuck out to us here at THE ARENA was Jon Ossoff. He's a senator from Georgia. He's, of course, running for reelection, and a big test for him. If he can hang on to this seat in a state like Georgia, his political prospects already starting to generate more chatter about his future.
But certainly, they would be dramatically stronger should he win this race. But it's worth listening to what he had to say over the weekend when he was campaigning in Atlanta. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): He sued the U.S. government he commands for $10 billion.
(BOOS)
OSSOFF: Then he settled the suit with himself to create a $1.8 billion slush fund so he can cut checks to cronies and Jan 6 foot soldiers.
(BOOS)
OSSOFF: The same men who sacked the Capitol to seize the presidency for Donald Trump, who beat police officers with flagpoles built a gallows on the Capitol lawn and hunted the vice president to lynch him. Donald Trump's brown shirts.
He pardoned them and now he wants you to pay them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Xochitl Hinojosa --
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
HUNT: What do you think?
HINOJOSA: That looks like a senator -- great speech. Looks like a senator that is -- will be talked about for 2028, but needs to win his Senate seat first.
[16:10:00]
The interesting part of this is he makes a really good point, is this all started because Donald Trump believed that he needed to give something to his greatest allies? Which is why there is this weaponization committee at the Justice Department for quite some time, where they were trying to dig up, they're looking, frankly, through all of our emails, trying to dig up what could they find? They haven't been able to find out find anything.
So, Todd Blanche was like, we'll do this fund. We'll give these allies some -- some money and hopefully, this will please Donald Trump and I can -- I can continue my job here at the Justice Department.
Now what will be interesting and I was talking to former DOJ officials is whether or not some of these individuals now file claims regardless to the Justice Department and file their own lawsuits and the Justice Department then does not have to disclose whether or not they have actually paid these individuals unless it is through FOIA or congressional oversight.
So I will say Democrats taking the House in November will be key to some of this oversight, because otherwise, I am not sure Republicans will be able to draw any sort of answer out of the Justice Department.
URBAN: There has been a settlement. There have been, you know, they've settled already with Ashley Babbitt's, you know, family for five-some- million dollars roughly. So you can sue the government under normal circumstances and get --
HINOJOSA: Well, they don't have to make it -- they don't have to make it public, which that I think is the big question is how do you note the federal government, whether or not they're giving funds out to these January 6ers?
HUNT: Right, well, and again, I mean, the question surrounding people for whom there is evidence, video of them assaulting police officers as this all unfolded.
Marianna Sotomayor, one piece of the puzzle here is what Democrats have been planning to do in this reconciliation fight. It's all very much down in the weeds, but basically because the Republicans want to do this, they open themselves up to a situation where Democrats get to basically force them to vote on things that otherwise they wouldn't be forced to vote on.
And Chuck Schumer said, you know, we'll be ready to use amendments to try to kill this fund, to put them all on the record on the fund. How much is that playing into all of this?
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK NEWS: I mean, yeah, Democrats are definitely lining up a number of amendments. Just think of, for example, Alyssa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Adam Schiff. They are claiming that they have been, quote/unquote, "weaponized" by the government, because they have been investigated by the government has been weaponized against them, exactly, so they're like, OK, if you are allowing that opportunity for the J-6ers, and why can't we also go ahead and file these same claims? So they are going to be lining up amendments on that front.
Also, there's talk by Republicans still to introduce amendments that potentially prevents any president from creating such a fund. So just because this is going away, it seems for the time being, it is still possible that Republicans put guardrails, especially on the Senate side, on something like this, which will definitely still cause divisions, probably on the House side, but I wouldn't underestimate the leadership's role here. I'm hearing from a number of aides even in the last couple minutes. They're waiting for the White House to tell them what exactly they should be voting on.
But Mike Johnson, I think, it's no coincidence that he was at the White House today and you see these announcements. If there's a leader that Trump still very much listens to, even though his conference may not want him as speaker moving forward, Johnson still has a way with Trump.
HUNT: Yeah.
Elie Honig, can I get you to weigh in on kind of what David was outlining about what is possible and not possible in absence this fund, right, if this is stopped by the courts? I mean, what does happen if someone in the US has a complaint with their government? What recourse do they have to try to fix it?
HONIG: Well, Urban is correct. Ordinarily, people can and do sue the U.S. government if they've been wronged. It could be because of a wrongful prosecution. It could be because they got hit by a U.S. Postal Service truck. It happens all the time.
The way you have to do it is, first of all, you have to have an actual lawsuit. And there was questions about whether Donald J. Trump individual versus Donald J. Trump's IRS counted actual lawsuit. But if you go through with that actual lawsuit, then you can either go to trial or you can reach a settlement.
And yes, DOJ does settle with people all the time. Michael Flynn, for example, got paid reportedly over $1,000,000 separate and apart from and before this whole weaponization fund came about.
Now, there's problems with that. As Xochitl she said, we don't have great transparency. We don't know exactly who or how much money, but that's sort of undermines the craziness of this fund itself. People can put in claims. If they can show they were wronged, they can get paid. It happens all the time.
But I think when this Justice Department took a case that was basically Trump versus Trump and said, now we're going to set up this other massive pool of money that's basically going to be open to people, including violent January 6th rioters, I think it really focused the attention on the special treatment those folks are getting. And I think that's why you're seeing so much pushback in the political spectrum and the legal spectrum as well.
HUNT: All right, Ellie Honig, thank you.
URBAN: I just want to make sure Elie Honig, just -- David Urban was validated by Elie Honig. I take great pleasure of that.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: By the way --
[16:15:00]
URBAN: Elie Honig,
HONIG: David Urban is correct.
URBAN: On the legal -- on the legal theory. Great, thank you.
HONIG: On this one point.
URBAN: My law school professors will be happy that Elle justified my education.
HUNT: Write it down. You heard it here first.
Elie, thank you, sir. Always appreciate having you.
The rest of our panel is going to stick around.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy is here. We're going to get his thoughts on the DOJ fund, as well as the newest scandal engulfing one of his fellow Democrats. It's upending a midterm race that's key to winning control of the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: It's no surprise to me that the establishment media outlets are just going to run gossip instead of wanting to talk about the things that actually matter in this race, which are the real -- the material realities that the Mainers are working with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:10]
HUNT: All right. More now on that breaking news on the Trump administration's anti-weaponization fund. The Department of Justice now saying it will abide by a ruling pausing the effort. That decision also coming amid significant backlash from Senate Republicans over the fund.
And joining us now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He is also the author of the new book "Crisis of the Common Good: The Fight for Meaning and Connection in a Broken America".
Senator, thanks very much for spending some time with us today.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Yeah, thanks for having me.
HUNT: I want to start on some of the news that we've been following, which is these questions about the weaponization fund that the president has launched. There, of course, was a court order that says essentially that they can't do it. The question now, if the White House is going to comply, what's your of whether they will. MURPHY: Well, I guess there's some reporting suggesting that the White House is going to comply. I love that that's news, that we have to wonder whether the president is going to comply with a lawful court order.
Of course this fund is illegal. The president of the United States cannot just dip his mitts into the Treasury, scoop out $1.8 billion to give to police beaters or to give to his buddies or his family. Like, that's not how the law works.
And so, of course, the court is telling him he can't do it, but we're going to still force votes on this. Republicans are trying to move this big immigration funding package through Congress, and we are definitely going to put language in that bill that says, regardless of what the court says, these kind of funds where the president is just trying to reward his political loyalists with your taxpayer dollars are illegal.
So this story is definitely not done yet.
HUNT: Are you confident that Republicans are going to have to go on the record one way or the other?
MURPHY: I think they are definitely going to have to go on the record, regardless of what the president says about this court case. And my hope is that they see how deeply immoral and politically toxic this is. I mean, the American people get this. Like, $6 a gallon at the pump, and the president seems to be spending all of his time enriching himself. His corruption is more difficult to avoid these days because it's happening at a time when people are getting screwed out there in the economy.
HUNT: Take us behind the scenes. I mean, this has obviously been a perennial theme of both Trump terms, but there are now a couple of Republicans who are, shall we say, less encumbered than they previously were because they've lost elections or they're leaving the Senate. Have Democrats heard from any of them about ways to push back? What is going on behind the scenes?
MURPHY: I mean, listen, it's just a little heartbreaking to me that it takes losing a primary election to decide to do the right thing. It exposes how immoral a lot of their decision-making has been that they know that what he's doing is wrong, but they are voting with him just because their political party is a cult.
The problem is it's such a small number of Republicans. So we bring a resolution every week in the Senate to end the Iran war. And slowly but surely, we're getting more Republicans voting with us, in part because of some of these primaries. But we need 10, 15, 20 Republicans to vote with us to be able to override a presidential veto.
So, yeah, it's newsy when one or two or three vote against him, but it's really not meaningful until they decide en masse that what he's doing is bad for the country and wildly corrupt.
HUNT: So the theme of your book, and it touches on kind of what you were just saying about morality immorality, is partly, you know, who our leaders are. And Mitt Romney, who you served with, of course, I covered his presidential campaign. He gave a speech, a commencement speech, where he talked about what kind of leaders we need.
I want to play a little bit of that and ask you about it, and we'll talk about it either side. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: There's more to a country than its economy. To be a great nation, it must also be a good nation, a shining city on a hill, if you will. The world needs good men. It needs good women, good leaders, good parents raising good children.
There is no national success that could compensate for failure to be a good and noble people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: You, of course, reposted these remarks. Do you think they should apply to everyone in politics, regardless of party?
MURPHY: So I'm glad he said that. But my contention is that we have an economy and a culture that does not reward good men right now, in fact, rewards immoral people.
The case I'm making in this book is that Trump didn't break this country. Our decision to reward profit and extraction and abuse of workers has broken this country. Our decision to license technologies that cycles (ph) into existences of withdrawal has ruined this country.
We need to change the rules so that, for instance, if you're a CEO of a company, you decide that you are going to promote your workers' health, that you're going to be country. We need to change the rules so that, for instance, if you're a CEO of a company, you decide that you are going to promote your workers' health, that you're going to be good to the community you live in.
Today, our economy says if you make a giant profit, you're a great company, even if you treat your workers terribly. So I think it's hard to just say everybody should be good and moral. I think you've got to create a set of rules that promote goodness, promote the common good. And that's what this book is really about, how you rebuild the economy and rebuild the culture so that we reward connection and positive action and investment in people and communities, not just extraction.
HUNT: So there's been so much focus on Donald Trump, as many Democrats would say he's an immoral force. You say he's a symptom of all of this.
Democrats are running a Senate candidate in Maine who had a Nazi tattoo that he did eventually cover up, but only after having it for many years. Recently, there's been reporting that he was sending sex text messages after he was married.
Should those rules apply to Democrats, too? I mean, do you support Graham Platner even in, in the wake of all of this.
MURPHY: Yeah, I mean, I haven't followed them minute by minute of what's happened over the last few days, but I do think there's a difference. I mean, Platter has admitted that he's made big mistakes. He's talked pretty openly about them.
You know, on the older ones that I know more about, like the tattoo or some of the things he posted online, he said, listen, I was in a really bad place in my life. I regret it. That's fundamentally different than what Donald Trump is doing and saying. Donald Trump doesn't admit any wrongdoing in his life. He lies about everything.
I think people understand in Maine that Platner has made mistakes. He seems to still have a lot of support. And it does seem to me that it's a distinction with a difference between what's happening in Maine and what's happening at the White House.
HUNT: I want to play what Jake Auchincloss, he's a congressman, but a Democrat from your neck of the woods and nearby, anyway, in Massachusetts about Platner. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): I find that tattoo and his commentary about it to be personally disqualifying. I hope Maine voters agree with me. I think it would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to think that Graham Platner's brand of the Democratic Party is what wins us durable majorities throughout this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And of course, he's talking about the tattoo specifically, which according to some CNN research, Platner knew in 2019 that it was a Nazi symbol. It took him years after that to cover it up.
But you feel comfortable with his -- the way he talks about it?
MURPHY: Well, I think the contrast in Maine is pretty clear, right? You have somebody that has served his country, put his life on the line for his country, served his community, has made mistakes in his life and been open about that, running against somebody who is enabling the most corrupt and immoral administration in the history of this country. That's a pretty clear contrast.
I don't know what Jake's recommendation is if he thinks the people of Maine should vote for Susan Collins. I think that's not the right way to go for this country. But yeah, I think that there's lots of different ways to display character, and standing up to corruption is one way to do it.
HUNT: You don't see it as an example, or do you -- I should rephrase, do you see this race as an example of a situation where people have to choose their political tribe over potentially their moral feelings? Because isn't that the issue?
MURPHY: Yeah, I don't -- I'm just going to be honest. Like I don't -- I'm not spending a ton of time thinking about the dynamics of the Maine Senate race. I know it occupies a lot of time on cable news.
But I do think that people want authenticity today. They want people to show who they are. They want people to admit mistakes.
Folks in Maine will make their own decision. But I think that part of the reason that Platner has been able to continue a big lead in the polls despite admitting and talking about these mistakes is because he has been open about it, again, in contrast to Donald Trump, who is denying and hiding the most massive set of corruption schemes in the history of this country. To me, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison at all.
HUNT: This book makes fascinating points, including talking about how some anecdotes about our communities, your community, and how it's affected by big money, by all of these themes that you've been talking about. Does this lay the groundwork for a Chris Murphy presidential run?
MURPHY: I don't know what I'm going to do, but that's certainly not the intents. I just want us to understand that our job is not just to beat Donald Trump, that we have a set of rules in our economy and our culture that is making us unhappy, that is causing us to feel lonelier as a people than ever before, and that we have to rebuild a culture, an economy, a government of the common good. I've gotten a couple texts from friends of mine who I definitely know are running for president in 2028.
[16:30:00]
HUNT: There's a few of you.
MURPHY: And they've said, yeah, listen, I think you've -- I think you're really talking about the underlying crisis in the country and this would be a useful way for us to talk as we head into 2028. If that's a service I'm providing, this book is worth it.
HUNT: All right. Senator Chris Murphy, congratulations on the book.
MURPHY: Thanks.
HUNT: Thank you very much.
MURPHY: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Our thanks to Chris Murphy.
Coming up next here, what the top Democrat in the Senate is now saying and not saying about Graham Platner. That's just coming in.
Plus, why multiple artists are now RSVPing no to the country's big birthday party and why the president says he wants to cancel it and throw a party of his own instead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANILLA ICE, RAPPER: I'm honored and I just, you know, I -- I respect everybody else. I know there's a lot of tension everywhere. This whole world is like a snow globe, but it shouldn't be that. And music is here to bring people together, man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:16]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are there other skeletons from your past that still may emerge in this race?
PLATNER: No.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Is there something new you want to get ahead of?
PLATNER: No. I mean, like, we've, I've been -- I've lived my life. I know what I've -- what I've been through. I know what I've -- my behavior has been. I know all of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The presumptive Democratic Senate nominee in Maine, Graham Platner, has repeatedly said there would be no more scandals.
But over the weekend, multiple news outlets reported that Platner's wife, Amy Gertner, told a campaign aide last year that her husband sent sexually explicit messages to other women early in their marriage. The couple was married in 2023.
In a statement provided to CNN, Gertner said she felt deeply hurt and betrayed by the former campaign aide who spoke to news outlets about the messages. She also released a five-minute video after news broke defending their marriage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMY GERTNER, GRAHAM PLATNER'S WIFE: No marriage is perfect and I -- I don't want a perfect marriage. I want my marriage, and I want to be married to Graham. I knew the man that I married had been through an immense amount of violent, active combat, and he's been in therapy for years. I just, I admire the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) out of him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So both Platner and his wife trying to do damage control, calling it gossip and a distraction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: It's no surprise to me that the establishment media outlets are just going to run gossip instead of wanting to talk about the things that actually matter in this race, which are the real -- the material realities that the Mainers are working with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: My panel is back. That's a modern-day stand by your man moment.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. I don't I love it. I don't think that -- I'm not going to sit here and defend any man and their actions, but to put your spouse out there to -- really put your spouse out there and have them be sort of the first voice from your campaign is doing a lot for, you know, not only to your relationship, but also to your spouse.
I think that -- listen, they knew about this from the beginning and there are opposition research books that come out. It looks sounds like a campaign aide or the Amy Platner disclosed this. And so whenever you say this is gossip or this is just the media, you blame the media. It is -- it's not necessarily fair to do that. You knew this was going to come out at some point. Your campaign should have been prepared for it. And if you don't like it getting coverage, then maybe you should have never run in the first place.
And so I think that is what's at stake here. But at the same time, I mean, whether or not voters care about this, I'm not sure. With costs being high, this is his own personal marriage, as they've talked about. That has been the messaging from the campaign.
But you also had Janet Mills go out and say, I'm still on the ballot, which I found very interesting as well. So I think there are going to be some interesting dynamics over the next few months. And it'll really be up to voters about whether this means anything to them or whether they care about cost of living.
HUNT: And the laws in Maine do suggest that it's maybe not set in stone or doesn't have to be set in stone.
And, Alex Thompson, what are you hearing from Democrats about this?
THOMPSON: Well, there's deep concern because this is just the latest crack in what was a very well-crafted brand that has been put forward. You know, it was not this that inserted his wife the first time.
Graham Platner inserted his wife into this campaign from the very beginning. They'd been talking very openly about some fertility issues. He had made his marriage part of his pitch. And now you're seeing some more complications to that.
He obviously has presented himself as an oyster farmer. But then the financial disclosures come out and it shows that his income comes from disability and that the oyster farm that he works on doesn't really make much money and often is supplying his mom's restaurant.
You also have that, you know, he introduced himself as a working class Mainer. He, you know, at one point went to Hotchkiss Prep School. You know, he said that he got a $200,000 loan from the V.A. for his first house. Then it comes out that actually you know, his dad loaned him the money. And so, there -- this is why there's been concern, because he's a
first-time candidate. There's going to be incredible scrutiny in this race, because Maine, if Democrats do not flip Maine, it's almost impossible for them to retake the Senate. And that's why there's going to be tens of millions of dollars in extra scrutiny on this race.
HUNT: Well, and what you just laid out there, Alex, it strikes me one of the things that people have been saying when they praise Platner and his campaign is that he presents as authentic, right?
[16:40:06]
And the way he talks to people and the way his brand is consumed on their phones is authentic. But what you just laid out is essentially a list of inauthenticities.
THOMPSON: Which I think is why -- like, what every Democrat I've talked to the last 24 hours is saying is what else is out there. Because in addition to the authenticity, as you played the clips earlier, he said nothing else is going to come out. And most Democrats right now do not believe him.
URBAN: Look, the guy's a fake. He's a fraud.
The -- our KFILE, you know, you look at it says, he says, I didn't know it was a Nazi tattoo. Yet in his Reddit posts and files, he admits that he did, right? He downplays sexual assault on women.
I mean, there's an exhaustive list. Alex could have gone on for, I would cede my time and let him continue on, right?
The guy's a fraud. He's a fake. There'll be so many ads against this guy that he's going to collapse. He will not be the next senator from Maine.
Susan Collins will be there. Democrats should I don't want to get the game plan to win because I want Susan Collins to win, but I would not be voting for this joker.
HUNT: What are you hearing --
SOTOMAYOR: I mean, Alex is totally right. It's exactly what I'm hearing from Democrats. They're wondering what else could happen and what else is going to come once this primary is over and he is likely to be the nominee.
I mean, the thing that Democrats have to, I think, contend with is for years they have been so critical of Trump, right? His personal life and all of the liabilities there, Republicans they've been critical of Republicans always standing by him.
Well, you have some congressmen, you have some people more privately saying, why should we be standing behind a flawed candidate if we've been so critical of Republicans doing the same? While at the other side, you have Democrats saying, well, because Republicans have been standing by candidates until the end who could potentially win. We might as well back someone like Platner.
HUNT: I mean, Ken Paxton did just win his Republican primary.
(CROSSTALK)
URBNA: But if you stack up -- if you stack up the Paxton versus the -- this guy, I mean, it is, I think. Platner's got the OED of flaws.
HUNT: I mean, he did have an indictment and impeachment and then a wife divorced him on, quote/unquote, biblical grounds.
URBAN: But if you look, I mean, they didn't have the KFILE's worth of a few --
HINOJOSA: Hold on, but Kasie just played, Kasie just played clips that, and there are Democrats that are out there saying that this is unacceptable. You don't see that on the Republican side. Now that Paxton is the nominee --
HUNT: Except for John Cornyn.
HINOJOSA: Except for John Cornyn, say that.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: But now the Paxton's nominee, they are falling in line behind him and now going after Talarico and they're like wait, what? We don't you don't even care about this actions --
URBAN: Again, in totality if you combine them again one is this high. So one is like you know the cliff notes of bad and one is the OED of --
HINOJOSA: Don't even get me, sir, on Donald Trump was indicted and the Epstein files. I mean, the Epstein --
THOMPSON: One thing I just want to add about Platner. My colleague Hans Nichols just reported that Platner is actually coming to DC tomorrow to meet with Democratic senators and do some fundraising and I imagine the meetings will be at times contentious or have very probing questions.
URBAN: And by the way, these are the things that get out before the primary, right? Before he can still get out, Janet Mills can still be the nominee. Once he's locked in, I think the dams will open. There are going to be more bad things coming. So if you're Platner, go back to oyster farm.
HUNT: Well, have to decide whether you're ready to go through all of it.
All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, the newest drama over the country's 250th birthday and what the president says he wants the party to look like.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:47:57]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG BURGUM, INTERIOR SECRETARY: I can't wade into the politics of musicians because, you know, some musicians want to play music for everybody and some musicians seem to have segmented their audiences the same way politicians have. But this is Freedom 250 and the celebration of the 250 is a nonpartisan event. And I would encourage, you know, everybody in America to get out, celebrate in your own way, celebrate in your own community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was the Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum, saying that the events planned to commemorate America's 250th birthday are, quote, "nonpartisan". This after a majority of the artists who were slated to perform in a Trump affiliated concert series dropped out, with some claiming they were misled.
On Saturday, the president took to social media to mock those performers, saying that they were, quote, "getting the yips". In the same post, he also proposed replacing them with, quote, "the number one attraction, the man who gets much larger audiences than Elvis in his prime." You, of course, guessed it, that would be Trump himself.
Later that day, in a separate but equally lengthy post, the president openly mused about canceling the concert series altogether and replacing it with a Make America Great Again rally. Now, I'm just going to take this and segue straight into a previous guest who was just on an hour or so ago with my colleague Brianna Keilar, Vanilla Ice, who is still reportedly performing or slated to perform at this concert. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANILLA ICE, RAPPER: That's all we're doing is celebrating the birthday of our country. What's the big deal here? And as far as entertainers, I don't think it's fair to put any of us on a pedestal like that as far as politics goes, because it shouldn't matter. We're just here to play. I'd play for anybody. So it's, you know, I go play for Biden's family or anybody. It doesn't matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I'm here for the selfie live shot.
URBAN: I love it. I love the Vanilla Ice is there. He's like, he's happy to be relevant.
HUNT: I did look up at my TV and think, wait, is this live? Is this live? Is this happening live?
URBAN: I love it.
HUNT: But David, I mean, what do you make of this? That, you know -- [16:50:00]
URBAN: Look, I think -- I agree with Secretary Burgum there. I didn't know that there was a partisan celebration. I think that before this all happened, I don't think that President Trump was out there saying, come celebrate at my party versus this other party. I was completely unaware of that. And so --
HUNT: he does seem to be treating it a little bit like his party.
URBAN: Well, now -- well, now it's being treated that way. But the flip side is these -- the talent that originally signed up for it, they don't have managers? They didn't read a contract? They didn't understand what it was for?
I mean, and not to knock C+C Music Factory, some of these people that backed out, but do their fan-- does their fan base really care that they show up at something? I think it's really a mistake for them not to seize the opportunity. And I would say the flip side is for the Trump-aligned organization, this celebration, they should just go to Nashville, go to some -- go on -- go on TikTok and say, would you like to show up?
I bet there's plenty of folks in America that would welcome an opportunity to show up at this concert and perform and be known and help celebrate our country's 250th anniversary. I don't think it was a Trump thing. Trump's now making it a thing about himself. I don't think he was going to show up and sing.
THOMPSON: I think you can forgive people for being a little bit skeptical of whether or not this is America's birthday party or Trump's, given that he has a commemorative coin, he has a $250 bill, that he is hosting a UFC fight on the White House lawn.
There is example after example of not just, you know, the part like the partisan entities, the Republican National Committee, but also the parts of the federal government that are very much leaning into this being a celebration of Trump's stewardship of America for the 250th.
HINOJOSA: It's also Trump's 80th birthday. It is a milestone birthday. And so I am sure that the president would like to celebrate in fashion. But what has happened is turned into FRY Fest instead of this like celebration for Donald Trump.
URBAN: That's obscure reference no one's going to get.
HINOJOSA: People know what it is. People know.
HUNT: It did take me a second, but yes, I do.
HINOJOSA: It is FRY Fest, yeah, so --
HUNT: Let's watch what some of the late-night hosts had to say about this lineup that was announced and has mostly since then been canceled. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN OLIVER, HOST, "LAST WEEK TONIGHT WITH JOHN OLIVER": It is a stacked lineup of people that you haven't thought about since 2009. Honestly, that sounds less like America's 250th birthday and more like the playlist at Rhonda's 50th.
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!": This is a big concert in Washington on July 4th to celebrate our 250 years, and what a lineup they have. This is like Coachella for bands that hired their cousin as their tour manager.
BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": After they announced this all-star lineup, a lot of them said, no, what are you talking about? We're not playing. That's got to hurt a lot when you can't close the deal with Milli Vanilli.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
URBAN: Half of it.
HUNT: I mean, David, I will say --
URBAN: Milli Vanilli.
HUNT: Half a Million, yes, half.
URBAN: Only the Vanilli part, yeah.
HUNT: One half was coming.
URBAN: Yeah, only the Vanilli was coming. That was it. The other guy didn't even sing.
HUNT: I mean, listen, David, I take your point. Like young artists from Nashville, people who want the exposure, sure. But this is a president who, you know, was firmly formed in the '70s and '80s and early '90s, which I think is reflecting the --
URBAN: The playlist.
I've been to a lot of rallies, right? There's a lot of that. But if that was the case, if you were picking music, we'd have Andre Bocelli playing, right? We'd have a different play. We'd have Elton John. Bocelli, we have a lot of different mix.
Listen, I think it's a missed opportunity for a lot of people. I think we shouldn't -- we shouldn't lose, you know, the focus on this is.
Look, I get the UFC fight. I get there's the -- you know, the coin like this to that. I think this concert was something different. I think they it was made political because of it and it's a shame there are people. A lot of people are going to miss things out on the mall.
Are the car drivers not going to come drive on the mall for the Indy Car race that we're having because it's a kind of a Trump administration-sponsored event? I hope people come and celebrate our nation's 250th birthday. I hope they take advantage of it. If it's a Trump administration, you know, they're putting it on doing it. I think people should say, great, come and enjoy it. It's an opportunity.
HUNT: Marianna, when you talk to folks on the Hill, I mean, Democrats in particular, right? I mean, listen, it is the 250th birthday of the country, right? This should be an opportunity for people to celebrate the place where they, where we've all lived and, enjoyed the freedom that so many people have fought for. But it's a reflection of how divided our times are that I imagine if you went up on the Hill and asked how many, you know, Democrats are you going to the events, you'd probably get a lot of no's or a labor on the other way.
SOTOMAYOR: You're absolutely right there, because I don't think they want to be involved. And they would probably say, well, did you see all the celebrities saying that they were misled? This is probably just going to be a Trump vanity project. So if Democrats are already thinking of it that way, they're probably not going to show up.
I don't even know how many Republicans, frankly, are going to go. They might want to go back to their own districts and have their own 4th of July parades and all of that. So I mean, we will see what the reaction is going to be.
HINOJOSA: They should have been for military families. That's what they should have been.
[16:55:00]
URBAN: Well, they are. If you look at the UFC fight is going to be -- all military families on the South Lawn. If you're some hoi polloi, you can't get in, it's only for military families.
HINOJOSA: So Trump's donors and friends will not be invited?
URBAN: Well, some of the UFC -- some of the UFC people were, but it's primarily most of the tickets are going to military families. There they are.
HUNT: Appreciate that.
All right. On that note, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right, thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate all of you joining us today.
Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. Really appreciate you.
Don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
