Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Sources Say, Early U.S. Intel Suggests Strikes Did Not Destroy Iran's Nuclear Sites; Voters Head To Polls In New York City Mayoral Democratic Primary; Defense Calls Zero Witnesses, Rests After 30 Minutes; NTSB Blames Boeing And FAA For 2024 Door Plug Blowout; Bobby Sherman, Teen Idol In The 1960s and '70s, Dies At 81. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 24, 2025 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, the United States strikes on Iran did not destroy their nuclear sites, instead only setting back their program months. That is according to an early U.S. intelligence assessment, an assessment described the CNN by sources briefed on the information. The White House strongly pushing back tonight. But what does it all mean for the next steps here?

Plus, this new reporting comes as President Trump is overseas, meeting with key allies at NATO meeting. He's claiming responsibility for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. But will it hold?

Also, we are finally getting answers as to what went so terrifyingly wrong when a door blew off an Alaska Airlines flight last year. What investigators are saying today about who is to blame and how they're working to make sure this never happens again.

And a major development today in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs, the defense resting its case without calling any witnesses. Now, it's time for closing arguments before the case heads to the jury. And our team who has been watching the entire trial is here to break it all down.

The Lead Tonight, what could be a major blow to how President Trump has declared the results of those strikes in the decision to bomb nuclear sites in Iran. An early U.S. intelligence assessment shows the strikes dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear program and only set it back by months. This, of course, despite Trump's insistence, the strikes, quote, completely obliterated the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.

The first on CNN reporting comes as a shaky late night ceasefire between Iran and Israel appears to be holding, and both countries declared decisive victories.

We start things off with CNN's Kaitlan Collins, who's traveling with the president at the NATO summit. Kaitlan, do we have any sits right now of what White House officials think about this intelligence assessment?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we haven't heard from President Trump directly on this, Phil. I imagine we could, given he has been quite defensive about what exactly he believes those strikes on Saturday night that he ordered against Iran, something he had been deliberating for several days, what the effect of those strikes were.

And so we are hearing from several White House officials maintaining that they did have major impact and that they were effective in achieving the president's goals here. But this early assessment that we are getting from the Defense Intelligence Agency that finds that the core components of Israel's nuclear program were not destroyed and the strikes that happened on those three sites on Saturday night likely only set their nuclear program back several months is obviously a stark change compared to what we've been hearing the president himself say, where he came out so early on before any assessment had really been done at length by an intelligence agency, saying that he believed that it had completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. He has since used phrases like totally destroyed, something that he maintained, as he was leaving the White House to come here to the Netherlands earlier today.

And so it remains to be seen his view of this. Obviously, he has doubted U.S. intelligence before much less, but just one early assessment that we are getting from the DIA. But we are hearing from the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, who provided a statement to CNN when we took this reporting to them from our colleagues, Katie Bo Lillis and Natasha Bertrand. She said this alleged assessment is flat out wrong and was classified as top secret, but she noted it was still leaked to CNN by what she calls an anonymous low level loser in the intelligence community. She says the leaking is a clear attempt to demean the president and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program.

Again, she is repeating there in that statement what the president himself has been saying. Not just that this was severely damaged or set back, but that it was completely obliterated. Right now, that is not what the intelligence in this DIA report shows. Though I did talk to some officials who said, obviously, the entire intelligence community will continue to assess this, so are the Israelis, so are the Iranians themselves in the days following that strike.

And so we'll see what that says, of course, Phil, and also what the president himself has to say about this analysis.

MATTINGLY: Yes, I suspect that's coming sooner rather than later. Kaitlan Collins for us in the Netherlands, thanks so much. Of course, don't miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. That's tonight and every weeknight at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

We turn now to CNN's Fred Pleitgen, who is live in Iran's capital, Tehran. Fred, what are you hearing from Iranian officials tonight?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, the Iranians certainly aren't saying that their nuclear program was completely obliterated by the structure of the Trump administration. In fact, there's sort of three arguments that we're hearing from Iranian leaders and also from Iranian specialists who are dealing with all of this.

[18:05:01]

First of all, the Iranians are saying that not all the sites were destroyed. There was one person within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who said that a site like Fordow, for instance, which is, of course, probably the most fortified of those sites because it's inside a mountain, can't be destroyed by one single strike, that it's simply is too much of a hardened place.

They also say that at many of these sites, a lot of the sensitive things that were in there, like, for instance, the centrifuges and some of the other gear would have been moved by the Iranians before actually those strikes could have taken place.

The Iranians also saying that even if some of the things at those sites were destroyed, the knowledge is still there. They have, of course, a lot of experience within their nuclear program. They have a lot of experience also moving that nuclear program forward over the past couple of decades. And despite the fact the Iranians are saying that several of their nuclear scientists were killed in the early stages of Israel's bombing campaign, they say the knowledge is still there, the knowledge will persevere, and therefore their nuclear program really hasn't been set back that far, if at all.

It was quite interesting because the president of this country, Masoud Pezeshkian, he had several phone calls with leaders of the Gulf region throughout the course of the day. And he also there said that the Iranians will continue to pursue, as he put it, their legitimate interests fight for their legitimate interests. They are, however, also willing to speak about those legitimate interests and defend them, as he put it, at the negotiating table.

But certainly, the Iranians are saying that for them, their nuclear program is a red line. Nuclear enrichment continues to be a red line. It's something that they want to continue, and, in effect, they are saying that their nuclear program is far from obliterated and very much still alive and they say will continue. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Fred Pleitgen for us in Iran, thanks so much.

Let's turn out a CNN's Clarissa Ward in Tel Aviv. Clarissa, Prime Minister Netanyahu praised President Trump for his historic, in his words, involvement in the Iran conflict this evening. What are Israeli officials saying right now about their read of things on the ground?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we haven't heard any comments from any Israeli officials, Phil, with regards to this report that was leaked to CNN first. Unsurprisingly, perhaps it actually came out just in the minutes after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had delivered a pretty bombastic victory speech saying that effectively Iran's nuclear program had been laid waste to and vowing that if Iran tries to resurrect it in any way, shape, or form, that Israel will respond with force.

We don't really expect, I don't think at this stage, to hear more than that. Israel really focused on projecting an image, particularly internally, that this has been a great success. We heard today as well, the home front command has now lifted the state of emergency orders, schools are reopening, the airport is reopening. There's a sense that people are going back to work and going about their daily lives. And even the IDF, Phil, earlier on this evening, the chief of staff talked about now the focus is back to Gaza in terms of both toppling Hamas and also bringing home the hostages. 50 Israeli hostages still inside Gaza, 20 of whom I believe are presumed to be alive.

And so there is a hope from some across this region now, Phil, that potentially there will be a moment to try to get everybody's focus back to the situation in Gaza. More than 860 Gazans were killed during the course of this 12-day back and forth conflict between Israel and Iran. A lot of people very keen now to see all minds focused back on trying to negotiate or facilitate some kind of a ceasefire. That's still very early days but certainly hopes high.

And we heard from some of the family members of those hostages today saying that they would implore Israel's leadership to extend that ceasefire between Iran and Israel to Gaza as well. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Clarissa Ward for us in Israel, thanks so much.

Well, joining us now to discuss Republican from Ohio, Congressman Mike Turner. Congressman, I really appreciate your time here and also your expertise in this space based on your role on the House Intelligence Committee for so many years.

Just to start, what is your sense of this reporting of what CNN has in the DIA analysis?

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): Okay. Well, first let's understand that this, what the reporting, is about a leaked report. So, we don't have the report. We don't know what the report itself actually says. But then let's go to the next step is that we have this headline that CNN is reporting. What the headline says, U.S. bombs did not destroy Iran's nuclear sites, early intel suggests.

What's troubling about that headline, and, Phil let's try to, you know, get us all back on track here, is that that headline is not fake news, but it's not news because the administration did not say that the bombs destroyed Iran's nuclear sites.

[18:10:02]

I have in front of me the president's statement and the president said that they had sent -- they had carried out massive precision strikes on three key nuclear facilities. And at that nuclear facility, the objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity right at those facilities.

He then went on to say that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities at those sites were completely and totally obliterated. He didn't say the sites were completely obliterated. The sites actually are massive and are huge and facilities are huge. So, Iran's nuclear sites, as CNN's headline says, were not destroyed or completely obliterated. No one is saying that. So, it's not that it's not that it's fake news, it's just not news.

The problem is a bunker-buster, which is 30,000 pounds, does obliterate its target. Now, we all know that these bombs hit their target. They hit the enrichment facilities. Enrichment facilities and nuclear facilities are very fragile, they're very specific, and it obliterated those facilities that they targeted. No one is arguing if they didn't hit the targets they intended. No one argued that they didn't -- that the United States didn't know the targets that they were hitting, and we didn't -- no one's arguing that they didn't have the desired effect on those targets.

MATTINGLY: I mean, I think the reporting in the actual story itself, based on what my colleagues received, was that the scale of the effect on the intended targets here, not the entire nuclear facility.

TURNER: Well, actually, that's not true. CNN is actually reporting the sites itself. Now, The Washington Post is correctly reporting, and this is what the IAEA is reporting, the International Atomic Energy is reporting, and this is really where the discussion here needs to be, what then the CNN needs to be its discussion on, is that Iran's program and its nuclear sites are much vast, are much greater.

MATTINGLY: Sure.

TURNER: Washington Post is reporting there are actually 30 sites, that aren't just the three that we attacked, that aren't just the three enrichment facilities that we had precision attacks on. And as The Washington Post is reporting, using the same information that CNN has been all day trying to discredit President Trump for, which, by the way, President Trump did not say the nuclear sites were destroyed --

MATTINGLY: Respectfully, and --

TURNER: I have his statement in front of me.

MATTINGLY: I understand that. I think the --

TURNER: And you can play it, you can play his statement.

MATTINGLY: I'm not questioning what was said --

TURNER: And put it against your headline, and he didn't say this.

MATTINGLY: What I'm saying is there is a difference between how the chairman of the Joint Chiefs described the operation and how it was described by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump.

My point here --

TURNER: And President Trump's statement is key, not meaning all.

MATTINGLY: The DIA --

TURNER: Not key, not meaning all, nuclear enrichment facilities, not as you're saying, nuclear sites have been completely and totally obliterated.

But the key where we need to be today, which is what then President Trump went on to say, which is what CNN should be reporting about, is Iran remains a threat even with the attack that occurred today. And President Trump, by the way, this is not like he just became president. He was president in his first term. This is a continuation of his policies before. Iran remains a threat, diplomacy is going to have to occur. Their nuclear sites are vast beyond just these, their nuclear capabilities. Their program is beyond just these sites. Their threat is beyond.

MATTINGLY: Do you feel like those caveats have been made clear by the president?

TURNER: Yes, absolutely. He says right here, tonight, I can report to the world that strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely, totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. They must not --

MATTINGLY: Enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

TURNER: By these -- but that is exactly -- he says right here, our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity at these facilities, at these facilities, I believe where these bombs hit, that where these bombs hit and exploded, that they were obliterated. And as The Washington Post is reporting, these were not their total and only facilities.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you a question? Because I feel like we're wandering into and I think we've known each other for many years.

TURNER: Absolutely.

MATTINGLY: The extent of this operation, your understanding of it beforehand, because this is something that's been in the U.S. government and table topped and planned for many, many years before the president decided to hit the green light.

TURNER: Right. I have two decades been involved intelligence --

MATTINGLY: I'm asking was there ever any expectation that it would obliterate the nuclear enrichment program, that it would devastate or destroy all of the capability that Iran has?

TURNER: I do not believe that President Donald Trump has ever said that if you hit these three enrichment facilities that you would eliminate -- you know, I'm answering your question -- that you would eliminate the ability for Iran to be a threat and with its nuclear program, that it would still take diplomacy, which is what he calls for. [18:15:03]

Then he says, if not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier. I think he has foreshadowed and he has said they need to come to the table.

The fact that your reporting is if, like it's some surprise that we need to continue --

MATTINGLY: But that's why I'm asking for, clarity in terms of understanding going into this expectations coming out of it.

TURNER: This is not a failure of these attacks.

MATTINGLY: No is saying that. I'm not --

TURNER: It's not a failure.

MATTINGLY: I quite literally have never said it's a failure, and I don't think the story reflects failure too.

TURNER: This is the recognition of the fact that you can hit these three sites and be incredibly successful, which this was, and Iran will remain a threat and we are going to have to continue both diplomacy and action with respect to Iran to continue to threat.

MATTINGLY: There has been a framing by the president, which I think is what we're getting stuck here. Beyond the initial statement.

TURNER: I think CNN is stuck because think CNN wants to make this a Donald Trump issue instead of Iran.

MATTINGLY: The reason why I wanted to talk to you about this is because you were in the Gang of Eight. You were a chair of the House Intelligence Committee. You can explain to people what the DIA assessment is, what it isn't, and what you are looking for going forward, also what expectations should have been or were on Capitol Hill within folks of your knowledge --

TURNER: It doesn't matter which president of the United States would have done this, but Donald Trump was the only one who had the willingness to do so. You would have still had the next step, which is the report that we have today, which is Iran remains a threat. And I'm glad that Donald Trump, having had the foresight and the willingness to take this action, understands that more work needs to be done, and that is not a failure of this action.

MATTINGLY: Why do you think there weren't briefings today, well, the Gang of Eight briefings? Like why haven't lawmakers been read in on what's going on?

TURNER: I'm not in the administration. I certainly don't know what availability that people had. I have no idea what occurred. But I do know this. This is not a failure of this administration. This is not a failure of what had occurred by the people who did this mission. This is a reality of even if this mission is absolutely successful, Iran remains a threat and more work needs to be done.

MATTINGLY: So, to your point, and to be very clear, I've never said either of those things.

TURNER: And can you do all day saying that this is an issue with Donald Trump, it is not an issue with Donald Trump.

MATTINGLY: What I'm asking you is, in your statement, which I thought was very levelheaded, sober and pointed with a purpose in the wake of the strikes. At the end of it, you had a really important line. You said, we must confirm that there's no hidden legacy elements of the Iranian nuclear program that remain viable that might permit Iranian nuclear ambitions to be achievable.

TURNER: Right. And I believe The Washington Post article accurately reflects that what we have and what we're facing, which is what I think the administration and Donald Trump recognized both in his statement that night and that he recognizes today that there is more work that needs to be done.

MATTINGLY: What does that work entail? Like is that future U.S. strikes? Is that -- what's the process here going forward?

TURNER: Well, what he foreshadowed that night was that Iran now having been hit, now having had overwhelming force supplied at those sites, needs to come to the table and recognize, as he says, they must now make peace. And I don't mean Obama-style JCPOA, where they had a fake, you know, nuclear agreement where they're going to continue to enrich. They must now come to the table and say, we're going to give up our nuclear ambitions and we're going to abandon those nuclear ambitions.

If they were to take that step and that would re require, of course, surrendering the ability to enrich, perhaps we could go the next step. If not, I think that they are, as the president said, if not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

MATTINGLY: Have you seen the battle damage assessment, which I think is up on Capitol Hill right now?

TURNER: I have not.

MATTINGLY: Given what you're laying out here, this, I think, intensity of the pushback from the White House about how this is an assessment that they don't agree with, but it's an assessment you are saying is exactly what you expected or what it should have been were just --

TURNER: I've not seen it. So, again, you know, and what you're reporting on is a leak of it. So, even what you are saying, you know, we can't accept that the basis of your report is really what it says. I believe that we have to accept that because these are, as the president has said, precision strikes, and as the IAEA has -- the International Atomic Energy has said, and as we all know, there are 30 sites that Iran has, there are additional sites that are going to have other nuclear materials.

MATTINGLY: Right. TURNER: And we don't know what we don't know. We don't know where Iran has moved things. We don't know where they have had perhaps other clandestine operations. We're going to have to find out what other threats and risks there are from Iran.

MATTINGLY: The president never mentioned something could be moved. I think the vice president was talking about enriched uranium over the weekend and the possibility of not knowing exactly where that is going forward.

[18:20:01]

Look, again, I consider you and you've always been an honest broker with me in our conversations, the idea that the president has not framed this as a significant victory, that more or less puts an end to Iran's nuclear program --

TURNER: I think you're putting words in his mouth. I do not think he's --

MATTINGLY: I'm not. I didn't say I was directly quoting him. I'm saying --

TURNER: Exactly, but all day, that is how CNN has portrayed that, and I do believe that that is absolutely not --

MATTINGLY: Do you think the president right now -- if the president were to talk about this, he would acknowledge, look, we have no idea where the enriched uranium is at this point in time, there was no expectation that we were ever going to knock out the entire nuclear program, there's likely still --

TURNER: I don't think it's necessary for the president to say what you are saying. I think it is absolutely the president has taken an incredible act of leadership that no other president has taken. World leaders have seen him take a decisive action that has made the world safe. The head of NATO, other world leaders understand that the action that he has taken was absolutely a step that changes the Middle East and it changes the dynamics of the world and it stops a rogue nation from publicly enriching uranium and on its way breathtakingly toward a nuclear weapon that would have changed -- I mean, they could -- they were developing an ICBM.

MATTINGLY: Right.

TURNER: They could hit Washington dc. They were developing missile technology that could hit Paris and London. They were a threat to the world. And Donald Trump took action to derail that regime. That is incredibly important. There are steps yet to be taken. We'll see where that goes.

MATTINGLY: We'll see where it goes. Congressman, I appreciate your time.

TURNER: Thanks so much. MATTINGLY: Well much more on our breaking news. Ahead, the early U.S. Intelligence assessment finding U.S. bombs did not destroy Iran's nuclear sites. The former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. is here, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

MATTINGLY: Back with our World Lead, Israeli Prime Minister of Benjamin Netanyahu taking a victory lap just before a new early U.S. intelligence assessment revealed the U.S. strikes over the weekend did not fully destroy Iran's nuclear sites and likely only set the program back by months. Here's the prime minister this afternoon

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We have thwarted the Iran's nuclear project. If anyone in Iran attempts to revive this project, we will act with the same determination, with the same strength to cut off any such attempt. I say again, Iran will not have nuclear weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Former Israeli Ambassador of the United States Michael Oren joins us now from Tel Aviv.

Mr. Ambassador, this early U.S. assessment that says it wasn't a full takedown of the nuclear facilities, is there any sense inside Israel right now that it might be caused for ending the ceasefire, perhaps needing to go further?

MICHAEL OREN, FORMER ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: It is interesting. Good to be with you, Phil. I don't think the U.S. assessment, the way it's being reported in the United States is all that different than Israeli intelligence assessment that Iran still has capabilities. It still has military capabilities. It may have a thousand ballistic missiles. But beyond that, there's the question of the almost 650 kilogram of highly enriched uranium which can be enriched to facile weapons grade very quickly, put on the top of one of these missiles in a warhead, and then Iran can become a nuclear power, a crude nuclear power perhaps, but a nuclear power nevertheless.

So there's that assessment in Israel. I think it's an understanding that Iran remains a very competent and dangerous military foe. Having said that, Israel has taken the war to Iran for the first time after decades of being on the receiving end of Iranian fire or the fire of its proxies, none of Iran's allies internationally or even regionally came to Iran's help. And Iran has suffered a major setback politically, diplomatically, strategically, and certainly in terms of its nuclear program.

The big question, I think, for Israel is, in the future, will Israel be able to detect if Iran makes a move to nuclearize? If so, will the United States allow Israel once again to intervene militarily with the ceasefire? That is the big, big question.

MATTINGLY: What do you think the answer to that is?

OREN: Well, I think we have to make a very compelling case. As you saw what happened today when earlier, yesterday now, when the city of Be'er Sheva was hit by ballistic missiles well into the ceasefire, five people were killed, including a young soldier and his mother and his girlfriend and a Holocaust survivor. Israel was unable to respond in kind. The president made very, very clear that Israeli planes had to turn back. And the Iranian regime at the same time said it was going to start rebuilding its nuclear sites. The Iranian regime declared victory in this battle.

And so looking forward, we have to really see the degree to which Israel can respond and defend itself. The big issue is what's going to be America's position at the negotiating table. This war was always going to end sort of the way it started, at a negotiating table. And with the United States at that negotiating table the demand not just the end of Iran's ability and, quote, so-called right to enrich, it will dismantle those facilities that have already been largely dismantled.

But beyond that, will Iran cease to be the major source of terror in the world, major source of instability and violence in the Middle East? And can Israel and the United States together bring about a new era peace in the Middle East? We're talking about peace between Israel and Syria, peace between Israel and Lebanon. And I think most importantly for us, a resolution of the terrible Gaza morass and the release of our hostages.

MATTINGLY: Speaking of the release of the hostages, I believe the IDF made mention of this, there's been certainly hostage families who have made the case, now is the time to really drive the focus to the hostages, to the war, ongoing conflict with Hamas. What's your sense of the kind of path forward there?

OREN: First of all, I think that the Prime Minister Netanyahu now feels that he's strong enough perhaps to take some bold moves in Gaza and to stand up to some members of his own coalition on the extreme right, who have opposed any type of compromise moving forward with Gaza.

[18:30:12]

The deal would be something like a prolonged ceasefire, hostage release, ideally the demilitarization of Gaza, that the leadership, Hamas, would be exiled to some third destination, that an international reoccupation force would begin the rebuilding of Gaza, perhaps Palestinian elements from the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or elsewhere would come in and manage this new situation.

I don't think there's much debate about the nature of what the day after looks like. The big question for the Israeli government has been and will remain, what happens if Hamas says no and will Israel, after the ceasefire, retain the ability to resume the fighting? In that way, the situation in Gaza is not all that different what's going on in Iran, Phil. If there's a ceasefire in Iran and Iran violates a ceasefire, if Iran tries to rebuild this nuclear program, will Israel have the ability then to act?

MATTINGLY: Yes, the key biggest question in both cases. Ambassador Michael Oren, thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it.

OREN: Thanks, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Well, New Yorkers are battling the dangerous heat today to cast their vote in the mayoral Democratic primaries. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo about to take the next step toward a comeback, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

MATTINGLY: New Yorkers are heading to the polls in 100-degree heat to cast their vote in the city's Democratic mayoral primary. Over the last few weeks, the primary has narrowed into a two-man contests between former Governor Andrew Cuomo and Democratic Socialist Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani.

I'm going to bring in our panel now to discuss. Kevin, I want to start with you on this. Sources in both campaigns taking the bold stance of saying it's a jump ball. Level set, where is this right now?

KEVIN FREY, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, SPECTRUM NEWS NY1: I mean, I honestly think that's a quite a fair assessment at this point. If you'd asked a week and a half ago, I probably would've said Cuomo. There was polling that certainly suggests he would probably win by a comfortable margin when all of the ballots are counted. And keep in mind, because of rank choice voting, we're not going to have an answer here for another week and, quite frankly, because of the cross endorsements between Zohran and Mamdani and a third ranking candidate. There is a chance that those -- depending on how many votes go from that third ranker to Zohran Mamdani, it could bode well for him or it could be his own doom.

But the latest polling within the last week, the last couple days suggested that Zohran Mamdani, after all the votes are tabulated, could be ahead by four points over Cuomo. And that would scuttle his chance at a re-launch into his political career and, quite frankly, be kind of a head scratcher for everyone, where a couple months ago, basically no one knew who Zohran Mamdani was.

MATTINGLY: To that point, Ameshia, how did this happen? It just felt like a couple months ago, this was Andrew Cuomo's and everyone was just going to have to accept it on some level.

AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think that he's tapped into a few things. But I would argue that we probably shouldn't put a ton of credence into it because there is a national movement against progressives at this point. We saw it in the elections in 2024. And I don't think that wave is going to stop anytime too soon, especially for big cities. I'm a native of Chicago. Our current mayor is in trouble right now and underwater. I think the progressives --

FREY: The Chicago Tribune waited in and said, don't do this news.

CROSS: Progressives are going to have a hard time.

With that being said, I think that, you know, him leaning in on the sentiment of many voters when it came to what was happening in Gaza was something that was a lean-in for him. But in addition to that, he's done something a bit non-traditional with the cross endorsements and his campaign and several of the others that are not named Cuomo have been pushing towards ranking somebody who's not named Cuomo, no matter who that person is.

So, I think that there are a few things working in his favor here, but I am very cautious to say that it's going to take him over the edge because I still think that Cuomo has the edge here.

MATTINGLY: What's your sense? Obviously, it's a single political race in a city, which means we are all going to try and extrapolate ten years worth of future meaning for the Democratic Party. What's your sense about the importance of this for a party that's really trying to find its way right now?

JOSEPH MORENO, FORMER GOP STRATEGIST: Look, as a Republican, I could sit back and kind of laugh it up as to this is the best the Democratic Party can do. But as a Native New Yorker, I mean this is discouraging. And I'm dating myself here, but like I remember New York in the 80s, it was ungovernable. You drive through the Midtown Tunnel and you'd be accosted by squeegee men. And it took at getting really bad for 20 years of Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg, supported by George Pataki in Albany to kind of course correct things. And you know what? They made it look easy. And now we're sliding back into that cycle where New Yorkers have to learn those tough lessons again.

So, when I step back as a conservative and say things like, $30 minimum wage, price controls, rent controls, tax increases, I say, when have these things ever worked?

MATTINGLY: It's a primary there's an independent, who's also the sitting mayor. How does this play out going forward, regardless of who wins?

FREY: Right. So, quite frankly, this could be the easy parts, because then when we go to November, you have the chance that whoever wins the Democratic primary, the person who loses, be it Cuomo or a Mamdani, could end up running as a third party. Then you throw in the fact that mayor Eric Adams, who is dealing with his own issues and distrust within the New York political base, shall we say, in no small part because he -- there are allegations of a quid pro quo between him and the Trump White House over how he -- over his -- the various charges he was facing, and his willingness to back up his immigration policies on the federal level.

So, you throw him into the mix and then a Republican is going to be in the mix, and suddenly you're replaying this election again with the chance for Democrats in New York that a Republican could sweep in and perhaps get a little bit more close than comfort might suggest.

MATTINGLY: One word, answer possible that a Republican slips in here in the end?

CROSS: If Mamdani was able to, you know, work a miracle here, quite possibly.

[18:40:00]

MORENO: No. It'll take ten more years if New Yorkers wise up.

MATTINGLY: I appreciate you guys very much.

Well, the defense team for Sean Diddy Combs rested its case today after just 30 minutes without calling any witnesses. What's their strategy here? Has it worked in the past?

Our Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates is here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, the defense rests after 34 witnesses and more than six weeks of testimony. The government believes it has sufficiently laid out its case against Sean Diddy Combs. The defense opting to not call any witnesses, including Combs himself, think they've provided enough reasonable doubt. Which is it?

Well, that's why we have CNN Anchor and Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates here with me. Laura, just to start, was it strange to you that the defense didn't call any witnesses?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I mean, I thought that they would maybe call a few. But I have to tell you, given the breadth of this whole trial, remember the burden always rests with the prosecution. And when you watch the trial, you already know that a RICO charge is already complex. You have to spoon-feed to a jury the way in which these different puzzle pieces fit together.

And there were a number of moments, gaps that could lead to a seed being planted of reasonable doubt. I did think it was probably the right choice not to have Sean Diddy Combs testify because, of course, he might have skeletons in his closet.

[18:45:06]

It gives the prosecution a different bite at the apple, and it could lead the jurors to question whether they like him, as opposed to whether they have proven a case against him.

MATTINGLY: Can you assume, as risky as that may be, particularly in the legal profession, that the reason the defense didn't bring up any witnesses is they thought they've got this?

COATES: I mean, it's a fools' errand to try to get into the minds of those who are very anxious. Those are called lawyers in the courtroom who are wondering, is my gamble going to pay off? Is it enough? The question decision to probably decide whether he should testify a

much simpler one than saying, I'm not going to call anyone. But then it tells me down the line when it comes time for the closing, they're going to be reactive, more than proactive. The prosecution is going to say, well, here's all the things we've proven.

The defense will say, here's what you didn't hear about. Here's who you did not hear from. Here are all of the gaps in what they said. If they had put on a defense and they would then be the ones to be under the microscope in a different way.

MATTINGLY: The close, can you make or break a case in that moment in a trial?

COATES: That is the moment of the trial. Forget the last seven weeks primacy and recency my friend. What you first heard, what you last heard is what you're going to remember. The trial and all seven weeks now in between.

So, the last closing moment, the last time you say the jurors remember this, how about this? They're painting a picture. They're making it very clear. They're trying to say, this was our plan all along. And doesn't it make sense now?

If they do not make that jigsaw puzzle complete for this jurors, even one piece missing is reasonable doubt. On the other side, the defense, they have to try to explain all of the strong points, the prosecution raised and also raise their own moments of doubt.

It's a very complex moment. We're told it could be as much as four hours per closing argument. If you have ever sat through a four-hour movie, you already know why that's a bad idea.

You tune out. You might be before lunch. You don't want that level. And of course, if you're the juror, if I have to take four hours to explain to you why I'm right, you already know there's a problem.

MATTINGLY: Before I let you go, who has the heaviest lift between the prosecution and the defense?

COATES: The prosecution, it's their burden to prove it. And of course, it's what people expect of a of a trial. The law and order effect is a real one. What didn't I hear about? Who didn't I hear from? Why wasn't there this or that?

That will really weigh against the prosecution. But they have tried for the last seven weeks to make a very strong case for each of those different elements, but now their job is to bring it into closing.

The defense -- their entire job here is to undermine them at every turn.

MATTINGLY: For the record, I think all seven weeks of your coverage has been very worthwhile, very important.

COSTES: Just like we rehearsed. Good job. MATTINGLY: It does not all come down to the closing statements. I'm

not going to diminish that.

COATES: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: How do you think this is going to be? Real quick.

COATES: They want a verdict by July 4th, which is by the way, next week. Now whether that will happen a very different ball game. But, of course, if you are a prosecution or defense. You don't want days in between, and people thinking about it on their own without the jurors around them for deliberation.

You want it quick. You want as little notes as possible. And if you're the prosecution, you want a conviction.

MATTINGLY: We will see and you'll keep us posted. Laura Coates, thanks.

COATES: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Appreciate it.

And, of course, you can join Laura on her show, "LAURA COATES LIVE". That's tonight and every weeknight at 11:00 Eastern, right here on CNN.

Well, what investigators are revealing today about who is really to blame for a door flying off a plane mid-flight last year. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:52:12]

MATTINGLY: In our national lead, we are finally getting answers as to why a door panel flew off the plane in the middle of an Alaska Airlines flight last year.

CNN's aviation correspondent Pete Muntean is breaking down the new details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The final cause of the terrifying in-flight blowout on a Boeing 737 Max has now been determined by the National Transportation Safety Board, after a 17- month investigation that put Boeing quality control under the microscope.

NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy says it is a miracle that none of the 177 people on board Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 were killed.

JENNIFER HOMENDY, NTSB CHAIRWOMAN: The crew shouldn't have had to be heroes because this accident never should have happened.

MUNTEAN: For the first time, the NTSB revealed the passengers included three infants without their own seats, as well as for children flying alone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The potential for serious injury have been greater?

HOMENDY: Yes.

MUNTEAN: Investigators previously focused on the door plug, an optional emergency exit removed at the Boeing factory in Renton, Washington, and reinstalled without the four bolts meant to hold it in place. But now investigators say definitively that Boeing workers were inexperienced, calling their work unstructured and undocumented.

Is this fundamentally a Boeing problem, or is there something else that is symptomatic here?

HOMENDY: I mean, this is a problem within Boeing on procedures that really relied on a single point of failure.

MUNTEAN: Investigators say the plane was then a ticking time bomb. The door plug making invisible movements over 154 flights until, at 16,000 feet, the forceful bang between rows 25 and 26 enough to bust open the cockpit door, making it nearly impossible for the crew to communicate.

PILOT: Alaska 1282, we just depressurized, and we're declaring an emergency. We need to descend down to 10,000.

MUNTEAN: The NTSB is now laying out 19 new safety recommendations, calling on the Federal Aviation Administration to step up its oversight of Boeing manufacturing, which the NTSB called deficient.

The NTSB also wants Boeing to redesign how the door plug attaches to the airplane, so the same failure cannot happen again.

HOMENDY: This could have been catastrophic. There was a lot that went right in a very terrible circumstance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MUNTEAN: The FAA says it's taking the NTSB new safety recommendations seriously. Even Trump transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is weighing in. He says in a new statement that these new findings will not change the FAA's cap on 737 production put in place after this incident. Boeing says it regrets this incident and insists it has and is still making improvements.

[18:55:04]

One huge realization here, Phil, disclosed for the first time by the NTSB. They said if one of these bolts was installed in the proper spot, it would have prevented this disaster from even occurring.

MATTINGLY: Pete Muntean,. thanks, buddy. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: And our pop culture lead, former teen idol Bobby Sherman has passed away at the age of 81. Sherman was known for his hit songs like "Little Woman", and "Julie, Do You Love Me?"

After leaving music behind, Sherman became a certified EMT and CPR teacher, working for the Los Angeles Fire Department. His wife announced his death on Instagram, writing, quote, Bobby left this world holding my hand just as he held up our life with love, courage and unwavering grace.

In our money lead, today marks the first day of a nationwide boycott against McDonalds. The grassroots movement led by the People's Union USA, is calling on people to refrain from spending at the fast food chain until next Monday in honor of fair taxes, equality and ending price gouging.

McDonalds called the groups claims misleading and said it remains committed to inclusion.

Well, "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT", live from the UAE, starts now.