Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Now, Marathon Senate Voting Session Underway On Trump Bill; Jury Deliberations Underway In Sean Combs Criminal Case; White House Says, Harvard In Violent Violation Of Civil Rights Act; Accused Killer In Idaho Student Killings Makes Plea Deal To Avoid Trial. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired June 30, 2025 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.
This hour, we are closely watching the drama unfolding on Capitol Hill, where Senate Republicans are trying to make various deals in order to get President Trump's one Big, Beautiful Bill Act across the finish line. Do they have the votes? We don't know at this hour. We're going to go live to the hill to find out.
Plus, the jury has just been dismissed for the day after their first hours of deliberations in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs.
[18:00:05]
But before the jury left, its members sent the judge another note. What are they asking and what could that signal about the case?
Also, a scandal rocks an iconic music festival with chants of death, death to the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, leading the U.S. State Department to block two musical artists from that festival from entering the United States. We're breaking down exactly what happened and why the police are now getting involved.
And is there really, truly, finally a deal to save TikTok in the United States? The White House continues to hint an announcement is coming soon, but there's still one major hurdle. Is the Chinese government willing to give up control of the incredibly popular app?
The Lead Tonight, the Senate in an hours long voting session called voterama, where they vote on various amendments or changes to the House version of President Trump's so called One, Big Beautiful Bill Act. One of the major changes to watch is spending cuts or adjustments in the growth of spending to Medicaid, which currently provides coverage to more than 71 million low income Americans. And all this needs to finish before the U.S. Senate gets to a final vote. And should that bill pass, it would then still need to go back to the House because it was changed.
Now, whether this is going to be wrapped up by President Trump's self- imposed July 4th deadline is anyone's guess.
CNN's Lauren Fox is on Capitol Hill for us. Lauren, is the Senate any closer to a final vote? LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, I still expect that they have hours upon hours of these amendment votes to go before they get anywhere close to that final vote on Trump's agenda. That is for two reasons. One, Democrats want to make this process as painful as possible. They want to highlight all of the cuts to Medicaid and the food stamps program that they think are so detrimental that are included in this bill.
Meanwhile, Republican leadership is still working furiously to get the support that they need in order to have the votes to pass this piece of legislation. If you remember John Thune, the majority leader, can only afford to lose three votes. We already know that he has lost two on that procedural vote on Saturday night. That means he can only afford one more member, get a tiebreaker with the vice president, J.D. Vance.
But that is still a huge question right now. Do they have the votes? Earlier, I spoke with Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin, who was extremely bullish that they would be able to pull this off, but there's just so much we don't know about, how the process is going to unfold in the upcoming hours, including the fact that Senator Rick Scott has an amendment that would essentially cut how much the federal government gives to states on the Medicaid expansion population.
That is something that they say they need to have as part of this piece of legislation. The amendment vote, if it goes down, what does that mean for the final vote count among conservatives? That's another key question here.
So, you can see that this is a very slow-moving process. Senators are taking between 35, 45, 50 minutes to get through each of these amendment votes. This process really still very much underway up here, Jake.
TAPPER: Lauren Fox on Capitol Hill, thanks so much.
Let's turn now to CNN's Kaitlan Collins at the White House. Kaitlan, how is President Trump putting the pressure on any Republican holds out to this big bill? I've heard Rand Paul is a no. Susan Collins is wobbly because of the Medicaid changes. And then obviously there's Thom Tillis from North Carolina.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, I mean you've seen what the president has said about Thom Tillis. He was cheerleading the fact that Tillis announced he was not going to be running for reelection after Tillis had that scathing speech yesterday about saying what's really in this bill, what his colleagues are going to be voting for if they vote yes, and also saying he believes the president has been misinformed about what it actually contains in it.
So, you're seeing the different ways and the different strategies the White House is using at times blasting some of these skeptical Republicans on Truth Social as the president has been doing, including with Rand Paul, after golfing with some of them this weekend, during a rare weekend that he stayed here in Washington while trying to work those Republicans and get them over to the yes column in order to get this done, Jake. Because when you talk to people here at the White House, they don't think this bill is in danger of not actually passing. The question is how painful it's going to be to get there and how long it's going to take, as Lauren Fox was just alluding to, based on what she's been hearing up on Capitol Hill.
And so you are seeing that arm-twisting happening behind the scenes. Sometimes it's in the form of the vice president, J.D. Vance, making calls to his former colleagues in the Senate. But when it comes to Tillis, Jake, the White House was asked about his scathing criticism here today that the president isn't being told basically by his advisers, as he said, what is actually in this bill and what it's going to do to Medicaid, which Tillis said is going to result in the president breaking a campaign promise not to interfere with Medicaid benefits.
[18:05:08]
The White House is totally rejecting that. The press secretary earlier was taking questions from reporters and said that they believe that he is just wrong essentially on that and has been making this argument again and again to get this bill done and also still, Jake, to get it done into the President's desk by Friday. Right now, there's a lot of skepticism in Washington on that.
TAPPER: And meanwhile, Elon Musk is back on X or Twitter blasting his former best buddy, President Trump's agenda here and attacking people who support it.
COLLINS: Yes. Jake, and saying that anyone who has advocated to be a fiscal hawk, to say they want to reduce the federal deficit and the debt, that they should hang their heads in shame if they vote for this. Look at what he just posted earlier. He said, every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame. And this part is key, Jake. He said they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth. Essentially, he is saying there that he is going to try to primary every Republican who votes yes on this bill. Obviously, that could be quite a few, even though we're talking about a few holdouts here.
But you are seeing Jake, where he's essentially just saying that there needs to be another political party. This notion that he came out with right after he left the White House a few weeks ago saying that both parties have it wrong. There needs to be a new party formed here in Washington. It just goes to show, Jake, that even people who have been allies of this president are criticizing him.
And with Tillis, I think going back to this earlier in the White House, when they were criticizing him, Jake, I mean, he said he is not running for reelection. He doesn't really have incentive to say things he doesn't think are true about this -- are not true about this bill. Yet the White House is still saying that Senator Thom Tillis is wrong and his criticisms of this bill.
TAPPER: Yes. Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks so much. And don't miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins tonight. She's going to talk to a Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. That's tonight and every weeknight at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.
I want to bring in Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. And let me just hold up so people understand what we're talking about here. This is the one, big beautiful bill. This is the House version, almost 1,000 pages of it.
Senator, over the weekend, you announced that you are going to, that you would vote to advance this bill for debate. You said you did that in part because you believe the Trump administration is committed to returning to what you refer to as, quote, reasonable pre-pandemic level spending, unquote. Are you going to vote to pass the bill, not just to proceed to a debate? And do you think it will pass?
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Well, again, that'll depend on how the amendments go, whether Senator Scott's amendment, which is eminently reasonable it passes. But, you know, let me just dispel some of the falsehoods. We hear about cuts. This year, we'll spend about $7 trillion. Next year, we'll spend about $7.3. If this passes, we'll spend $7.15. That's not a cut. We're trying to reduce the rate of growth in spending in so many of these different areas.
And the main cost driver of the score on this thing is we're trying to avoid a massive tax increase, about $4 trillion. So, I just kind of set that aside. It is true, when you set that aside, this is probably the largest spending reduction in history. The problem is we had spending increases, completely unprecedented order of magnitude, largely. We increased spending by more than $2 trillion in one year. We spent $4.4 trillion in 2019. This year we'll spend over $7.
And, you know, what we're trying to do is hard. We are cleaning up the enormous messes left by Biden and the Democrats, the open borders, the wars, four years of average (INAUDIBLE) of 1.9 trillion, when prior to the pandemic, those seven years averaged $660 billion. So, Biden deficits were three times larger than pre-pandemic levels of deficit, and spending is just out of control.
So, it's easy to be a Democrat, spend mortgage your kids' future, never be held accountable by the media. It's pretty hard what we're trying to do. And so this may take a little bit more time.
TAPPER: Well, deficit spending is a bipartisan affliction. You know that better than anyone. Earlier this month, you were warning about this bill adding trillions to the national debt. You told ABC News quote. I'm worried about our kids and grandkids. The fact that we're mortgaging their future, it's wrong. It's immoral. Has your position changed? This bill -- I mean this legislation's still going to add to the deficit.
JOHNSON: So, Democrats, their only solution is increase taxes. We don't want to do that. That harms economic growth. We won't get the revenue we ever look for. All Democrats do is spend. By the way, they're talking about, you know, we're going to, you know, tax cuts for millionaires. No, we're just not going to increase taxes. They could have done that. In the four years when they were in power, they could have gotten rid of the Tax Cut and Jobs act. They could have increased taxes on every American. That's what we're trying to avoid.
So, again, Democrats love to spend. I'm not saying that we don't have Republicans that are big spenders as well. I've been focusing on spending, spending, spending, trying to put pressure on the process. And I think right now, the stumbling block is what the Senate bill does, even though we actually reduce spending more, we also make sure that those business tax provisions, which will incentivize growth are permanent, so that holds a bigger score.
But the difference between the House and Senate is about $651 billion. Rick Scott's amendment, which is eminently reasonable, it doesn't kick anybody off of Medicaid. It just limits at some point in time in the future. Additional -- adults who are childless, who are working age, who could work, it is going to deny them that 9-1 match which has distorted Medicaid.
Jake, for every dollar the state puts into provide healthcare for a disabled child, the federal government puts a $1.33. But for every dollar they put in toward a single childless adult who should be working, we kick in nine. That has led to all kinds of abuse, provider taxes, provider fees. By the way, that's not healthcare, but yet the federal government's kicking out $9 for every one of the states. That's what we're trying to address. We're not trying to take Medicaid away from disabled children. We're trying to stop that scam that states and providers have been using to draw down hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal government that we can't afford.
TAPPER: So, the Republican Party controls the House, the Senate and the White House. This bill, even with the changes you're talking about that the Senate's trying to make, will add trillions to the national debt. And as far as I can tell, there's only one senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, who's still going to vote no because of the deficit spending. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): But we know next year this bill will grow the deficit by $270 billion. In addition, the bill increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. What does that mean? That is an admission that they know they aren't controlling the deficit. They know that the ensuing years will add trillions more.
That doesn't sound at all conservative to me, and that's why I'm a no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Isn't he right?
JOHNSON: Well, again, the main component of this is to prevent a massive, more than $4 trillion automatic tax increase on every American. And, by the way, had we been smart enough back in 2017 to reduce spending, to make the Tax Cut and Jobs Act permanent, we wouldn't even be having this debate, okay? So, set that aside, we actually are reducing spending. I would argue not enough. But, again, we have very narrow majorities in the House and Senate. We've got big spenders in our party as well. And that's what President Trump, that's what Speaker Johnson, that's what Leader Thune is having to deal with. How do you get those groups together and satisfy everybody? It's pretty difficult to do. That's why this is a messy process, which is why I suggested a three-step process, keep it simple, border, defense, again, clean up the border, clean up the wars, and that's going to cost money in -- you know, extend current tax, also we're not increasing people's taxes. Again, that's the main score. That's the main thing that, you know, supposedly increased the deficit.
But does anybody really want to increase taxes? Again, Democrats, when they have the opportunity, they didn't do that. They didn't want to increase taxes either. So, again, the debate's also disingenuous.
TAPPER: I'm just surprised that you have already said that you're going to vote for the bill. I just thought -- I mean, I know you talk a lot about the deficit and I don't doubt you're sincerity. Last time you and I spoke was about the deficit, the time before that. I think I didn't ask you enough about the deficit in our conversations. And I said, I'll have you back. We'll talk about it. It is an important issue. I'm just surprised that you are already a yes on this bill instead of trying to exact more deficit reduction.
JOHNSON: I was a yes on the motion to proceed to hopefully get Rick Scott's amendment in here, which would save another $500 billion if we stop adding to Medicaid expansion population on January 1st, 2029.
By the way, nobody would get kicked off Medicaid. If states want to provide Medicaid for single adults that could, you know, work and probably should have a job, they can do that under normal Medicaid. And those people would get the same match as a disabled child, you know, at $1.33 for every dollar that gets stuck into Medicaid.
So, again, I set the score on the taxes, which is, again, preventing a massive tax increase aside. And then you take a look at -- this is about as good as we can get. I don't like it. I would like to get a lot more, but at some point in time you have to recognize reality. And if we don't pass this bill, we have a massive $4 trillion tax increase, which, again, even the Democrats wouldn't vote to increase those taxes or do way the Tax Cut and Jobs Act when they had every opportunity to do it.
TAPPER: Yes.
JOHNSON: They just spent ourselves into $1.9 trillion deficits over their time and power. So, again, that's the reality, right? COVID 660 billion, $1.9 trillion under Biden.
TAPPER: Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, thank you so much, sir.
[18:15:00]
I appreciate it.
We're continuing to follow the breaking news on Capitol Hill as the Senate inches closer to passing President Trump's One, Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Plus the jury is now deliberating in the criminal trial of Sean Diddy Combs. What can we learn from the first notes that the jurors sent to the judge today,
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, after more than six weeks of testimony in the federal sex trafficking trial of Sean Diddy Combs, a jury of eight men and four women are right now deliberating Combs' fate. Just moments ago, the jury was dismissed for the day, but the deliberations did begin today, though they got off to a rocky start. Shortly after the jury notified the court, they elected juror number five as their foreperson. They also sent this note back to the judge, quote, we have a juror number 25, who we are concerned cannot follow your honor's instructions.
Here now is CNN Chief Legal Analyst and Anchor Laura Coates. Laura, that's odd. How unusual is it to have a deliberation starting with a juror saying that they don't think that this juror can follow the judge's instructions, and what did they mean by that?
LAURA COATES, CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Very odd. Remember, we were only about an hour or so into deliberations.
[18:20:02]
There had been over two hours of jury instructions, add that to the seven weeks and the voir dire process. So, for somebody to suggest that a juror cannot follow the instructions, including instructions such as perhaps, you know, not having to bring in outside sources, going through each of the elements, not deciding guilt or innocence, you've gone through everything methodically, using your own recollection, what the prosecutors have proven as a fact-finder, all those things are included in jury instructions, including pseudonym witnesses, whether to hold against the fact that Diddy did not testify in his own trial, which is his right.
We don't know exactly what the order was or the instruction he was not following. However, it's very, very strange to have these jurors in that very early hours of their deliberation question the ability of a juror to follow, whether it was the actual ability or the decision to follow. Some are speculating that perhaps it could mean that you have a juror who has made up his or her mind, but perhaps it could also be that there is something more to the issue. We'll wait and see.
TAPPER: Has that ever happened to you? I mean, you're a former federal prosecutor. Have you ever heard of anything like that?
COATES: I have never had a juror or a jury come back and question whether their fellow jury person is able to understand a direction. I have, of course, heard of jurors who simply refuse to abide the fact- finding mission and suggest that they are bringing their own preconceived notions in and that juror has to be reminded that they are to follow the instructions. They are fact-finders. They cannot use outside influences or outside sources. And they must go by what has been presented as opposed to what they want it to be presented.
TAPPER: Yes. I mean, it just sounds like they're impugning this juror whether for bias or inability --
COATES: Or whatever it could be.
TAPPER: Yes, inability to understand.
Before the jury was dismissed for the day, the jury submitted another question asking about controlled substances. What more can you tell us about that question and what insight it might give you into how the jury's thinking about things?
COATES: Well, if the first question made the prosecution's knees shake, this one would make the defense's knees perhaps shake, because they're a little bit excited about this. Here's why. For the jurors to ask the question, essentially, if somebody has asked for the drugs, is it still distribution, suggests that they're thinking more broadly about the personal accountability or the participation by the individual victims who have alleged to have had those drugs given to them. So, they're thinking about whether or not you can hold Diddy solely responsible and accountable as a drug distributor if he has been responding to a request for the drugs to be given.
Now, having said that, of course, the prosecution anticipated this. They fronted it in their closing and in their rebuttal. Maurene Comey in her rebuttal, talked about this issue and said, listen, if you give them to someone, that is distribution. So, to have them ask for clarification a little bit concerning, however, the defense wants that very question asked.
TAPPER: All right. Laura Coates, thanks so much. Laura's going to have much more tonight on her great show, Laura Coates Live, which is every weeknight at 11:00 P.M. Eastern, also on her podcast, Trial by Jury. You can catch new episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
The White House just took another swing at Harvard accusing the university of a violent violation of the Civil Rights Act. What exactly do they mean? Could this impact other colleges across the U.S.? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:25:00]
TAPPER: In our National Lead, a new twist in the battle between the Trump administration and Harvard University. Today, the Trump administration's joint task force to combat anti-Semitism released a letter saying that Harvard is in violent violation of the Civil Rights Act and threatened further loss of its federal funding. The letter goes on to state that Harvard quote has been, in some cases, deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty and staff, unquote.
Harvard responded that they are, quote, far from indifferent and they strongly disagree with the report's conclusion. The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on the letter.
Joining us now is Cornell University Law Professor in Harvard Law Grad William Jacobson. Professor, thanks for joining us.
So, Harvard says that they've made significant strides in combating anti-Semitism on campus, including updating its rules around using campus space for protests, taking steps to review disciplinary processes and expanding training on combating anti-Semitism. From a legal perspective, how does the Trump administration prove that Harvard has been deliberately indifferent, as they put it?
WILLIAM A. JACOBSON, HARVARD LAW GRAD: Well, you, they prove it, the way you prove anything through the facts and the complaint that was filed, or the letter was accompanied by an over 50-page report, which had enormous detail on what the government alleges happened and what the government alleges was indifferent in the university's reaction. And boiling it down, the government says Harvard is only now responding because of the pressure, but up until recently had not been taking steps.
So, the government's going to have to prove it the way you prove anything through the facts.
TAPPER: And you're a law professor who went to Harvard and you teach at Cornell. What's your take on this? What do you think?
JACOBSON: Well, I think there's a lot to what the government is saying. It's not just at Harvard, it's other places as well. There's a a campus climate of intimidation. There's a campus climate of silencing other speech. I think a good analogy might be the heckler's veto, that people certainly have the right to express anti-Israel viewpoints on campus, but they don't have the right to express it in such a manner and such an intimidating factor that they prevent other people from getting an education.
And that's essentially what the government is saying, is that the accumulation of almost two years of events on the Harvard campus after October 7th is tantamount to depriving Israeli and Jewish students of their right to access in education.
[18:30:10]
And that is the issue. It's not any one statement or any one person, and it's not that the viewpoints expressed can't be expressed, but they can't be expressed in the way they're being expressed, which is intimidation and anti-Semitic actions on campus.
TAPPER: I wonder what you think of how the administration is going about doing this in terms of cutting off funding, because I read a piece in The New York Times yesterday, the Times tracking nearly every grant the Trump administration has canceled at Harvard, and they include a long-term cancer study, tracking more than 100,000 women, one related to telemedicine and an opioid addiction, another one that studies advances that could one day enable Navy divers to breathe underwater without oxygen tanks. Do you think that this method of punishment, which it sounds like it could actually hurt humanity in some ways, is the most effective way to do this?
JACOBSON: Well, other methods have proven ineffective. I mean, that's the whole point of what the government's doing, is that their attempt to cajole and to talk to Harvard, and particularly Harvard have been unproductive. And the fact that there might be ancillary research grants that get harmed, Harvard can fund them. There's nothing to prevent Harvard from funding them. But if you're going to take federal money, you have to play by the rules the federal government sets. And those rules are compliance with the Civil Rights Act.
So, I think it's a little putting things in reverse order to say the government should not be enforcing the Civil Rights Act because some programs, which may be worthwhile at Harvard get damaged. The real question is, why isn't Harvard compliant? And that's the issue that Harvard has a long history, at least since October 7th, of being one of, if not the worst campuses. And that's really the question. I don't think Harvard should be able to turn it around and blame the government for enforcing the civil rights laws. Harvard agreed to take the money on the condition of complying with the civil rights laws.
TAPPER: Professor William Jacobson, thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it.
Also, in our National Lead, a frightening trend, violence has become more and more common as a tool for extremists in the United States, seemingly trying to make some sort of political point, however sick, twisted or misguided. Just last month, as you'll recall, two Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed here in the nation's capital outside the Jewish Museum by a man yelling, free Palestine.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer sat down with the father of one of the victims.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: What will you remember most about Sarah?
ROBERT MILGRIM, FATHER OF SARAH MILGRIN: Who she is, what she stood for.
She did everything. She did all sports. She was theatrical. She sang. She was a beekeeper. She was very into the environment. She would bring stray dogs home. She was a vegetarian.
BLITZER: Because she didn't want to kill animals?
MILGRIM: You're right, she didn't want to kill. She loved all animals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: CNN's Tom Foreman takes a look now at the disturbing rise of political violence or terrorism in America.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stay away. Stay away.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Authorities say an 82-year-old woman has died after that attack on pro-Israel demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado by a man reportedly yelling, free Palestine, raising the grim toll of political violence.
In recent weeks, two lawmakers and their spouses were shot in Minnesota, one couple killed.
ALVIN WINSTON, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, FBI MINNEAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE: This was a targeted attack against individuals who answered the call to public service.
FOREMAN: A man in Memphis was charged after allegedly trying to kidnap that city's mayor. And in Washington, D.C. --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Free, free Palestine.
FOREMAN: -- police say, this man gunned down this young couple outside a Jewish museum. Sarah Milgrim said she saw Nazi graffiti on her Kansas high school years back, sparking early fears.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know, I worry about going to my synagogue and now I have to worry about safety at school and that shouldn't be a thing.
FOREMAN: Analysts note opposition anger flared sharply in 2017 ahead of the first inauguration of Donald Trump. Four years later, when he lost Trump supporters exploded in violence at the Capitol. And as he fought to retake the office last year, assassination attempts only fed the fury.
ROBERT PAPE, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: You have to go back 50 years to the 1960s to find anything like these violent protests and political assassinations. This is really quite disturbing.
FOREMAN: Indeed, U.S. Capitol police say, since 2017, concerning statements and threats against members of Congress, their families and staffs, have skyrocketed.
[18:35:02]
There were almost 9,500 last year.
SEN. TINA SMITH (D-MN): The intensity of what lawmakers are exposed to is it just strikes me as being very dangerous.
SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): I think it's incumbent upon all of us, Republican and Democrat to speak out against political violence, no matter if it's Republican or Democrat that's targeted.
FOREMAN: The reasons for such violence are often murky. When trouble broke out around protest in Los Angeles, some on the left blamed it on Trump's harsh anti-immigrant tactics while some on the right insisted --
ROSEMARY JENKS, IMMIGRATION ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT: these are violent, you know, Antifa and other criminals who are using the Democrats, just as the Democrats are trying to use them.
FOREMAN: And still others, including the governor of Pennsylvania whose home was firebombed, are taking a broader view.
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO (D-PA): I don't give a damn if it's coming from one particular side or the other, directed at one particular party or another, or one particular person or another. It is not okay.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN (on camera): Of course, plenty of critics are looking at the language of Donald Trump from his first term, his second term, and his campaign, that his language alone speaks an awful lot of enemies and people who have to be fought and people who are traitorous, in his mind, they wonder if that's a catalyst for all of this happening. Whatever the cause, Jake, when you try to look back at the number of political violent incidents we have had in the past eight or ten years, it really is unlike anything that I have seen in my career, and I've been doing this for a lot of decades right now. And the question is, how do we get to an end of it when a lot of people say this is about a culture clash where people are giving up on talking to each other and saying, I will prove it with violence.
TAPPER: All right. Tom Foreman, thanks.
British musicians are now blocked from entering the U.S after death, death to the IDF, meaning the Israel Defense Forces, chants at a music festival. We'll bring in the details of that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
TAPPER: In our World Lead, the U.S. State Department has revoked the U.S. visas of members of a British rap punk group slated to go on tour in the United States in the fall after the group led a death, death to the IDF chant at the Glastonbury Music Festival in Southwest England over the weekend. The IDF is the Israel Defense Forces, which almost all Israelis are required to serve in after high school. Deputy U.S. Secretary of State Christopher Landau says the visa revocation is a direct result of their, quote, hateful tirade.
CNN's Nic Robertson is with us now. Nic, what exactly happened at this music festival?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Jake, the police in the U.K. have launched a criminal investigation. They're calling it a public order incident. They say they're reviewing video and audio of the Bob Vylan band's performance at Glastonbury. And what they'll be able to see in here is what the tens of thousands of festival-goers so and heard and what people viewing it through a BBC streaming platform will have seen and heard, and that is Bob Vylan inciting the crowd to sing along with him the words of death, death to the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force.
The U.S. State Department has revoked visas for him and the rest of his band. They were due to go on tour in the U.S. in late October. The British prime minister has condemned it has also said, that the BBC has questions to answer here. The BBC have said with hindsight that this shouldn't have gone out, that they did have a visual warning on the screen about the language and content of the material. They also say that they're not going to put this out on their streaming platforms going forward, and they say there's no place in their content for this kind of e extremist type language.
A British minister spoke out in Parliament about it today saying that the government will not tolerate anti-Semitism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me be clear that this government will not tolerate anti-Semitism. It has no place in our society. It is a poison and a cancer that must be rooted out, and we will be relentless in our work to do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTSON: And another British minister commented that it was ironic that this had happened at a music festival drawing the comparison to the Nova Music Festival that was overrun by Hamas on October 7th, where hundreds of festival-goers there out enjoying the music as people were doing this weekend at Glastonbury out enjoying the music, hundreds of them killed or taken captive by Hamas and taken back to Gaza.
So, the irony, the comparison, there's another thing that's been drawn in the U.K. Deeply disturbing is how the Israeli embassy in the U.K. describes the performance. And a group, a mostly volunteer group in the U.K. who looks out for the safety security within Jewish communities, particularly at this time, where there are raised levels of anti-Semitism in the U.K. where the Jewish community does feel particularly vulnerable. This is what they had to say as well. It is utterly chilling to see such a huge crowd at Glastonbury Festival, and it is this idea that it's the crowd chanting it, not just the rapper leading the crowd. It is the crowd is willingly joining in that really, I think, gets the people.
And this is what this statement essentially goes on to say. at the Glastonbury Festival, chanting for people to be killed, this was an expression of mass hatred and Jewish people across the country will be horrified, as will many others. I think that underscores the sentiment, Jake, that this really worries people at a time of heightened anti-Semitism in the U.K., in Europe, in the United States and other places. Jake?
TAPPER: All right. Nic Robertson, thanks so much for that report.
Our small business series takes us to New Jersey next, where one company says its technology is helping save pets' lives.
[18:45:02]
How are Trump's tariffs impacting their mission? We're going to find out in moments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:49:01]
TAPPER: It's time for our business leaders segment where we hear from small business owners coast to coast about President Trump's tariffs. Some have been happy. Many are feeling uncertain.
Halo Collar is a next generation invisible fence for your dog. It's a GPS enabled dog collar that works with a virtual boundary instead of a physical one.
Founder Ken Ehrman joins us now from Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
Ken, I see you there with Reese's. Your pup, handsome looking dog.
Can you tell us about when and how the tariffs started to impact your business, Halo Collar?
KEN EHRMAN, FOUNDER, HALO COLLAR: Well, when we put our budget together for 2025. And thanks for having me. By the way, on this last day of the first half, we really didn't have tariffs in the budget. So, what that meant is we had to reduce areas where we had planned on spending, like marketing and R&D, in order to deal with those new unexpected costs.
TAPPER: It's -- how much does it cost?
EHRMAN: So, it turns out to be about -- it started about 10 percent of the hardware costs.
[18:50:00]
So significant for us because again, it was unplanned for it, then went up to 40 percent because we were making our products in Taiwan. And now, it's back to 10 percent.
TAPPER: The -- if I buy a Halo Collar, how much is that?
EHRMAN: It's around $600.
TAPPER: Six hundred dollars.
EHRMAN: Less than an invisible fence. Really, it's almost like an iPhone for your dogs to keep them safe.
TAPPER: Right. Are you going to have to raise prices because of the tariffs?
EHRMAN: Well, we're very concerned about making sure that the technology is available for as many dog owners as possible. Almost 10 million dogs are lost every year, and a million dogs are hit by a car. So, if anything, we wanted to lower prices, not raise them to make it accessible for more and more people. So, for now, we're not raising prices and were literally just spending less on R&D and marketing and other areas of the business.
TAPPER: So, the whole one of the points of the tariffs is that President Trump says he wants to bring manufacturing back to the United States. Would manufacturing every part of the Halo Collar in the U.S.? Is that a possibility at all?
It's really not even a possibility. So when you think of the halo, it's a there's hundreds of little surface mount component parts that are inside the collar. And each one of these boards has GPS chips and wireless wi-fi cellular. All this technology is extremely miniature for an assembly person on the line. It's extremely tiresome and meticulous and repetitive.
And frankly, the skill set to do it is in Taiwan. That's where they make high volume consumer products with GPS. And to move that to the United States, we actually talk to our manufacturer about it. They basically said even if you were able to somehow do it and they have a plant in the United States, it would be three times the price from them.
TAPPER: All right. The business one more time is halo collar, and you can find them online. Ken Ehrman and Reese, thanks so much for your time today. We appreciate it.
We have some breaking news for you in our law and justice league right now. "The Idaho Statesman" newspaper is reporting that the suspect in those horrific 2022 killings of four University of Idaho students has just accepted a plea deal.
Let's get right to CNN's Jean Casarez. Also joining us, Laura Coates.
Jean, first to you. What are we learning about the plea deal? How did it come about?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we're learning, "The Idaho Stateman" is getting this citing letters that were sent to the family members. And what is being reported by them, is that a plea deal was reached in this death penalty case. You know, I've covered this case from the beginning in Pennsylvania. And as the evidence and the discovery kept going back and forth and the pretrial motions kept being heard and the orders were issued, any defense that Kohberger had was wedged away bit by bit by bit.
And the final blow really came this last week when just days ago, the order came down that he would not be able to have any alternate perpetrators because the defense had said, we know of some possible suspects that we want to bring in this case that are the actual ones that did it. And the judge said, no, it is wild speculation. If you believe that these people committed the crimes against these four victims, they also were not going to be allowed to have alibi because under Idaho law, you have to have people that actually saw you at another at a location during the time of the murders date, time and place, and they would be willing to testify. They didn't have that. He didn't have an alibi.
Now let's go the other direction. The prosecution had DNA that a lab said was a conclusive match to Bryan Kohberger on this knife sheath. No knife, but a knife sheath that was found next to the body. The statistical match of DNA next to the body of one of the victims. That was the star evidence for the prosecution. No question about it.
But, Jake, I want to say that I have covered many, many death penalty trials of high profile defendants. And my gut told me this was going to happen because a way to save your life is to plead guilty, because this is Idaho. If he had been found guilty because of all of this prosecution evidence and the lack of defense, the lack of reasonable doubt, it would have gone to the death penalty phase. And this is Idaho, and I believe that they would have sentenced him to death.
And I did some digital pieces recently about all the high profile defendants that did have deals. BTK, the serial killer out of Wichita, Kansas.
[18:55:00]
He copped a plea deal, but there will be a sentencing hearing, Jake. And it will be big.
And if they do what they've done in other high-profile cases, it will be a mini trial because the community of Moscow is going to want to know why he did it. And now we don't have to say he's innocent until proven guilty, because, per "The Idaho Stateman's", he is agreeing to plead guilty and the community deserves to know why.
TAPPER: Yeah.
CASAREZ: Because there's no motive here. No motive.
And in pretrial hearings, I heard that he did not have any direct connection to any of the victims.
TAPPER: So, Laura, Jean just explained why it would be that the defendant might agree to such a plea deal to save his life. Are you surprised, given what jean just laid out in terms of the evidence against him and also the law in Idaho that doesn't sound like it's very hospitable to presenting any sort of defense. Are you surprised that the state would go along with the plea deal?
COATES: Well, I have to tell you, there's always the uncertainty of a conviction, even in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Jean has been meticulously following. And, of course, this defendant had no more road. He had no alibi defense. It was possible he couldn't call anyone to support it. He had no alternate perpetrators. In fact, the people that he named as potential suspects had submitted their own DNA and the like and had been, you know, essentially excluded from this case.
You have him without any other recourse. And it's such an ironic, ironic statement that somebody who will plead guilty to murder is very concerned about saving his own life. There's an irony and, of course, that. But it's not just because Idaho is not hospitable to defendants, it's because there are requirements, requirements that must be met in order to ensure that you are not spinning a juror's wheels, you're not draining the public's resources, and that there actually is a viable reason that you're not just naming somebody hoping that speculation will rule the day, and that injustice may occur.
But in any event, to Jean's bigger point here as well, Jake, the frustration of the Moscow community, the sadness, the profound tragedy, they want to know the why. But this particular defendant will be under no requirement to actually say the why. If he provides some solace or comfort. And the reason we know it will not be enough.
But in any event, the idea that he is taken off the table for the prosecutors, they want to ensure that if they believe this person, which he is agreeing to, has committed these heinous acts, the idea that he will never see any life beyond the bars might be sufficient for the families who will ultimately, at any sentencing, have their day in court to talk about the impact on their lives and others that somebody has pled guilty to these heinous crimes has had. It will be taken to account. But for consecutive life sentences possible here, he is never getting out. A plea removes his right to appeal. This is over for him.
TAPPER: And, Jean, CNN can now independently confirm this plea deal. And I just want to take a second to note the names of e victims in this case, Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, Ethan Chapin. These murders were in 2022.
Youve closely covered how this case has unfolded and the impact on the families. What can you tell us about them? And if I mispronounced any of those names, please feel free to correct me.
CASAREZ: Of course, Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin and these four young lives were just about to begin their adulthood. They were graduating from the University of Idaho, Moscow, and these families wanted justice. They wanted to go to the trial.
Mr. Goncalves has said on our air that he was for the death penalty, that he believed that that was just in this case. Bu you had asked the question about the prosecution. Would they agree with this?
The cost factor to this trial was going to be huge. Not only was the trial moved from Moscow to Boise, but the jury was going to be sequestered, at least for part of the trial. Youve got to bring in everyone from Moscow. Youve got to bring in witnesses. They were going to fly in witnesses from Pennsylvania.
And who would bear the cost of this entirety? Moscow, the very small community of Moscow and Latah County. And I think that that is something that everyone except the victims' families, I'm not -- I don't believe that they would be for this would be for.
But one last thing. The judge in one of the final pretrial hearings looked at the defense and said, I want your paperwork on any final best offer that you receive. I knew exactly what he was talking about. I couldn't believe he said in open court.
And that means that this has been going on for potentially a while. And now we are hearing it. But, of course, it is days before it is not after the trial begins or during the jury selection. There is time, but there will be a sentence hearing. Those victim impact statements will be monumental in this case.
TAPPER: All right. Laura Coates and Jean Casarez, thank you so much.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now. I'll see you tomorrow.
