Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Soon, Platner Rallies In Maine As Scandals Rock His Campaign; New Analysis Shows 97 Jan. 6 Rioters Have Faced Other Charges Since Trump Granted Clemency To 1,500 For Capitol Attack; Intel Agencies Say, China Uses Sites Like LinkedIn To Recruit And Spy; California's Slow Counting Sparks Baseless Fraud Claims; Tonight: Knicks And Spurs Face Off In Game Two. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 05, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner is about to take the stage in Maine for a campaign rally as he remains defiant despite yet another scandal. Will Democrats continue to stand behind him when they cast their votes on Tuesday, or might they vote for a candidate who suspended her campaign but remains on the ballot?

[18:00:03]

Plus, the Justice Department now sending a prosecutor to watch over vote counting in California after President Trump baselessly claimed there was fraud. But why is the vote counting there still going on three days after the primaries, and when could we have the final results?

Also, the warning from some of the world's top spy agencies that China may be trying to trick you with offers of a new job. Why what you share on platforms, such as LinkedIn could make you a target.

And tonight is game two of the NBA finals with the Spurs hoping to even the series down in San Antonio. But up in New York, CNN is on the scene as Knick fans are gathering for what is set to be an electric watch party.

The Lead tonight, right now in Maine, Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner is marching full steam ahead into a big campaign rally as his many scandals snowball behind him just days after assuring Democratic lawmakers in Washington there would be no new credible scandals following the ones over his tattoo with Nazi symbolism, and his extramarital sexting, and his deleted offensive Reddit posts, which slammed police and rural white people.

Well, another big story dropped yesterday when The New York Times, after interviewing three women who dated Platner, accused him of, at least as these three women were concerned, at the very least unsettling behavior, and at least -- in at least one case, physically threatening behavior.

Now, one of the women named in the article is Lyndsey Fifield. She's a Republican who denies any political connection in terms of her coming forward. She said she dated Platner from about 2013 to 2015. The Times writing, quote, Mr. Platner could be rough with her, she said, particularly when they were drinking, leaving her shaken and sometimes afraid. She was quick to note that, He never hit me. He never punched me. During one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom, and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn't get out, telling her to remain there until she was calm, unquote.

Now, Platner was asked about this account last night in an interview on MS NOW.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS HAYES, MS NOW HOST: Did that happen?

GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: No, it did not. There are some allegations in this piece that I just want to be kind of unequivocal about are simply not true. Anything alleging physicality, anything alleging that I knew what my tattoo was, these are the statements of someone who's politically motivated.

In this piece, there's a lot about my struggling, not being a good boyfriend, certainly self-medicating with alcohol.

So, there are things in this that I absolutely will take responsibility for and have been speaking about openly for months now. But those serious allegations are just not true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, now with Platner on defense again, a source says Maine Democratic Governor Janet Mills, who suspended her campaign because she wasn't able to raise any money, she's being encouraged to suit up and get back in the Senate race.

CNN's Danny Freeman is in Portland, Maine. Danny?

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake. It's been quite a day speaking with Democrats here on the ground in Maine about story after story when it comes to Graham Platner, and it's really interesting because so many of them are really wrestling with and grappling with the reality of many of these troubling details, but also the fact that so many of them have been so hoping to finally unseat Republican Senator Susan Collins, and many of them feel that Platner may be their best bet to do so.

So, let me explain really the three types of Democrats that we ran into today. First, there were some who weren't bothered really by any of it. There was one man who said that he wasn't interested in Platner's, in his words, foibles and just likes what he has to say on the issues, and he's still going to vote for him.

The second really were people who are pissed, Jake. They're angry, and they're really frustrated about these stories, but they're going to bite their tongue and vote for him on Tuesday. There was one woman who I spoke with who said that she didn't even believe his explanations, let's say, for that tattoo, but she's still going to vote for him because, again, the best bet in her mind to beat Susan Collins.

And then, finally, there were the third group of Democrats who really weren't big fans of him to begin with, and now they're just resigned that more shoes will drop and the Democrats are going to lose in November.

Take a listen to some of the voters we spoke with today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETH DINCLAS, MAINE DEMOCRATIC VOTER: The truth is the Nazi tattoo should've been enough. It should've been enough. It should've been a non-starter. So, I have not been Team Platner from day one. Janet Mills all the way.

FREEMAN: Do you believe Platner when he says, I didn't know that was a Nazi tattoo, I didn't, you know --

WOODY HAYWARD, MAINE DEMOCRATIC VOTER: Yes, I know. That's troublesome. It's troublesome.

But what else -- like what else do we have?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: And now, Jake, you heard that first woman there mention Janet Mills, that's the Democratic governor of the state.

[18:05:01]

Folks might remember she suspended her campaign before back in April, but now sources are telling CNN that she's been getting encouragement basically to reignite her campaign in these final days before the primary because of a lot of these scandals that Platner is facing.

But, again, a lot of people that we spoke with, again, even if they're not thrilled about these Platner stories, they think that at this point it's too late, and they're probably going to pull the lever for Platner.

Again, a very, very interesting day up here speaking with Democrats in Maine. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Danny Freeman, thanks so much.

Joining us now is Cheyenne Hunt. She's the progressive activist who helped bring attention to the sexual misconduct allegations against Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell, which, of course, resulted in him suspending his campaign for California governor and resigning from Congress. She has now pulled her endorsement of Graham Platner.

And, Cheyenne, you initially endorsed Platner. What was the breaking point that made you feel it was important to take a stand and publicly rescind the endorsement?

CHEYENNE HUNT, ATTORNEY AND ACTIVIST: Thanks for having me, Jake. Look, I pulled my endorsement of Graham Platner because the information that has come to light at this point is inexcusable. From comments on Reddit that excuse rape to now multiple allegations from a number of women that detail behaviors that are just grotesque, from demonstrably poor judgment to physical altercations, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, it's disqualifying for someone seeking to hold higher office, and we have to do what is right, even when it is politically and electorally inconvenient.

TAPPER: Obviously of the three women in The New York Times article, the one who is the most prominent is a Republican. And Platner is suggesting that her accusations that he was physically violent is being made for partisan reasons. She says that's not true at all and that she has, you know, a liberal husband, liberal friends, she would be making these allegations if he were a Republican, it doesn't matter. What's your take? Do you think there's partisanship afoot here?

HUNT: I think that we need to remember who we are. If we want to claim that we have the moral high ground as a party, and we need to remember what distinguishes us from those we claim to organize against, and that is holding our own accountable and standing up for women across the board.

Accountability does not change whether someone is affiliated with one party or another, and the demand for justice and equity doesn't change. And so that is why I'm pulling this endorsement now.

TAPPER: Platner obviously had scandals before these women spoke out, including the totenkopf, that tattoo with Nazi symbolism, and The New York Times piece says that his former girlfriend, Lyndsey Fifield recalled Platner referring to it years earlier as my totenkopf, saying that she learned the word from him, even though he has been publicly saying he didn't understand the tattoo's significance until last October. Do you believe him on that?

HUNT: Look, it's been a steady drip of information over the last few months, and more frequently in the last few days, that has really chipped away at his credibility across the board. And, again, I think it's just blatantly disqualifying at this point. So, no, I don't believe that.

TAPPER: It does seem as though Democrats are still -- I mean, at least Democratic officials, progressives, I should say, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party, which I think you identify with to a degree, the progressives, are sticking with him. Bernie Sanders said something the other day about, sure interesting how much -- you know, how many people are going after him, suggesting that all of this is about, you know, standing against progressivism.

Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California, he's campaigning with Platner tonight. He said Platner's behavior was wrong, but that he sought redemption. What would you say to Congressman Khanna?

HUNT: I'm just calling on all of our leaders right now to understand that we can't sacrifice women for the next election, and to understand how this always looks in retrospect. It's clear now, looking at the stories of Dolores Huerta or Eric Swalwell, that when we sacrifice women for the next election, that is always morally wrong.

And so we have to understand that while a lot is at stake in this particular race, it's Graham Platner who put us in this position, not the women coming forward, not the advocates calling for accountability, and the blame lays squarely at his feet.

TAPPER: Cheyenne Hunt, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Let's talk about this now with James Carville, the legendary political consultant and Democratic strategist who helped elect President Bill Clinton. And, James, you have a different take than Cheyenne. You've been pro Platner. What do you say to Cheyenne, who says women shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of an election?

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, let's start. I endorsed Janet Mills when she called me. I sent out an email for her. If it wasn't for him in the first place, but it's a choice. And I might point out is this guy had four combat deployments in every war that she voted for.

[18:10:05]

And we can all be sanitized here in peacetime, and we can all do anything and not understand that the guy, as I said him to you, he's probably five degrees off dead center. But it may be good to have a combat veteran who is having PTSD, who is struggling, who is having mental issues, on the floor of the United States Senate. So, the next time they send young men off to war, and now young women, by the way, to be fair, they'll think about it a little bit more, and this will be the consequence of it.

I don't know who that -- by the way, that woman that you call a Republican, that's a kind of an incomplete definition. She's a pretty hardcore activist Republican. But I don't know. I'm sure there's some truth at the end of this. I'm sure some of it might be exaggerated. But I know this, that this guy served his country four times, three in the Marine Corps overseas, and one in the Maryland National Guard while he was going to college. And we're going to sit here and judge him based on our cushy lives and not what he had to go through. And that's my point about Graham Platner.

But I wasn't for him, and I'm obviously for Susan Collins. Who wouldn't be for anybody against, you know, maybe the most duplicitous person to ever serve in the United States Senate?

TAPPER: Right. But now you would s- you would... That's the point, is that you would support Platner over Susan Collins. Would you -- just to clarify where you're coming from, if you were a Maine Democrat, would you vote for Susan -- I mean, would you vote for Janet Mills on Tuesday?

CARVILLE: I endorsed Janet Mills.

TAPPER: Right.

CARVILLE: I let her use my name. I sent out an email or blast -- TAPPER: But she suspended her campaign.

CARVILLE: Blast text or whatever you do. I know her. She's a friend of mine. I like her.

TAPPER: But she suspended her campaign because she couldn't compete. She couldn't compete against Graham Platner. He was just raising so much money.

CARVILLE: I understand that. I understand that too. A lot of good my endorsement does. Only if they call me, it probably plauses you, but this is what we do. And all of the people that are all in angst, and I don't -- you know, one thing I hate is what about-ism, but what about Ken Paxton? What about, you know, some of these people? And there's no slack given to this guy, no understanding, because they don't want to know what the effects of four combat deployments can mentally do to somebody. It'll mess you up. I know a lot of people get shot at. I never have been, but the people that have been shot at say it's not any fun.

TAPPER: So, what would you say to a Republican maybe the same thing you're about to -- that you've been saying, but what would you say to a Republican who says, James, if there was a Republican combat veteran who had a Nazi tattoo, a totenkopf tattoo, you wouldn't be so forgiving, what would you say to that?

CARVILLE: It's true. I would say, you're exactly right. If that person was a four-time combat veteran, I'd say, I'd never vote for him, or maybe it's her now, we have women in combat. But, you know, you can't do -- but I wouldn't vote -- I wouldn't vote for -- I think the greatest danger we face right now is from Donald Trump. I think this country is in extreme peril. And, by the way, as I pointed out, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill worked with Joseph Stalin. I don't think Graham Platner is Joseph Stalin at all, right? They worked with the Sicilian Mafia because they had to win the war. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. And you go, what about this? Yes, if he was a Republican, what would you do? Well, he's there.

And, by the way, the guy's got -- I don't agree with his economic prescription so much, but at least he understands what inequality is doing to this country and wants to do something about it. And I would vote for him in a general election in a heartbeat, and I wouldn't vote for Ken Paxton or Donald Trump no matter who they were running against, and I'll be just frankly honest about it.

TAPPER: James Carville, thank you so much, always good to have you on.

CARVILLE: Good night, Jake.

TAPPER: Granted clemency by President Trump, but accused of new crimes, the startling new analysis about some of the January 6th rioters. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00] TAPPER: We're back and our Politics Lead.

A new study reveals that at least 97 of the 1,500 people granted clemency by President Trump for their roles in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, at least 97 have been arrested, charged with, or convicted of other crimes separate from January 6th since their participation in the 2021 Capitol riot, people such as Christopher Moynihan, arrested in October for threatening to kill Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Moynihan pleaded guilty earlier this year, according to court records. He was originally sentenced to nearly two years in prison for his role in January 6th.

Here with me now is Benjamin Wittes, the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, which published this analysis. Ben, thanks so much for joining us.

So, past studies have only found about 30 individuals charged with other crimes unrelated to the riot on January 6th. How was your team able to uncover so many more?

BENJAMIN WITTES, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, LAWFARE: So, we first of all looked harder. There are a variety of sets of data that were available that don't seem to have been systematically examined. One of them, for example, is the sentencing memos in the federal January 6th cases, which often list other criminal activity that the defendants were the subjects of or were involved in and were prosecuted for.

Another one is most of the reporting about subsequent criminal activity by January 6ers comes from very sort of hyper local reporting by, you know, hyper local press. And these are not results that will show up high in a Google search. But if you do multiple probing searches of all of the names and you cross-reference it against other databases and other indications like, for example, these sentencing memos, you can find out a lot.

[18:20:09]

And it turns out that a very large percentage of the criminal activity by J6ers was missed by previous studies.

TAPPER: So, your analysis found 41 of these 97, 41 people charged or convicted of violent crimes, 14 sex crimes, including four charged with possession of child sexual assault material, 28 gun crimes, 51 other crimes, everything from public intoxication to charges of child endangerment. Do you think you're going to continue adding to this list? Are you going to keep doing this research, and do you think there are probably even names out there that you don't know about?

WITTES: Well, certainly, this is not a complete list. There are people that we're aware of that we are pretty sure should be on it, but we are not sure to the level of confidence to publish it yet. So -- and then there are -- remember, these are the 1,600 -- just under 1,600 J6ers who were prosecuted are only a small percentage of the roughly 10,000 people who were believed to be there, one of whom allegedly committed a murder the other day. And so, you know, the -- he's not on our list, although we do talk about him in, in Catherine Pompilio's story about it because he wasn't prosecuted. So, I think there are two big sources of additional names that are going to start coming in. One is the people who were part of that 10,000-person day, but not part of the 1,600 who were prosecuted. And the second, of course, is that there are people who, you know, we did not satisfy ourselves belong on the list, but who probably do, and I suspect that list will feed this list over time. And then, of course, finally, life is long and, you know, this is a group of people that will continue to commit crimes.

TAPPER: The White House told The New York Times that these individuals, not the 97, but all of them, the 15, 1,600, were victims of what they call the, quote, weaponized justice system. They said in a statement, quote, The White House has a rigorous pardon review process which includes the White House counsel, the Department of Justice, and ultimately the president as the final decider, unquote.

As the study notes, some of this non-January 6th related conduct actually predates Trump's pardon, although some came after as well. Is there any type of standard that an individual has to uphold once clemency has been granted, like how parole works?

WITTES: No. So, the nature of a pardon is that it is forgiveness. And so once you are pardoned of a crime, you are not subject to any monitoring. You're not subject to -- the release is not conditional, right? These people were granted full and unconditional pardons, at least the vast majority of them were. And that means that there's nobody whose job it is to keep track of what they do.

And so if they engage in a DUI in which somebody gets killed, as one of them did, you know, nobody reports that to the responsible federal official who's, like, supposed to keep track of the J6ers who receive pardons, because there is no such person.

TAPPER: Ben, I hesitate to ask, but we're out of time, but if you have a yes or no on this though, then it'd be great. Are there people who are now dead, are there kids who have now been victimized that if President Trump had not pardoned these -- some of these individuals, that wouldn't have happened?

WITTES: There are definitely victims of crimes who would not have been victimized by these people had they been in prison and been unable therefore to victimize those people.

TAPPER: Benjamin Wittes with Lawfare, thank you so much.

WITTES: Thanks for having me.

TAPPER: Coming up next, a warning from the world's top intelligence communities on China's newest way to recruit spies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: In our World Lead, an extraordinary new warning from the top western intelligence agencies that China is using online job platforms, such as LinkedIn, to find people who work for the government or the military and then turn them into spies who will send along secret or restricted information.

CNN Chief National Security Analyst Jim Sciutto joins us now. Jim, tell us more about this warning. Where does it come from? What should people be on the lookout for?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, in many ways, this is a brilliant strategy, right, because China knows there are many tens of thousands of people who work for the U.S. government, the U.S. military intelligence agencies, or are contractors, right? I mean, you know, there's multiples more that have security clearances, and therefore have access to highly sensitive information that China wants.

They also know that those people, when they leave the government, are highly sought after in the private sector. So, to use LinkedIn as a platform to contact these kinds of folks behind fake shell companies that, that, you know, purport to be from outside of China, is a great way to lure folks in. And it would send an invitation. You know, you're coming out of a government job. You're looking for a job in the private sector. You get an invitation to, you know, ABC Company based in Brussels, whatever.

And what's also brilliant about it is that they ask for information first, which is something you could imagine in a job process to say, okay, tell me what exactly you know about, I don't know, missile defense technology, right, or intelligence collection and this kind of thing.

[18:30:04]

So, they had to kind of submit not just a resume but a little bit of a taste of what they knew. So, China was getting or trying to get information even before they, you know, recruited these guys in effect. In many ways, it's a brilliant plan.

TAPPER: Yes. And who exactly are they targeting, anyone or people with specific areas of expertise?

SCIUTTO: Specific areas of expertise. But keep in mind that China views any classified information as potentially valuable to it. So, it doesn't have to be about a particular weapons system. China builds files, frankly, and, by the way, they probably build files on you and me as well, right?

TAPPER: Right.

SCIUTTO: They build files, and they like to build connections among those people, who do you know, who do you meet with that help then them identify American assets around the world. So, not just the information itself, say, physical information about a technology or intelligence collection or defense capability, but also who knows who, and therefore it helps China identify who the operatives are in their country.

TAPPER: Yes.

SCIUTTO: They're looking for patterns, connections. And this is, you know, just picture -- mounds and mounds of giga and terabits of information that they then build into a larger network.

To be fair, the U.S. does a lot of intelligence collection abroad as well but China is more aggressive in these forms of, well, misleading, right, the folks that they're going after. Because, of course, I mean, you see this, the CIA will be quite public about looking for potential sources in Russia or China, China more likely to use cloak and dagger methods to draw people in.

TAPPER: Yes. And you have some firsthand experience with this.

SCIUTTO: Listen, I mean, because I served in government in China, I was very much monitored there, right up to the point where I knew they had listening devices in my family's apartment, and cameras as well. But since then, and either partly because of my past government work or because of the kinds of things you and I cover --

TAPPER: Just to be clear, you worked for the U.S. Embassy in China.

SCIUTTO: In China, exactly. But because of the stuff you and I cover today, even, you know, many years after I did government service, they want to know who folks like you and me know as well. There was an incident a few years ago where the Vietnamese government was replying to my tweets with links, seemingly innocuous replies to a tweet, and the hope was if I clicked on that link, then malware would've been installed on my devices. It was -- you know, The Washington Post and CNN wrote stories about this. I didn't see the tweet or click on that link but there are intelligence collection methods like this going on all the time.

And sometimes they're quite simple. Phishing can be highly -- you know, it's oldest trick in the book, right, since the day, days of emails and the internet. But, of course, it was phishing that got John Podesta to click on a link and then opened up Hillary's files for the 2016 campaign. You know, that sometimes very simple methods can bring people in. This one is far more sophisticated, and, frankly, given the number of people out there with this kind of experience, it's a smart plan.

And, by the way, those folks don't have to want to work for China. They think they're filling out a job application.

TAPPER: Oh, man, nefarious and terrifying. And, of course, the Chinese government denies any of this, per usual.

Jim Sciutto, thank you so much.

As Democratic Senate Candidate Grand Platner of Maine prepares to take the stage in Portland this evening, I'm going to be joined next by a supporter of his campaign for her reaction to the latest allegations made against her favorite candidate.

Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: We're back with our Politics Lead. Maine Democratic Senate Candidate Graham Platner moving forward with his campaign full steam ahead as scandals continue to mount against him.

Joining us now, Maine State Representative Valli Geiger, she's a Platner campaign supporter. With me in studio, Carine Hajjar from The Washington Post Editorial Board.

State Representative Geiger, let me start with you. The New York Times interviewed three women who dated Platner and accused him of, at the very least, unsettling behavior, and at least in one case, she said physically threatening behavior. He's denied it. Do you believe him? Are you not disturbed at all by what you read?

STATE REP. VALLI GEIGER (D-ME): Well, let's be clear, the person who accused him of physicality is a Republican operative who actually started a group called Ladies for Kavanaugh, who helped write the speech that Susan Collins gave on the floor to justify her vote for him. So, frankly, I find it a little hard to accept her word when her own diary did not offer any collaboration and neither did her friends, that he was a lousy boyfriend during a period of time after his combat service. He has, I think, talked about pretty clearly since he started his campaign. He was in a dark place. He had PTSD. He had just come back from combat. He was drinking too much. I have no doubts he was a lousy boyfriend. But I don't think that's what this campaign is about.

TAPPER: I'm not sure that's right that her diaries and her friends didn't collaborate anything that she said.

GEIGER: They said that he was not -- they did -- could not collaborate the physicality of what she's accusing him of.

TAPPER: Even before The New York Times report came out, he faced other controversies, obviously the tattoo with Nazi symbolism, the extramarital sexting, the other comments that he made on Reddit. At this point, do you really think that Platner still has the best chance of defeating Susan Collins and not Democratic Maine Governor Janet Mills?

GEIGER: Are you asking me if a 79-year-old governor who is a corporate centrist Democrat, who has alienated a lot of her more progressive base over eight years is more likely to beat Susan Collins? No. If you're asking me if David Costello, who has been running for four years now and is a bland imitation of a liberal Democrat, is likely to beat Susan Collins? No.

If all of you keep with the character assassination for the next five months, you may succeed in taking him out. I happen to think it's a fight worth fighting. I happen to think that his campaign, the movement he is leading, is worth trying to keep going.

[18:40:04] I think he is a -- I know him. I've known him since last summer.

TAPPER: Yes.

GEIGER: I don't know what you mean by all of you character assassination. I'm -- we're reporting, I mean, he had a totenkopf tattoo on his chest. That's a fact. He did write those Reddit posts. That's a fact. These three women -- these three women came out, and they're making these allegations against him. It's a fact. I don't know him. I'm not making any character assassinations. We're stating facts. These women said this. He denies it, and we're reporting it.

GEIGER: I just have never seen a single article about the fact that when he shows up, everything is packed, that 900 people show up to see him.

TAPPER: You've really never seen an article about that?

GEIGER: No way. I don't see Susan Collins' votes that lead to hundreds of thousands of people being taken or killed in war being -- I'm sorry, I just don't see his personal life and what we're talking about politically, about a progressive economic populist movement as being the same thing.

TAPPER: I've read and we've covered the fact that he's obviously very charismatic and obviously capturing lightning in a bottle when it comes to support among progressives in Maine. Absolutely, we have. You can ask the Platner campaign, because several weeks ago I said, I will come up to Maine and travel with him and see what he is doing and why so many people are coming to his events. They have yet to take me up on that offer. I don't know that that's my fault.

But let me go to you, Carine, because I want to get a different perspective on this. Well, first of all, what do you think of what the State Representative Geiger just said?

CARINE HAJJAR, EDITORIAL BOARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, I just think Maine voters deserve better, and I think that Democrats who are scrambling right now are presenting a false choice to voters. They've known since October that this guy had huge red flags, when news of the Reddit post came out, news of the totenkopf, and he's misled voters all along. So --

TAPPER: How has he misled them?

HAJJAR: We've had months of knowing. For example, it was CNN, the KFiles, that reported that he was posting on Reddit about a Totenkopf. This recent New York Times bombshell about the three -- his three exes who are making accusations against him also seems to suggest that he was talking about his totenkopf ahead of running for election in Maine.

So, I think Maine voters deserve better choices. Democrats have had months to cobble together if Janet Mills wasn't the right choice for Democrats, well, they've had months. And I think when you start with a Nazi tattoo, it's time to have some contingency plans. TAPPER: And what did you make of State Representative Geiger's suggestions that Lyndsey Fifield is not credible because she's a Republican, she supported Brett Kavanaugh and on and on? What did you think of that?

HAJJAR: I think that's a completely unfair deflection, and the amount of scrutiny that Lyndsey has gotten so quickly I wonder if that same scrutiny, if it had been applied to Graham Platner himself, what he said about his past, what he said about his education, what he said about his working class roots, if people had applied that same level of scrutiny to Graham Platner, we'd be stuck in this situation right now.

TAPPER: All right. Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate your views.

Three days later and still no final results in some of California's primary contests, but, no, Mr. President, just because they're really, really slow counting ballots in California does not mean it's fraud. We'll explain after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:47:08]

TAPPER: In our politics lead, the Justice Department has sent a prosecutor to observe the ballot counting in Los Angeles. This is after President Trump, without any evidence, claim Democrats are cheating in California.

Here's the president repeating those allegations just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You're going to be waiting weeks to get these votes. It's corrupt. Somebody said it's incompetent. I said, no, just the opposite. It's unbelievably competent if you happen to be a Democrat politician, because with their policies, the only way they can get elected is to cheat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: OK, so none of that's true. But the president does have a point about how long tallies take in California. They take way too long compared to other states, especially. Three days after polls close, 60 percent of the votes in, it's still too early to call. Which candidates will advance in the state's governor's race? Why does it take so long?

Here's CNN's Elex Michaelson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So in California, you can turn your ballot in up until the very last day. As long as it is postmarked by election day, there's up to seven days for that to come to a vote processing center like this one to be counted. Also, we mail ballots to every single registered voter in the state. Right now, about 80 percent of voters return their ballots by mail. Each one of them has to go through a signature verification process. If there's a problem in the signature verification process, then you're alerted and you have 10 days to fix that process to come what's called cure your ballot. All that takes time.

Eventually, all those ballots come here where they are officially counted. But the whole process takes about three weeks, which is longer than most states who don't do most of that, and by the way, have a lot less people.

L.A. County alone has 5.9 million registered voters, which is more voters than 41 other states.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: All right, Elex Michaelson, a proud Californian.

Joining us now to discuss, David Becker, Executive Director of Election Innovation and Research.

So first of all, what exactly might a prosecutor sent by the Trump administration be looking for as they observe ballot counting in L.A.?

DAVID BECKER, FOUNDER, CENTER FOR ELECTION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH: I mean, we should note that the prosecutor was just allowed in that room. There's a live stream of that room in L.A. I've been in that room before. The campaigns, the parties, the candidates all have observers in there 24/7 when everything is going on. The prosecutor was welcome to see it.

They're not going to find anything. This might have been in response to a social media post by the president of the United States and some of the false claims that he's making. But we should recognize right now in California, California does go a little more slowly than most states, but for mail ballot states, the states that have made the policy choice to do a lot of mail voting, blue states like Washington and Oregon, but red states like Utah, Montana, Arizona is kind of in the middle.

[18:50:10]

But they all have a lot of mail ballots. It's just that the elections aren't very close, so we don't often notice that it's taking longer. Every state that had a primary on June 2nd is still counting some ballots. California is counting more.

And the big factor here that's making a difference is that there were a lot of ballots that were delivered to election officials in drop-off locations or drop boxes on Election Day itself, usually late in election day. Those can't be processed until later.

Of course, the election officials didn't have them. They need to be validated to make sure the right person sent them back. They're checking signatures. They're checking to make sure that person hasn't voted at some other times. They're not double voting. They're doing all the things we want them to do.

TAPPER: Right.

BECKER: And that takes more time. Just in Orange County and L.A. County alone, just those two of the 57 counties in California, about a million ballots were dropped off on Election Day itself.

TAPPER: But you acknowledge they could do things to speed it up, right? I mean, I think Florida, I think they count the ballots before Election Day, the ones that come in.

BECKER: They process them.

TAPPER: They process, right? So they're ready to go. We hit the button and then they get counted.

BECKER: And California does the same.

TAPPER: California does the same?

BECKER: Yeah, almost every state does the same.

TAPPER: What would you tell them to do differently to speed it up? Because three weeks is a long time.

BECKER: I mean, they've made, it's not going to take three weeks until the media gets to call the race. We know that. It'll be in the next few days probably. There are some late ballots and the cured ballots that were just reference, if it's a really, really close election, it doesn't matter whether it's Florida or California or any other state. If it gets down to a few 100 or a few thousand votes, they're going to be counting every single ballot.

TAPPER: Yeah. But if you were king of California --

BECKER: Yeah.

TAPPER: -- and somebody said, please, please make it more reasonable, what would you do?

BECKER: First of all, it sounds like a great job. But second of all, I'd give more resources to election officials. It takes a lot of money and staff time to review all of those ballots. I'd probably do a lot of voter education to encourage people to get their ballots in earlier or choose to vote in person, which you can do in California. And it's very convenient if you choose that. In person ballots don't need to be validated later because you validated them when they went and got their ballot.

So there are some options there. Florida has a lot of mail voting, but not nearly the volume or percentage that California does. So they're able to process them a little earlier and they probably have people returning those ballots earlier as well. You can make a variety of choices. And I think encouraging voters if

they're able and if they might enjoy it. I personally choose to vote early in person. I think that's a wonderful way to perhaps get some of this passed.

But the single biggest variable, two biggest variables are how many ballots are dropped off at the last minute.

TAPPER: Right.

BECKER: Election officials have no control over that. And then what's the margin of victory? Think about election night in 2024. California has called 8:01 p.m. Pacific Time.

TAPPER: Right.

BECKER: That's not because they counted the ballots so fast. It's because the margin was so large, we already know.

TAPPER: So I think Trump is doing a lot to try to delegitimize the idea of mail-in ballots, which is silly because members of his own family and he himself have voted mail-in. And I think Utah is all mail-in, right? It's entirely mail-in.

BECKER: Yes.

TAPPER: Now, Utah is not the size of California, but we don't have this problem in Utah, and they're entirely mail-in. So, what lesson could California take from Utah?

BECKER: Well, we don't perceive to have this problem in Utah because the margins are so big, we're not waiting on results.

TAPPER: Well, they have a competitive congressional district.

BECKER: And that happens sometimes. Usually the margins are really big. Again, think back to that California presidential race. In primaries, the margins can be a lot tighter, obviously.

TAPPER: Right.

BECKER: And we're waiting here. We're not trying to figure out who got first place. We're trying to figure out who got third place in these races.

TAPPER: Right.

BECKER: So that can take more time. It just so happens the L.A. mayor's race is really, really tight between the second and third place competitors. So we need to see how that plays out.

And L.A. County is actually counting faster than state on average right now. So there are some things you can tweak, but I think overall they're doing a good job.

TAPPER: All right. David Becker, thanks so much. Really appreciate it. We're just hours away from the start of game two of the NBA Finals between the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs. CNN's live at a watch party right outside the Garden as excitement builds for tonight's match-up. That's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:08]

TAPPER: In our sports lead, tonight is game two of the NBA finals between the New York Knickerbockers and the San Antonio Spurs. It's happening in Texas but excitement is building in New York City, where fans are outside Madison Square Garden for a watch party, hoping to net a second win.

And that's where we find CNN's Shimon Prokupecz.

Shimon, what is the atmosphere ahead of tip-off there?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Jake, crowds are already gathering here outside Madison Square Garden. It will be game two tonight with the possibility for the Knicks to take a commanding 2-0 lead.

But fans have been gathering outside the Garden here for hours. Some I was talking to a guy earlier here today who came to this watch party at around 12:00, was in line for hours ahead of anyone here. He wanted to make sure he had a front row seat.

And the excitement in the city, you just can't really explain it. People here are excited. They're Knick fans everywhere you go, and a lot of them will be gathering here outside Madison Square Garden, like these guys here.

How are you guys feeling about tonight?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great. We're going to win. Knicks in four.

CROWD: Knicks in four.

PROKUPECZ: How long you guys have been standing out here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably an hour, hour, hour and a half.

PROKUPECZ: Why is it important to be here together? Like, what's going on?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: City's united.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Be here for it or be nowhere.

PROKUPECZ: Thank you, guys. Have fun.

So, Jake, that's what's happening. There's so much excitement here. Many of the people really feeling that they are united here, seeing so many fans out. This is something that the Knick fans have been waiting for years. And finally here, they have their moment at a potential championship -- Jake.

TAPPER: Shimon Prokupecz in New York City. New York, New York. The city is so nice, they named it twice. Coming up Sunday on State of the Union, Democratic Senator and Senate

Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner and the co-chair of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi in New York. That's Sunday at 9:00 a.m. and noon Eastern on CNN.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bluesky and on the TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on X on Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of Lead, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. Have a great weekend.