Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Vows Response After Iran Shoots Down U.S. Helicopter; Trump Admin Facing 9:00 P.M. Deadline Tonight In Lawsuit Trying To Stop UFC Event; U.S. Launches Strikes On Iran In Response To Downed Apache Helicopter; Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) Is Interviewed About Epstein Assistant Denies Knowing About His Crimes; Primary Day In Maine As Voters Weigh Platner's Past; Former U.S. National Security Officials Warn Over Pulte Pick. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 09, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL RBEAK)

[17:00:16]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks very much to my panel for being here. Really appreciate all of you. Thanks to those of you at home for watching as well. But don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for The Lead. Hi, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Hey, Kasie. How are you?

HUNT: Very well. Nice to see you.

TAPPER: Good to see you. We'll look for more tomorrow in The Arena.

HUNT: See you soon.

TAPPER: President Trump promises to respond after Iran shot down a U.S. helicopter. The Lead starts right now.

The U.S. army Apache helicopter shut down. Trump says it was Iran and says the U.S. must respond. Is this the start of yet another major escalation with a ceasefire being discussed? Is the ceasefire on the verge of collapsing? And is live with White House. CNN is also live in Iran.

Plus, a deciding moment for Democrats in Maine. Are they willing to put Graham Platner's scandals aside and have him take on Republican Senator Susan Collins? But that's not the only big race we're watching on this primary day.

And, the clock tick, ticking down to Sunday's UFC fight at the White House and the deadline tonight in a lawsuit trying to stop the big event and remove the claw.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We begin with breaking news in our World Lead, the U.S. war with Iran is very much not over. This afternoon on Truth Social, President Trump posted, quote, I have just been informed by our great military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz.

There were two pilots involved. Both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, the United States must of necessity respond to this attack.

This attack coming during a ceasefire that has not exactly seen a ceasing of fire. Two officials in the U.S. said it was an Iranian drone that brought down the army helicopter off the coast of Oman. A separate source telling CNN that an Iranian Shahed drone struck the U.S. helicopter. The two crew members were rescued by an uncrewed drone boat. According to the military.

This is a serious escalation in a war that President Trump just last night said was almost over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're in the final throes of what will be a very, very good deal that will not allow in any way, shape or form nuclear weapons, et cetera. And the strait will open up right away. It'll open up immediately upon signing, which could be in two or three days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Two or three days. Two or three days. Of course, Trump has on a regular basis for months now claimed that a deal to end the war is either imminent or coming in two or three days. CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House for us Fred Pleitgen is in Tehran. CNN operates in Iran, as all media in Iran do, only with the permission of the Iranian government. But CNN does maintain full editorial control of our reports.

Kristen, to you first. What are you hearing about how President Trump might respond to this attack on the Apache?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, so far President Trump has been unwilling to resume any kind of major military operation. In fact, he has continually extended deadlines so that he wouldn't have to reengage in any kind of military operation in Iran. Yesterday telling Netanyahu not to retaliate against Iran in case it could mess up some sort of peace deal. And it certainly sounds as though this wouldn't be some kind of major escalation, just from what he is telling the Wall Street Journal in an interview moments ago where he played down the event.

He actually said, quote, it wasn't a big deal and stressed that the pilot was fine, indicating that he doesn't want to have some kind of major response there. But of course, he has now put in writing that the United States, out of necessity, those were his words, has to respond.

The big question also being how does this impact this so called peace deal that President Trump said that they were just days away from? We've talked to U.S. officials who have said that, that they are cautiously optimistic now for weeks of you, as you have noted, he has said this time and time again over the past two months of this ceasefire.

But whether or not this complicates this mission for some kind of diplomatic off ramp, that is of course, what we'll be watching closely as President Trump tries to thread the needle between saying he has to respond and not engaging in any kind of major military escalation that could throw off any kind of potential.

TAPPER: And Fred, to you in Tehran, how is the Iranian government responding to Trump's claim that Iran shot down a U.S. army helicopter?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jake. Well, Iran's foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi seems to be responding to this. In a tweet that he issued, say about an hour, maybe an hour and a half ago, he essentially said that if indeed a U.S. helicopter, a U.S. aircraft was struck in the Strait of Hormuz by an Iranian drone, as far as Iranians are concerned. Most likely that was an accident.

[17:05:05]

Essentially what he's saying, that if foreign forces are operating off the territorial waters of Iran, that they are of course running the risk of possibly getting involved in an accident, as he put it, their own errors or getting caught in crossfire. One of the other things that the foreign minister also says is that he recommended foreign troops leave that area as soon as possible.

The Iranians are also saying, and this also comes from the foreign minister, that they prefer, as he put it, the language of diplomacy but speak other languages as well. Obviously, indicated from the Iranian side that first of all, they say that this most probably was an accident. At the same time saying that they are not going to be intimidated by President Trump saying that the U.S. will respond to all of this. At the same time, the Iranians saying that they continue to prefer diplomacy.

And one of the things that Kristen was saying is actually something that we're seeing echoed here on the ground as well in Iran. It certainly seems as though there is at least a degree of optimism that some sort of memorandum of understanding could be reached. It's unclear what the timeline is. Certainly there are still some issues the Iranians say that they want to see sorted out.

One of the things that we keep hearing again and again from the Iranians is that their frozen assets are a key issue for them and they certainly want those back. They say that's Iran's money. Those should be given back immediately. And that may be something that could complicate matters.

But one of the things I have to say, Jake, is that compared to Monday when of course the U.S. and Iran were on the brink of going back to full on conflict, certainly things seem a lot more relaxed here on the ground in Tehran. Nevertheless, of course they understand this could be a serious incident unfolding after what happened there in the Strait of Hormuz. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Fred Pleitgen in Tehran. Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks to both you. For reaction, let's turn to CNN national security analyst Alex Plitsas is now you're getting some brand new information about how these helicopter pilots were rescued. What can you tell us?

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So I'm hearing that it was a Saronic unmanned drone that was transiting waterways in the area that was then repurposed to rescue the pilots that were down on the ground and move them to an area where they could actually be rescued by forces because it was extremely dangerous in terms of where they initially went down to send in either fixed or rotary wing helicopters to try to go get them.

So, really kind of an on the fly operation. This was an unmanned system that was rapidly fielded by U.S. Central Command that was then repurposed to do this. So rather extraordinary operation.

TAPPER: Can you describe this as like a sort of drone boat?

PLITSAS: That's correct. An unmanned surface vehicle is what they'll call it that was out there for other purposes that was then repurposed. When the pilots went down, everyone saw where they were. Little brainstorming got together and there was determination made that it was a little risky to send in manned aircraft.

And so they were able to send in unmanned surface vehicles. They'll call it an unmanned water drone, for lack of a better term, that then were able to move them to another location to where they could be extracted.

TAPPER: The president posted that the U.S. quote, must of necessity respond unquote to last night's downing of the Apache. But Trump just told the Wall Street Journal it wasn't, quote -- it quote, wasn't a big deal. And he stressed that the pilots are fine. What kind of response would you expect? And does a response risk escalating the conflict and completely derailing any cease fire?

PLITSAS: It actually does. And to try to come over the top, I'll call this a triple, you know, a trifecta between Kirsten at the White House, Fred and Tehran. And what I'm hearing from regional allies that we were actually extremely close to a memorandum of understanding with the Iranians prior to the IDF strikes the other day on Beirut that then launched that escalation back and forth between Israel and Tehran.

And now we've seen both the president and the Iranians sort of walking back statements there. The president initially saying that there's going to be some sort of response and saying it wasn't that big of a deal. The Iranian foreign minister saying, hey, this was likely an accident.

And from what I'm hearing, actually that this proposed memorandum of understanding, as our colleague David Sanger from the New York Times, one of our national security analysts, a colleague of mine reported, reported earlier today that there was about four issues on the nuclear side that were really being finalized to try to get this deal over the line, but also hearing that this may actually not include Israel and Lebanon. So, a lot of things in the works. I heard a lot of positive sentiment from regional mediators.

We heard the same thing from Fred now in Tehran that he's hearing on the ground and from Kirsten to the White House. So we're now hearing from now three different sources sort of a similar story.

TAPPER: So last night, Trump said the U.S. is two to three days away from a deal that will open the Strait of Hormuz and not allow for Iran to have any nuclear weapons. We all hope it's true but we have heard this before. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: We projected four to five weeks. This is a short excursion. Most of the points are already negotiated and agreed to. We're very close to making a deal. Two or three days, a short period of time. We're going to end that war very quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I mean we're in week I think 14 of the 4 to 5-week war. Has it ever been true that we've been close to an actual deal?

PLITSAS: There's been a couple of instances where things were a little further along but by and large he was speaking to the oil markets and trying to keep things down which I'm actually hearing did contribute to keeping oil prices, you know, lower than they should have been based on rhetoric and that was largely based on trading sentiment.

[17:10:08]

But what we're hearing now is that this is actually pretty close or much closer than it's been in the past. But to your point, you know, it's hard to tell. It's like the boy of cried wolf. And so people aren't taking it seriously. But what we're hearing from multiple sources, it does appear that we're actually pretty close at this point. We'll see how this plays out. And if there is an actual escalation here as a result, these pilots going down, it could throw things off. But we'll find out, I think in the next day or so.

TAPPER: Yes, it's like the opposite of the boy who cried wolf, like the boy who cried dove or something like that. I'm still workshopping it. Alex Plitsas, thank you so much.

Coming up, the testimony today from a longtime assistant of Jeffrey Epstein calling the dead pedophile a master manipulator. I'm going to ask a lawmaker who was in the room today what else she said behind closed doors.

And later, the united front from nearly 30 retired high ranking military officers pushing back on President Trump's decision to make the grossly unqualified Bill Pulte, acting director of National Intelligence.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:06]

TAPPER: And we're back with the Law and Justice Lead, a live look outside the White House. We're standing by to hear how the Trump administration is going to respond to a lawsuit trying to stop Sunday's UFC fight on the South Lawn. Let's bring in CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. He's also a former federal prosecutor.

Elie, this lawsuit is from something called the Public Integrity Project on behalf of a Vietnam War veteran, a civic activist. The lawsuit argues that the claw, as it's called, was put up on the White House grounds without congressional approval or an environmental review. Is this a case at all? Could this actually stop the weekend's event?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Jake I think this is unlikely to succeed because there's two foundational problems. The first one is standing. Now, standing means not anyone can sue over anything. You have to be able to show that you will suffer direct, concrete injury.

And if you look at the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiffs are really two private citizens, and they say, well, we like to walk around that area. We enjoy the aesthetics, we enjoy the history. And if this -- if this event goes on, we will suffer, quote, aesthetic injury and, quote, procedural injury, whatever that is. I think that's a stretch when it comes to standing. If you look at the case law.

The second problem is the timing. There's a general principle in the law that says if you have a case to bring you cannot sit on it, wait to the last minute to try to disadvantage the other side. Now here, this UFC event has been public for months, but the lawsuit didn't land until this past weekend, one week before the UFC event. So I think both of those are going to be problems. It's not impossible that it wins, but I think it's unlikely.

TAPPER: The fight's less than a week away. It's not involving just White House grounds, of course. Equipment is going up right now for a weigh in set for Friday night at the Lincoln Memorial. Exactly what arguments are the plaintiffs making here?

HONIG: So the first argument is if you're going to build a structure on the White House lawn that has to be authorized by Congress. You see the structure right there? I think the response we'll hear from the administration is as big as this is, they will say it's temporary and we don't need Congress if we're going to, for example, put up a stage for a concert.

The other argument is procedural. The plaintiffs say, well, this did not comply with all the regulations and permitting, and it did not have an environmental assessment. But I think the response again, we'll see later tonight from the administration is there's a special rule passed by the National Park Service for the 250th that really suspends a lot of those regulatory requirements. So again, the judge will only get to those questions if he first finds

that they're standing and that this lawsuit is not too late.

TAPPER: Do you see this case resolved by Sunday, by the, by the time of the match?

HONIG: It's got to be. I mean, I've never seen such a lightning schedule. But right now within the district court, the trial court level, the Judge Mehta has set a very strict briefing date. He's going to have to decide within the next couple of days. And I promise you, certainly if the administration loses, they are ready to go up to the court of appeals and maybe the Supreme Court.

But Jake, that kind of thing is going to happen in a matter of not just days, but hours towards the latter part of this week with that event looming so close.

TAPPER: All right, Elie Honig, thanks so much. We're also following the breaking news on Capitol Hill. Testimony wrapping right now from a longtime assistant of Jeffrey Epstein, a lawmaker just stepping out of that hearing to share the title lines of what she told the committee. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:23:08]

TAPPER: We have breaking news for you now in our World Lead, reports of strikes by the U.S. on Iran right now. CENTCOM just posted on X or Twitter quote U.S. Central Command, CENTCOM forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time today at the Commander-in-Chief's direction in response to yesterday's downing of a U.S. army Apache helicopter. The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression, unquote.

A reminder that this is in response to what we learned about happened last night, which is that there was a rescue of two American pilots. They were rescued after the Iranians shot down their Apache helicopter apparently near the Gulf of Oman. And that they were rescued by basically a drone boat, an unmanned boat, and the pilots according to President Trump are fine, safe and uninjured.

Let's go right to CNN's Zach Cohen. Zach, what can you tell us specifically about this, what the you U.S. military is characterizing as a defensive retaliatory strike against Iran?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Jake, it looks like U.S. Central Command is following through on what President Donald Trump pledged earlier today when he said that the U.S. must respond to this drone attack that we've been hearing about, that crash, an Apache helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz.

We obviously reported earlier today that an Iranian drone, which one source said was an Iranian Shahed drone, which is a fast attack, low flying drone that the Iranians have thousands of in their arsenal, that it downed a U.S. apache helicopter in that key waterway. U.S. Central Command really just putting out this statement today

saying like you said, that this is in self-defense, it's a strike against Iran that was ordered by the Commander-in-Chief. It was in response directly to that downing of the Apache helicopter.

[17:25:04]

The mission is proportional and I think that's important, Jake. It's important to note the U.S. Central Command is really emphasizing that this was a proportional action. Even though we don't have the details of what this strike looked like it would -- they are emphasizing that it was proportional to the downing of that Apache helicopter.

So we'll have to wait and see. We're working our sources, obviously, to find out more details about what exactly U.S. Central Command did carry out here. But again, we have seen several recent encounters between U.S. and Iranian forces over just the last several days around the Strait of Hormuz.

Again, the U.S. military has characterized all of those actions just about as defensive in nature. So we're going to wait and see what the details are here. But obviously an escalation in some ways, even just in response to what we saw with the downing of that Apache helicopter.

TAPPER: And CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House for us now. Kristen, what do you -- what are you hearing about this strike that the US Military is characterizing as retaliatory or defensive?

HOLMES: Well, Zach is exactly right here. Look at the language and how exactly they are framing this. This is not something that wasn't thought out and how they were going to couch what these military strikes were. They are not calling this an all-out offensive. They are specifically saying two things that are critical here. One, that this is self-defense. So this is in direct response to the downing of that Apache helicopter.

I do think we need to note the second part of this, which is the idea that this mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression. A couple of things. We have not heard confirmation from the White House, from the West Wing, from the Pentagon that this was intentional in terms of the shooting down of this Apache helicopter. Although here they are specifically saying unjustified Iranian aggression, indicating that there was some kind of intention there. But of course they aren't saying that directly.

The other part of this, as Zach noted, the idea that this is a proportional response, essentially going with what President Trump said, that it was out of necessity, those were the president's words, that they had to respond to the shooting down of this helicopter. So this is how they are threading the needle, using very careful language, that this is a response, that this is defense, that this is not an offensive that they are doing, this is not some kind of unjustified military barrage on Iran, but that they feel like they have to respond in this moment.

And it goes to what we have been saying that President Trump has not wanted to escalate militarily. He has been trying to find some kind of diplomatic off ramp. But of course, if we're looking at a shot down Army Apache helicopter by an Iranian drone, the United States was going to respond.

So we need to see, as Zach said, the scope of just how large this is. But you can tell by what CENTCOM is saying here, U.S. Central Command, they are trying to downplay this as a direct response without any kind of extra attacks or any kind of extra military action, potentially taking out buildings, et cetera. They are trying to downplay this to a direct response to the shooting down of this helicopter, which again threads the needle as President Trump is still trying to find a diplomatic off ramp here.

He does not want an escalation of U.S. military involvement in Iran. He is trying to get out of this, not get back into this. We'll see how this ends up playing with Iran as well.

TAPPER: Yes, it's interesting, Zach, because we just got this reporting that President Trump told the Wall Street Journal that it, quote, wasn't a big deal, the shooting down of the Apache. He stressed that all U.S. personnel are safe and uninjured. Of course, I'm sure there are a lot of people in the military or just the public who would hear the Iranians shot down an Apache helicopter with American service members on board. That's a big deal whether they survived or not.

Either way, they were trying to kill them. And now we're hearing this. Obviously, President Trump very eager to end this war. As Kristen noted.

Have there been conversations about a member of understanding for a cease fire to an end to this conflict being close?

COHEN: I think from working my sources today, even I think before that latest round of strikes that involved Israel and Iran, that there were some in the administration who did believe and some regional allies who did believe that a memorandum of understanding was close and that the two sides were, you know, working to get resolved. Just the last few issues that remained outstanding.

But again, this is going to be something that we're going to have to watch very closely to see how Iran then responds to whatever operation U.S. Central Command is carrying out right now. And I'm told that this operation is in progress as we speak. That's from a U.S. official.

So this is all still very fluid. And as this entire back and forth negotiation process has been very fluid, even we've heard Donald Trump's own characterization of the incident involving the Apache helicopter shift from just -- in between a few hours when he was declaring that the U.S. must respond and then downplaying it to the Wall Street Journal.

So again, this is going to be interesting. This is certainly a questionable moment in this entire saga. But again, the operation does appear to be ongoing as we speak.

[17:30:18] TAPPER: Zach and Kristen, stand by because I want to bring in Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts. And Congressman, we invited you here to talk about this Oversight Committee hearing about the Epstein investigation. And I'll get to that in a second. But I do want to get your reaction to the news about the -- what the U.S. military is characterizing as retaliatory or defensive strikes on Iran.

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, Jake, I'm on a military and security and foreign relations subcommittee on oversight. We were asking even just a short while ago for a briefing on the details of this shoot down or crash, because it wasn't clear which one it was. I know that we did see a post by the President, but that's not verifiable in real terms. We want a briefing from, you know, our the Joint Chiefs or from someone else at Defense Department. So we were waiting for that. And now we hear that there's retaliation and we're not quite sure the scale of it or the duration of it.

TAPPER: What about President Trump telling "The Wall Street Journal" that the shoot down of the Apache was no big deal because American service members were uninjured?

LYNCH: Yes, the President has been hasn't been a good communicator with Congress, to say the least. Oftentimes, our committees are the first to know. But lately, there's been a complete gap in turn. And this includes Republicans as well, where we've not been properly briefed in terms of what's going on with the situation in Iran. So I don't know what to think of this communication between the president and "The New York Times."

TAPPER: So let's talk about the Epstein hearing, because you just stepped out of that closed door interview with one of Jeffrey Epstein's longtime assistants. The testimony is coming to a close right now. According to sources, Lesley Groff, the longtime Epstein assistant, she denied knowing about the convicted sex offenders' crimes.

She did describe him as a master manipulator. You're on the oversight committee leading the investigation. You said that you believe Groff was being truthful when she said she did not witness Epstein's sexual behavior with underage girls. Yet, Groff apparently didn't see anything wrong with scheduling Epstein's massages with young women when he was already a registered sex offender. So can you explain why you think she's being honest about knowing of the crimes?

LYNCH: Sure. So she did not witness the sexual activity. She didn't witness it. That's it. That's the only thing I believe that she said truthfully. She tried to deny even knowing Jeffrey Epstein. She said she wouldn't describe that they had a relationship at all. So meanwhile, you know, Jake, Lesley Groff's name is in the Epstein file more than Epstein's name is in there.

She's in there 157,916 times, and we're only halfway done with the documents. So I do not think her testimony was truthful, except in that one narrow, you know, the massage parlors were like on the fourth floor or third floor of Epstein's, you know, mansion in New York. And, you know, Groff's office was on the first floor.

So I think she's probably telling the truth about that. She did not witness anything. However, she did refer these. Now, this was at a time when Epstein is a convicted, registered sex offender. She is still referring young women to give massages to Jeffrey Epstein. So there is complicity there. There's, you know, there's aiding and abetting, you know, the activities of Jeffrey Epstein. So I am not giving her a pass at all.

TAPPER: OK.

LYNCH: You know, she -- her -- much of 90 percent of her testimony was not believable.

TAPPER: So tomorrow, the Oversight Committee is going to hear from billionaire and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. His ties to Epstein are well documented in the Justice Department's Epstein files. What do you want to learn from Gates?

LYNCH: So we think, look, there's a number of business connections there. However, there's also a multiyear relationship between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein. And I know that much as Epstein was trying to play Gates just like he did, Wexner, to get investments, there was also something very creepy going on there.

[17:35:00]

And, you know, we would like to find out to the degree that Bill Gates, you know, knew about that. I know he's apologized to his staff. But that relationship went on for a long time after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted and was a registered sex offender.

TAPPER: All right. Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, thanks for joining us, sir. We appreciate it.

The breaking news right now, the U.S. launching what he calls self- defense strikes in Iran after the downing of an American Apache helicopter. CNN is in Iran, and we're going to go there next with what we're hearing. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:39:58]

TAPPER: And we're back with the breaking news. The U.S. launching what it calls self-defense strikes on Iran after the Iranians downed an American Apache helicopter off the coast of Oman yesterday. CNN's Fred Pleitgen is in Iran. Fred, has there been any reaction to what the U.S. is calling proportionate strikes back to Iran?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jake. Well, so far there's not been any direct reaction from the Iranians because obviously these strikes are still very fresh. We just got that tweet from CENTCOM a couple of minutes ago saying that the strikes essentially started at 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Certainly what we are hearing from Iranian media though is that there have been explosions, or what sounded like explosions, large blasts heard in some areas in the Persian Gulf area near the town of Bandar Abbas, which of course is one of the main ports that the Iranians, or port towns that the Iranians have down there.

Also some of the islands in the Persian Gulf near the Strait of Hormuz, there seem to be some explosions that have been heard there as well. But of course, one of the things that we had been talking about was the statement that came from Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who was essentially saying that the Iranians believe that if a U.S. helicopter was downed by an Iranian drone, that that must have been an accident, saying that foreign aircraft that fly around in that area, around Iran's territorial waters, around Iran's borders, can be subject to what he called their own error, getting cut in the crossfire, or simply accidents, and then saying in that post that all foreign militaries should leave that area as fast as possible.

However, there's an interesting sort of sentence that not just the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is using, but also the chief negotiator for the Iranians, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, saying that the Iranians prefer diplomacy, as they put it, but also speak other languages, meaning that the Iranians are also prepared, as they put it, for harsh responses to any sort of military action against their territory.

And one of the things that we've been gleaning, or we've been hearing from the Iranians over the past couple of days, is that they say that the days of tit-for-tat responses are over, and that they are now ready for more harsh responses. And they said that they had believed that they had shown that in the recent military back and forth between Iran and Israel, with the Iranians launching missiles. Obviously, the Israelis conducting airstrikes here on Iranian territory.

So the Iranians are saying that if they are attacked, there will be a harsh response. That's a general statement. It's unclear what they're going to do in this case. But certainly, they will view this as an escalation, Jake.

TAPPER: For more reaction, let's turn to CNN national security analyst, Alex Plitsas. And Alex, your reaction to these new strikes that the U.S. says were launched in self-defense, but they also say that they are proportionate to the attack on the Apache.

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So again, that's what we're hearing, that the President had determined that we needed to respond in some form, very similar to how Prime Minister Netanyahu told the President the other day that he also had to respond based on attacks that had taken place. So much of this is about optics and saving face, which has been the case even in the lead-up to the war here. And the negotiations that were taking place beforehand heard from mediators on all sides.

Face saving was a big part of this, which sounds a bit absurd, but on face value, unfortunately, that is part of the game that gets played in these types of situations with human beings' lives in the balance. So what we're seeing now is a very limited set of strikes in Iran on the coastal areas, directly across the narrowest point of the straits from Oman, which is really striking some military infrastructure there in a limited capacity, which once again is meant to signal that the U.S. is not looking to escalate here, but that it needs to sort of respond to the incident, even though no one was hurt in this last round from Iran.

So we'll see if the Iranians respond to it, but the U.S. is still hoping that this is going to help facilitate talks and that they're going to be able to put this behind them.

TAPPER: All right, Alex Plitsas, thanks so much. We're going to continue to follow all this happening in Iran.

Let's move on to the Politics Lead, though, because it is another Election Day. There it is, the election jam. Appreciate it. This is another big primary Election Day, hence why your ears are being grazed with that sweet election jam. Today, voters in four states are heading to the polls, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina and Maine, which is frankly the main event because a drama-filled Senate primary there is taking place. That's where Democrats will decide who is going to face Republican incumbent Senator Susan Collins in the November general election.

And the frontrunner is a man who is getting a lot of attention. His name is Graham Platner. And despite all of his scandals, which include just as a short list, his tattoo with Nazi symbolism that he claimed to know nothing about, his relatively recent extramarital sexting, his deleted controversial Reddit posts where he disparaged many groups of people and said some controversial things about rape victims and masturbating in the latrine. And in "The New York Times" report from last week, in which three of Platner's ex-girlfriends accused him of unsettling behavior and at least one case, physically threatening behavior, Platner denies ever getting physical.

Today, CNN's Manu Raju asked Republican Senator Susan Collins to weigh in on that "New York Times" report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you believe the denials from Graham Platner and from this "New York Times" report, do you believe his denials?

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): The allegations against Graham Platner are extremely troubling and serious. And he owes the people of Maine a detailed answer. And I haven't heard that yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:45:11]

TAPPER: Now, many Democrats see Platner, who continues to draw a big crowd throughout Maine, as their best shot to oust Senator Collins. But these revelations about his past could lead some Democrats to possibly vote for Maine Governor Janet Mills, another Democrat, in today's primary. Mills is still on the ballot, even though she suspended her campaign

in April, not being able to match the money that Platner was raising or the excitement, frankly. She's not expected to defeat Platner today, but her performance could be a clue as to whether Platner's support in the general election could be shakier than before. This is, frankly, a must-win contest for Democrats if they want to flip control of the Senate this fall.

Let's discuss with our panel. We have with us former senior advisor for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, Karen Finney, and Marc Short, who is chief of staff for Vice President Mike Pence. I think everybody knows who you guys are by now, though. Let's look at the polling, OK? I have this tablet here. I'm going to -- there it is. All right.

So these are the Democrats, Grant Platner, David Costello, and Janet Mills, who suspended. The latest polling in Maine shows Platner holding a commanding lead. It seems likely that he is going to win, Platner. If Mills gets -- what percentage of the vote do you think Mills would have to get for people to think, ooh, Platner is in trouble?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think she'd have to really be within striking distance for people, you know, 30 percent for people to say this is a problem. And the other polling, though, we should remember is that Susan Collins has been underwater. I went back and just rechecked from the spring. She's been underwater for some time. And even Republicans in the state have been unhappy with her on a number of votes, which is why Democrats thought this was a good pickup opportunity in the first place.

So I think you're right. I think Platner is going to end up victorious. I think he'll have a clear win. The question that people have is, OK, then what? Because in a general election contest, the question becomes how much is in the arsenal of the GOP and how can he withstand it? That's the real question.

TAPPER: So let me punch up the next thing on this device to show to you, Marc. This is a UMass Lowell/YouGov poll from May, I should note. That's before at least the most recent "New York Times" reported scandal. I'm not sure how many scandals pack this was, but it does show Platner with a lead, 48 percent over 43 percent with 8 percent. Don't know. He is a contender.

He is getting a lot of attention. I don't want to take away from that. The reason why people are sticking behind him is because he has something. Now, I'm not dismissing the controversies. Here is some of the ad from a Super PAC that is working to reelect Susan Collins. I want you to tell me what you think of it. Let's run a clip of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Graham Platner called Romaine a stupid racist.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're calling me stupid and racist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who says something like that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Platner said cops are bastards, all of them. Graham Platner has no respect for law enforcement.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Graham Platner said some lobstermen are absolutely terrible people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Graham Platner, you got it absolutely wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It disgusts me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What do you think, Marc? Is that effective?

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF OF VP MIKE PENCE: I think there's probably a lot more coming, Jake. I would imagine that they're holding the best material they have till after he wins the nomination. And so, look, I think to watch Democrats do the mental gymnastics they've been doing to justify this candidacy has been pretty remarkable. Whether or not it's the Nazi tattoo or you went through the sexual issues, there was even the National Center for Child Exploitation commented on the fact he has an account on it where they said it's a "predator's paradise."

And this is the nominee that they're putting forward. And I think, frankly, for Democrats, this will be a bigger noose for a lot of Democrats across the country than it is in Maine, I think, because they're all going to have to defend this candidacy.

TAPPER: Yes. Karen, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Ro Khanna, they're behind Platner. Today, CNN's Manu Raju asked another notable progressive, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC of New York, about "The New York Times" report where these three ex-girlfriends of Platner's accused him of unsettling behavior and at least one physically threatening. Here's AOC. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): There's a lot in that behavior that's really challenging. It's hard to stomach, you know, in some of it. But, but at the end of the day, I think that this is a choice. If the choice on the ballot is between that and a senator who's voted to take health care away from millions of Americans, that's the situation that we have to weigh.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I think that's what Marc was referring to when he referred to Democrats' mental gymnastics.

FINNEY: Yes. Well, look, I think that's the gymnastics, though. Also, there's what national Democrats have been saying and what Democrats and folks in Maine have been saying. And some have said everything from I'm still with them to I'm going to hold my nose and vote for them. And at the end of the day, I think folks in Maine care more about what they've heard from Platner than they do. And I think this is true. This is always true. I hate to say that to my national folks.

[17:50:12]

But then they do about what Bernie Sanders or Ro Khanna actually has to say. And again, it seems to me that what is happening in Maine is that people have made peace with the fact they want Susan Collins out and they're willing to vote for Platner. Now, when the barrage that Marc is talking about comes, let's see if that holds. I don't think we know the answer to that yet.

SHORT: I mean, it's amazing they paint Susan Collins as some sort of monster. You know, there's oftentimes when it's portrayed as if we have to accept this person's indiscretions because the threat is so bad. We're talking about Susan Collins. Susan Collins is consistently one of the most moderate members of the entire United States Senate who continues to have bipartisan appeal in Maine.

TAPPER: All right. Thanks to both of you. My next guest served as acting Navy secretary in Trump's first term. What trouble signs he sees with the Bill Pulte nomination? Bill Pulte, of course, is our appointment, I should say. Pulte, the housing official with no intelligence background. Trump wants him now to be the acting director of National Intelligence. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:55:05]

RAJU: Is Pulte qualified for that position in your view?

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (D-AK): I think that's -- that is the challenge that we have in front of us and why it has caused the complications with bisite (ph).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska renewing concerns about President Trump's move to install housing official Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist, as acting director of national intelligence. And Murkowski's not alone, 28 former U.S. national security officials signed onto a letter also expressing their concerns about Pulte. They note that Pulte, who is a MAGA attack dog with zero national security or intelligence experience, is, "clearly unqualified for this role."

I want to bring in someone who signed onto this letter. Retired Navy Rear Admiral James McPherson, who served as acting secretary of the Navy during President Trump's first term. Admiral, thanks for joining us. The letter that you signed notes that with the U.S. at war, there is no margin for error. Why do so many people believe Bill Pulte is not qualified to be acting director of National Intelligence?

REAR ADM. JAMES MCPHERSON (RET.), FORMER ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: I appreciate being on the show with your audience. The legislation that created the director of National Intelligence, the DNI, was actually enacted subsequent to 9/11, and upon a recommendation from a 9/11 commission. It was recognized the intelligence failures led to 9/11 and our inability to anticipate the attack and thwart the attack. Because the intelligence community members weren't talking to each other.

They weren't coordinating. They weren't communicating. And that needed to stop. That needed to have an overarching authority of the 18 members of the intelligence community that could direct their actions, that could direct that they speak to each other and put the puzzle pieces together. And as a result of the 9/11 commission recommendation, the statutes were passed by Congress, signed by President Bush. They created the position of the director of National Intelligence and the office that supports him or her.

And I'll quote now, one of the statutory requirements for that office, which is unique in statute, is that the incumbent shall have extensive national security expertise. Well, simply Mr. Pulte, who is an accomplished businessman, no question there. He was a money market manager. He worked in the family business, building residential homes. But he has zero experience with regard to national security. And that is the problem that so many of us feel disqualifies him from being in that acting position.

TAPPER: So Congressional Democrats are calling Pulte a national security risk. They say they're not going to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act under his leadership, which potentially would undermine the federal government's ability to monitor foreign threats. Do you think that's the right move to refuse to vote for Section 702 of FISA if Pulte is installed?

MCPHERSON: I'm one of those who believe that 702 is essential to protecting our country. It empowers the intelligence community to monitor communication from foreign nationals and be able to assess the threat that they perhaps pose. It's ironic that the Republicans are behind 702, as I think they should be. And yet the President, leader of the Republican Party, has thrown this wrench into the works. And given the Democrats who oppose 702 on privacy issues, an opportunity to oppose 702, it makes no sense whatsoever.

TAPPER: What about the acting title? Does that restrict Pulte's authority in any way? So for people out there who don't know, a president can appoint somebody as an acting whatever, acting attorney general, et cetera, for a certain amount of time. But the acting title means that they have not actually been confirmed by the Senate. Is there any restricted authority if you're just an acting DNI?

MCPHERSON: Essentially, there's no restriction on the authority of an acting in any of those positions that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You're right in the time matter. He has 210 days by statute to be the acting. Now, there's exceptions to extend that. But if you count the days in the calendar, his term will end on 29 December unless something extraordinary occurs.

TAPPER: Yes. And of course --

MCPHERSON: Why was he acting --

TAPPER: Let me ask you, Admiral, because the midterm elections are within that period, and the DNI, the previous one, Tulsi Gabbard, has been involved in seizing election machines in Puerto Rico. Been involved in the raid in Fulton County, Georgia, on election machines. Do you think that Pulte was assigned to do something having to do with the election?

MCPHERSON: I'm concerned about that. If we were playing poker, Jake, that would be a tell. I think that the former DNI, Ms. Gabbard, was down there for a reason. And the reason was to create an argument that there is a foreign influence in the election in November. That's dangerous, and I think it undermines the integrity of the election. And there's a grave concern that the DNI was down there involved in that evolution. The FBI was seizing ballots from 2020 election.

[18:00:04]

TAPPER: Retired Navy Rear Admiral James McPherson. Thank you so much for your time today, sir. I appreciate it.

MCPHERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much.