Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

CENTCOM Says, U.S. Forces Launch Series Of Strikes Against Iran; Platner Pressured To Drop Senate Bid Following Rape Allegation; Pressure Mounts For Platner To End Maine Senate Bid. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 07, 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 HOST: Breaking news in our World Lead right now. Iranians in port cities are hearing explosions, according to state media, as United States conducts what our government is calling powerful strikes in response to Iranian strikes on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz during what has been called a ceasefire, except the fire hasn't ceased. The United States also re-imposing oil sanctions today.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is in Turkey's capital, where President Trump is attending a meeting of NATO allies, CNN White House Reporter Adam Cancryn is here with me in studio.

[18:00:04]

And, Kristen, this is a huge test for the alleged ceasefire.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is and probably the biggest test we've seen yet, and it seems as though the United States is all-in on this response.

First, I'm going to start with that CENTCOM post on X. They said, as you noted, powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial ships crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway.

Now, our Zach Cohen is reporting that he spoke to a U.S. official who said that these attacks are not proportional, that these are meant as punishment. That's why you're seeing kind of a double-whammy here. First, you saw the financial, the re-imposement of those sanctions, now you're seeing the military. And that same source told Zach that this is likely to go on for quite a bit.

This is now another time that Iran has violated the ceasefire. Part of the memorandum of understanding said that President Trump would remove the blockade, they would remove the sanctions if Iran helped the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, we have seen, once again, that Iran attacking these commercial vessels, and now the U.S. is escalating its response.

TAPPER: And, Adam the sanctions have been re-imposed. What does that mean for the economy here at home?

ADAM CANCRYN, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. Well, at least in the immediate term here, it means more uncertainty when it comes to energy prices. So, we've already seen as a result of these economic sanctions being now re-imposed, the global oil prices, markets going up once again. And the real risk here, again, is how Iranians respond, whether they end up closing the Strait of Hormuz again, which, as you know, over the last few months really pushed the price of oil and the price of gas at the pump up.

So, the concern here is that the ceasefire that we've had these last few weeks is maybe not as solid as people hoped it would, that it's fragile, it could be broken -- it could be broken for good. That's the real concern here, that we end up in this standoff when it comes to the shipment of oil through that strait.

TAPPER: Okay. And, Kristen, tomorrow's a packed day for President Trump and NATO. How do you think NATO allies are going to receive this? They haven't been all that friendly when it comes to Trump's war on Iran even though many of them, you know, hate the Iranian regime.

HOLMES: Probably not well, particularly given the fact that they're also all here in Turkey while he's launching this attack, which we'll obviously be asking about this, but unclear if he told any of these NATO leaders that he would be launching this retaliation attack while they're in a country that is bordering Iran at a time in which they're meant to be meeting in part about what to do about the Strait of Hormuz and how to move forward from the war in Iran.

One of the things President Trump has been livid at his NATO allies about is the fact that they didn't get involved in the war in Iran, the fact that when he says that the United States needed help, they were not there.

Now, of course, European allies have pushed back on that, saying they were given no notice about the war in Iran, no input, and some of them saying it would have been illegal for them to intervene at that point. But President Trump does not care.

I mean, right now the entire 77 years of this alliance is hanging in the balance based on what happens tomorrow, and I cannot imagine that this makes anything more smooth sailing for those European leaders or really for the United States going into these meetings as he is now launching prolonged attacks on Iran.

TAPPER: And, Adam, what does success at the NATO meeting look like to President Trump?

CANCRYN: Well, I'm sure if you asked him it would be everybody getting behind him and saying, hey, now we're with you on Iran. He's obviously not going to get that. I think for him, success is really getting out of there without having started any more kind of fights with European leaders with getting European leaders coming to him and saying, you know, you were the only one who could get us to commit more to defense. You know, we're stronger because you're here. A lot of this is going to be flattery over the next, you know, day-and-a-half.

But for Trump, this is kind of -- you know, if he has to be there, that is kind of what he wants to be hearing. We're going to see how -- we'll see though how he ends up kind of treating this next day, reacting now that there are these strikes going on.

TAPPER: All right. Adam Cancryn and Kristen Holmes in Ankara, Turkey, thanks to both of you, I appreciate it.

Joining me now is CNN's National Security Analyst Alex Plitsas. Alex, what do these new U.S. strikes mean for the so-called ceasefire? Is this MOU, is this agreement effectively unraveling?

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it certainly means that the Iranians are not honoring their portion of it because it was supposed to include freedom of movement through the Strait of Hormuz and over the last 24 hours they've attacked what appears to be three different ships.

And what's notable is at least one belonged to Qatar in terms of being Qatari flagged. This comes after Qatar and other GCC states sent delegations officially to the funeral of the late Ayatollah Khamenei even though they were attacked unprovoked with missiles and drones and actually brokered the ceasefire, now their ships are being attacked again.

[18:05:08]

So, the U.S., from what I'm told from senior officials, has had enough. They said, look, they're not honoring the agreement. We can't let this go. They need to get hit. And for the Europeans, this is the one thing that they said they weren't going to tolerate. They sent, you know, fighter jets to protect GCC states previously, and freedom of movement in the strait or international waters is one of the few legal pretexts they have to get involved.

So, another foolish move by the Iranians, clear why they're doing it, but not winning themselves any favors.

TAPPER: The U.S. also reinstated sanctions on Iranian oil sales, as you heard Adam just talk about just now, reversing a key concession from the ceasefire. So, what does that mean?

PLITSAS: So, from what I was told in speaking to U.S. officials, they felt that the strikes the last time weren't sufficient to deter the Iranians from hitting vessels, because they clearly did it again. So, they were going to not only hit back hard militarily, but also slap economic sanctions back on to really hit them where it hurt, which is the wallet, because there's been a number of intelligence reports coming in that the Iranian economy is in fact hurting, one from the war, and then in combination with the legacy sanctions and then the blockade collectively has put them in a bad position.

So, if military strikes aren't going to do the trick, the U.S. is upping the ante with putting the sanctions back on. We'll see how the Iranians respond to that.

TAPPER: The president's in the region, of course, in a country that borders Iran, Turkey. Is that a flex? Is there concern about his safety? PLITSAS: So, I think to that extent, you know, Central Command has the authority to strike back in protection at that point, and I believe they were given the authority to do so. You know, given the fact the president's in Turkey, I couldn't imagine him not being given a heads- up given the proximity. Iran did launch I believe it was missiles or drones earlier on in the war towards Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey, even though they denied it, so within striking distance.

But Turkey at that point chose not to invoke Article 5, you know, the NATO charter in the sense that the, you know, one, if one party's attacked, they all are, and then NATO would have to respond. If they were to launch an attack, particularly in Turkey while all the NATO heads of states are there, that would really be poking the hornets' nest. So, is it a risk point? Yes. Would it be incredibly foolish and very unlikely for the Iranians? Yes.

TAPPER: And at what point -- I have to ask, Adam, the ceasefire memorandum of understanding, et cetera, the firing has not ceased. At what point is the ceasefire over? At what point is the war back on? I mean, the United States is bombing Iran, and Iran is attacking vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. That looks like war to me.

PLITSAS: So, I think it's largely going to depend on how much longer President Trump is going to let that go, and whether or not the Iranians are going to continue this behavior. In speaking to regional mediators who were present for the last round of negotiations that that ended just before the funeral for the late ayatollah, not a lot of progress had been made in that last session. It's on hold until the 10th.

And what they said that came out of that, their feeling was that the Iranians were trying to impose their interpretation of the MOU, which is that they're able to control the strait and direct ships, you know, which way they have to go through waterways as a means of exerting pressure.

And now they're attempting to enforce that, you know, again, by attacking ships, still clearly haven't learned the lesson. If this continues and this latest round of strikes doesn't close it, I think, you know, further action is entirely possible.

TAPPER: A U.S. official tells CNN's Zachary Cohen in our Pentagon bureau, quote, this is punishment, and, quote, it won't be over for a bit. How long do you think an attack on Iran like this could last?

PLITSAS: So, I think every time Iran opens up on the ships in the strait, the U.S. is going to continue to attrit or target those offensive capabilities along the strait that Iran is using. So, whether that's drones, missiles, small boats, and that's again why we're seeing those types of targets being hit today, you know, if it was a one-off incident, you know, did the IRGC, was it a rogue commander, the president sort of brushed those things off in the past.

We've seen three ships attacked in the last 24 hours. So, if there was a mistake or somebody acted independently, the government had time to step in. It's clear that this was either given approval or was coordinated, and at that point you have no choice but to hit back harder.

So, they'll continue to strike those targets along there to degrade Iran's capability to hit ships and they'll continue to do so as long as they feel it's necessary.

TAPPER: Alex Plitsas, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

We're going to have much more on our breaking news out of the Middle East, the United States launching new attacks on Iran just as President Trump arrives in Turkey, which borders Iran, for NATO meetings. I'm going to talk to a former ambassador to Turkey from the United States next.

Also tonight, a CNN television exclusive, Lyndsey Fifield, an ex- girlfriend of Graham Platner, is speaking out on camera for the very first time. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:10:00]

TAPPER: And we're back with the breaking news in our world lead. The United States military announcing it is conducting powerful strikes against Iran just as NATO leaders are gathering for a summit in Turkey. U.S. Central Command says the strikes are in response for -- are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Former Republican Senator from Arizona Jeff Flake joins us now. He served as a U.S. ambassador to Turkey during the Biden administration. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us.

What do you make of these retaliatory strikes against Iran as the NATO summit gets underway in neighboring Turkey?

JEFF FLAKE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY: Well, I think that those strikes were going to happen regardless of whether the NATO summit was going on. And the fact that it's going on, I don't think changed the calculus at all. There was some mention, I think, the president said that, you know, Turkey could have supported Iran. Turkey was never going to support Iran in this conflict. They may have differences the way this war is being carried out, but they, there's no love lost between Turkey and Iran.

TAPPER: At the NATO summit today, President Trump said he's considering lifting sanctions and selling American-made F-35 fighter jets to Turkey despite the fact that there's a Congressional ban that went into place during Trump's first term in office. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said this is a bad idea. What do you think? Do you think selling the F-35s is a good idea?

FLAKE: Well, these F-35s, most of them were partly created by Turkey. Turkey was part of the F-35 program, but then was kicked out of the program because they purchased the Russian's weapons system, the S- 400.

[18:15:03]

Yes, I do think that we ought to sell F-35s to Turkey, provided that Turkey complies with our statutory requirement, and Congress is involved in this. The administration can't do it alone but that Turkey get rid of the S-400.

According to U.S. statute, Turkey would have to not be in possession of the S-400, and that's always been the sticking point. The Biden administration would have liked to have sold F-35s to Turkey as well, but we just couldn't get Turkey to rid itself of the S-400. If they can do that, yes, we ought to sell them.

TAPPER: Turning to the dwindling Democratic support for Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, he's facing this disturbing rape allegation from Jenny Racicot. We interviewed her on CNN yesterday. It's an allegation he denies. We should note, last month, you wrote an op-ed after Maine Democrats voted for Graham Platner to be the party's nominee in the Senate race against Republican Senator Susan Collins.

At the time, the rape allegation had not been made, but there was plenty of information about Platner that you didn't care for, including the Nazi tattoo, The New York Times story about not nice behavior against women, et cetera. And you were calling on Maine Democrats to back Collins. You argued that, quote, compromising on character always comes at a cost. That's a suggestion you made -- said -- that you said happened to Republicans when they backed Trump.

Why should Maine Democrats take your word on that, given that they could argue that standard has not consistently applied towards Republicans given Trump, given Ken Paxton in Texas, and on and on?

FLAKE: It hasn't, and I would argue that Republicans ought to do the same in Texas to put character over policy and back Talarico rather than Paxton. I won't be surprised if additional information comes out on Paxton. There were -- you know, he was impeached by a Republican House in Texas, and there's a lot there.

The point I was making in that op-ed is that when you elevate policy concerns over character, you lose every time, in the short run or the long-term. And in -- you know, back in 2018, when Jeff Sessions stepped aside, that created a vacancy, and Roy Moore, if you may remember him, who was credibly accused of pursuing teenage girls, was the Republican nominee. And Republicans at that time did the right thing and revoked endorsements. I actually wrote a check to his Democratic opponent who won and then was defeated three years later.

So, if you elevate policy over character concerns, you lose every time, and I think Democrats ought to realize that as well as Republicans.

TAPPER: Former Ambassador Jeff Flake, thanks so much. Good to see you.

Coming up, today, I sat down with another ex-girlfriend of Democratic Senate Candidate Graham Platner. She previously told part of her story to The New York Times, but in the aftermath of that interview with Jenny Racicot that I did yesterday, Lyndsey Fifield has decided to come forward and talk about more of her experience in her very first T.V. interview.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

TAPPER: And we have the breaking news for you in our National Lead. Tonight, an emotional CNN television exclusive with Lyndsey Fifield. She's an ex-girlfriend of Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, and she's speaking out on camera for the very first time as Platner faces an accusation of rape from Jenny Racicot, who he dated five years ago and who told her story to us on CNN yesterday. And Platner denies that accusation.

Fifield told me just this afternoon that much of Jenny Racicot's story rings true to her own experiences dating Platner from 2013 to 2014 in Washington, D.C. She describes a controlling, occasionally violent partner, whom she says was hostile and callous towards women's feelings.

This is not Fifield's first time speaking out about Platner. She spoke to The New York Times for a piece published in early June ahead of the Maine Senate primary. Platner denied her allegations of physicality following The New York Times report. That was in an interview with MS NOW.

But today, as Platner's fellow Democrats abandon his campaign following the Racicot allegation of rape, Fifield is reflecting on her time with Platner.

A warning, the content of this interview includes graphic details of domestic violence that viewers could find disturbing or possibly triggering. Here is my conversation with Lyndsey Fifield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: You already knew Jenny's story.

LYNDSEY FIFIELD, PLATNER ACCUSER: Yes.

TAPPER: But what was your reaction to her telling her story yesterday?

FIFIELD: I'm so proud of her. I was so proud of her, and I know how hard this has been for her, but I also know that she deserved that vindication. She deserved to come out and actually tell her full story because the way that it was told before, or the parts that were left out before had left her vulnerable to a lot of attacks that she did not deserve.

And she should've been protected the whole time. It's unfortunate that she had to tell her story this way, that she should've never had to come out with her name and her face. She should've been able to tell the story anonymously, in my opinion. But I'm proud of her for doing it. And I didn't know until the story came out that she was -- that she had said that I was, you know, an inspiration or one of the reasons that she decided to tell her story. I really didn't know that was the case until I read it in Politico.

[18:25:00]

And it means a lot that she -- I mean, she's blowing her life up. I blew my life up, and I think she saw that happen to me, and she saw the attacks that I faced.

How do you thank someone for something like that? She took a lot of courage and she didn't have to ever talk about this, and I think it's -- it just -- I'm very grateful that she did.

TAPPER: She said one of the reasons that she came forward was because -- so more than a month ago, The New York Times published a story about you and about Jenny and about another woman, and neither of you told everything.

FIFIELD: Right.

TAPPER: There were things that had happened that neither of you wanted to be on the record saying very private, personal things.

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: There was a lot in the story about how you are a conservative Republican.

FIFIELD: Right.

TAPPER: After the cnn.com story, after the Politico story, after the CNN interview, lots of Democrats withdrew their endorsements. Senator Gallego, Ro Khanna, Senator Elizabeth Warren, all came out and said, no, he needs to drop out, or, I'm withdrawing my endorsement. What did you think of that?

FIFIELD: As much as I'm grateful and I'm glad and I hope that those -- that like finally this was enough, finally, there is also that feeling of pain of like, but my accusations weren't enough, like our story. And, again, I never thought that I was going to be the lone voice in that story. I really thought that mine was going to be the lesser of the stories, that mine was going to be like not a footnote, but like my story was meant to bolster the other stories that were being told. And --

TAPPER: But Jenny's story is --

FIFIELD: Jenny's story.

TAPPER: -- is rape.

FIFIELD: Yes. And I had believed until the publication that was going to be like the central focus of the piece, and so it blindsided me. But I think the biggest betrayal after that piece came out was feeling like I had been -- you know, they wouldn't even use the word abuse. A lot of people just kept saying, oh, mistreatment, or, you know, no one was describing --

TAPPER: It was domestic violence.

FIFIELD: And it was intimate partner violence, and it was domestic abuse. And those are words that I've never felt -- I've never really talked about myself as a -- I've never called myself a victim. I've never -- I don't like using that kind of language.

TAPPER: So, one of the first things that came out about Graham Platner --

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: -- was that he had a Totenkopf.

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: An SS --

FIFIELD: Right.

TAPPER: -- tattoo on his chest. And he denied knowing that that's what it was.

FIFIELD: Right.

TAPPER: And that's not true.

FIFIELD: No.

TAPPER: Because he called it that when you guys were dating --

FIFIELD: Yes. I never knew what that word was. I didn't even know how to spell it correctly when I said, he's got a Nazi tattoo. I had to look it up on the ADF website, and I had no idea what it was. And I had no photographic evidence of it, so for the first two months after -- like from that -- you know, everyone talks about the texts from August, we were looking for pictures. We were going back through trying to find old pictures.

So, if I'm fabricating this story, I'm doing it without even having a photo of this tattoo that I -- like that's the crazy part that I think people are missing.

TAPPER: Let's go back to June to The New York Times story. He just flatly denied anything physical.

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: He said he was a bad boyfriend, but he flatly denied anything physical and said anything, and this did seem mean to you --

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: -- anything to the contrary was politically motivated.

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: And that did -- he said that on MS Now, and that seemed --

FIFIELD: Well, it worked.

TAPPER: Well, it seemed -- you're right, it did seem to have worked. The Democratic Party just kind of moved on.

FIFIELD: Yes. Like, oh, it's just politically motivated, and then that's it. Like everybody just kind of moved on from the story after that.

TAPPER: But he was lying, right?

FIFIELD: He --- oh, yes, and he --

TAPPER: So, when he says -- so when he said --

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: -- there was -- you know, he's a bad boyfriend, but there's no physicality.

FIFIELD: Oh, that's a lie. And I think the thing that a lot of people, and I'm hoping more people will come forward at least saying this, is he was known for being very rough with people. I mean, like he apologized sober the next day on many of these occasions. So, it wasn't --

TAPPER: With you?

FIFIELD: With me. And so when he -- like, yes, I know there were times when he was blackout drunk that he would say, oh, I don't remember that, but then days later he would come back, and details would slip out, and he'd say, well, that was before, or something. And I'd catch him in a lie, and it would be like, wait, so you do remember, you weren't blackout drunk.

But on rare occasions when he'd be, you know, the next day very apologetic, very contrite, not, oh, I don't remember doing that, but I'm sorry if I did that, it was, I remember doing that, and I'm -- it was not a I was in a blackout drunk situation.

TAPPER: He acknowledged that he did it, knew that he did it, and apologized?

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: Sober?

FIFIELD: Sober.

TAPPER: When he was sober?

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: This is a very painful process and has been for a long, long time.

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: Continues to be. But it's important because you want the voters to know about him. What do you want them to know?

FIFIELD: I think they know now. They needed to know the truth. They needed to know because these things translate. It's not like the things that he does in private in his relationships with women, the things that he has done to women, coercive control, lying, deception, abuse, and really horrible things that we know about him, sorry. We know that you can't be that way in private and not have it translate into how you would govern or how you would -- you know, when you're put in a position of power.

[18:30:09]

And I think it terrifies me to think of him having any type of power politically because what is he going to do with the women in his office? How is he going to manipulate? How is he going to deceive?

When I saw him lying about the Nazi tattoo, that was the first kind of chip in my armor where I was like, I can't let him continue to lie like this. I couldn't watch him continue to just deceive people and run this fantasy that he's this changed person that had this dark past, when, really, he's doing these things to this day. I mean, Jenny's accusations are only a few years old. So, like we know that he's continued to do this to women.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: We're going to have much more of my conversation with Lindsey Fifield in moments as pressure continues to mount among Democrats for Graham Platner to get out of the Maine Senate race. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: Welcome back to The Lead.

We have more from our exclusive television interview tonight, our powerful sit-down with Lyndsey Fifield, another ex-girlfriend of Maine Democratic Senate Candidate Graham Platner. She's appearing for the very first time on camera here.

Before we play more of the interview, a warning to our viewers, this interview does include graphic details of violence that are disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: One of the things that was so striking about what Jenny told me yesterday is after, according to her, he raped her, he passed out. The next morning, according to her, he didn't seem to remember anything. She had said, you don't remember what happened last night? You know, what happened last night was not okay.

FIFIELD: He knew.

TAPPER: But he didn't ask her what happened.

FIFIELD: Nope, because he didn't want to. That rang true to me too. Yes.

TAPPER: And then a few weeks later, after she learned she wasn't pregnant because he had not used protection, also against her wishes --

FIFIELD: Yes.

TAPPER: -- she reached out to him again, told him she wasn't pregnant, reiterated that what happened was not okay. And, again, he read it and didn't ask what happened.

FIFIELD: Because he knew. And I think that's the thing that -- and also I don't want to overemphasize this, but this is a man who is so hostile to the feelings of women, and he think he is disgusted by any show of emotion. Any time that I ever cried, any time that I ever tried to like appeal to him but would start crying, I found myself having to like harden myself or not cry, and he would only respond to like toughness or like masculine energy, basically, of just, like, I'm not going to -- he would say, don't bring emotions or don't try to manipulate me, or like, he feels like -- or any time that I confronted him about any kind of deception or cheating or anything, which was often, it was dismissed as just me being a woman and me being like -- and just the callousness and hostility that he had toward any kind of emotion like that.

The abuse that I suffered has impacted -- like the ripple effects were huge. He isolated me from friendships that I've now -- this situation, I will say, something good that has come out of this is I've reconciled with friends that I had become estranged from because they've reached out and remembered, like he isolated you from us. You weren't allowed to be friends with us because you didn't -- he didn't want you going to certain hill parties that he wasn't invited to or what. He was really controlling of my movements.

And so it was -- it has been really vindicating, or not vindicating, like good has come out of this, that I have reconciled with or reconnected with different friends and people who are like, oh my God, we wish that we had known the extent of what you were going through at that time. But it explains a lot to them now. But also, my behavior after that relationship in other relationships moving forward and the ways that I want to protect my daughters, I want to abuse-proof them, and I don't know how I'm going to do it, but I'm going to figure it out.

TAPPER: You'll figure it out. FIFIELD: And I'm talking to Cheyenne and other people about like how are we going to make sure that this generation -- I've got two little girls. It's another reason that I decided to tell this story, is I will be damned if this ever happens to them. And if they ever find themselves in a relationship and they don't feel like they can call me and tell me immediately, and I didn't feel like I could, and I was -- not only didn't feel like I could tell anyone what was going on. I protected him.

TAPPER: When Jenny told her story, what, if anything, aligned with your experiences?

FIFIELD: The eyes.

TAPPER: The dead eyes, where he couldn't hear your protests?

FIFIELD: I just know exactly what that looks like. I know exactly what it looks like, and it's -- that is something that I feel like people need to understand, is it was almost like looking at like a pit bull, where they just -- there's -- it's nothing, like but not just nothing, but like a capacity for violence, and you see it. And you know it's there, and it's terrifying.

And I -- but also, yes, a deafness to anything that, you know --

TAPPER: Consents?

FIFIELD: Yes, like I'm going -- like this is going to happen. And I think that was the hardest part.

TAPPER: Jenny also talked about unprotected sex as something she didn't want to happen that he made happen. Is that something you experienced?

FIFIELD: Yes. So, that was something that was really, I think, the worst and most violating part.

[18:40:05]

This was a relationship that went on and on and on. And that even after my roommates and people were like, this has to stop, then it continued in secret, where we continued to see each other even after I had told people like, no, I'm really done, like we're really broken up this time, like I'm not. They'd be like, are you sure? And then, you know, that it's humiliating. It is embarrassing that I continued to go back despite abuse or --

TAPPER: But a lot of it, you were -- what you were motivated by was trying to protect him.

FIFIELD: I was trying to help him, yes.

TAPPER: You've shared so much with us today, and I really respect it.

(END VIDEOTAPE) TAPPER: CNN reached out to Graham Platner's campaign with many questions following this interview. In a statement, the Platner campaign told CNN that Fifield's allegations are, quote, categorically false and comes from a person with a well-documented political agenda, unquote.

If you or anyone you know is in a situation where there is domestic violence or sexual abuse, there is support available to you to find resources and develop a safety plan. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is free 24/7, completely confidential. You can call 1-800-799- SAFE. That's 1-800-799-7233, or you can go to thehotline.org, thehotline.org.

Free confidential support is also available 24/7 through the National Sexual Assault Hotline, 800-656-4673, 800-656-4673, or online at rainn.org, R-A-I-N-N, two Ns there, R-A-I-N-N dot org. Help is out there. You are not alone.

We're going to go live to Maine next for the latest from the Platner campaign and reaction on the ground.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:27]

TAPPER: Back to the breaking news. We're continuing to track the fallout from the allegations against Maine's Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner. I have now spoken with two women in on the record on camera interviews who dated him, both of them sharing with CNN viewers disturbing details from the relationships with him, abusive details.

Platner denies any non-consensual behavior, both of the women disagree, one of them accusing him of rape.

CNN's Arlette Signs is in Portland, Maine.

And, Arlette, what are Mainers saying to you?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, Maine voters that we spoke with today used words like disappointing, heartbreaking, and disqualifying to describe the latest rape allegation that Graham Platner is facing in this campaign. Many of the Democratic voters that we spoke with said that they believe it is time for him to step aside and allow the party to find a new Democratic nominee to face off against Senate Senator Susan Collins in November.

Maine, of course, is one of these Senate sees that will be key in these midterm battles as it comes to control of the U.S. Senate. And Democrats had long hoped that they would be able to unseat Collins. And now there's some big questions about whether that will happen in this campaign.

But I want you to hear from two of the voters that we spoke to today who had this to say when we asked if they thought the Platner should drop out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's extremely disappointing and troubling and I think probably disqualifying.

SAENZ: So, do you think you should drop out at this point?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do, unfortunately.

SAENZ: Do you think Platner should drop out?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a tough call. He'll have to make that decision. But the party is abandoning him on a national level and on the state level. I don't think he has a choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now Platner has yet to publicly share any decision, but he would need to drop out 5:00 p.m. on Monday in order for the Democratic Party to begin considering another nominee. Then that would set off a two-week Sprint for the state party to determine who would they would put forth as their candidate. Party officials are still working through exactly what a process would look like. They've insisted it would be open and transparent, but some of the ideas that have been floated are potentially holding a mini-convention or a caucus for Democrats to select their nominees.

So still a lot of questions going forward about how Democrats might replace Platner if he decides to drop out. But ultimately, we are still waiting for that decision from Graham Platner about the future of his campaign.

TAPPER: Arlette Saenz in Portland, Maine. Thanks so much.

We're going to have much more reaction to this interview with Lyndsey Fifield accusing Platner of disturbing and violent behavior.

And the breaking news is Democratic support for Graham Platner is falling apart.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:52:26]

TAPPER: We're back with the breaking news.

Democrats reckoning with the backlash to Maine Senate nominee Graham Platner after two former girlfriends, two women, have now spoken to me on camera, on the record, one accusing him of rape, another one today, Lyndsey Fifield, telling me he was violent and hostile during the relationship. He denies all the claims.

Let's bring in my panel.

Carine, your reaction to what we just heard from Lyndsey Fifield in a very understandably emotional interview.

CARINE HAJJAR, MEMBER, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD: Yeah, absolutely. And I just think it's so telling that she had to come out and tell her story again after doing so a month later. And both she and Jenny, after their conversation with you, I think it's quite clear that one, Lyndsey wasn't given a fair shake on all of this because of her political affiliation. She was held to higher standards of scrutiny than the man being accused, the man with the Nazi tattoo and a trove of offensive Reddit posts being accused of now rape and various other disturbing behaviors.

And I think that that just says a lot, the fact that Democrats are only coming out now and taking her for her word, and it's disturbing. It's really disturbing.

TAPPER: What do you think, Xochitl?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I think also Democrats need to learn from this lesson. There are a number of Democrats who came out to campaign for Graham Platner after the first "New York Times" story, and they said it was politically motivated. All I would say to them is the statement that they have now given you, they're now saying it is all politically motivated, that he didn't do any of these things. And so, this is disgusting.

Now, we are almost at 24 hours. I think we are at 24 hours since the last story broke. Where is Graham Platner? He at this point, he is apparently, according to reporting, still trying to figure out whether he's getting out of the race and potentially picking a successor.

A man who has raped -- allegedly raped a woman and has sexually assaulted and done other things to potentially another girlfriend, et cetera, should not have a say on successor. He needs to get out of the race. And there needs to be more pressure from the Democratic Party to make clear that he has no say moving forward about who is going to be the Democratic nominee, because he doesn't deserve that, not when you are being accused of rape.

TAPPER: And we just checked his social media and nothing from him. Yesterday, he did issue a video statement in which he denied Jenny Racicot's story, her rape story, from 2021, less than five years ago, it was like November, December 2021, you know, fairly -- fairly recently.

One of the things that struck me in my interview with Lyndsey Fifield that we didn't include it just because we were crashing, we just did this this afternoon, was she talked about -- one of the reasons she stayed in this relationship for two years, and one of them was because he had PTSD, which he's talked about.

[18:55:13]

And he self-medicated, which he's talked about, too, by drinking a lot of alcohol.

And she felt an obligation to stay with him and to help him. And also, anytime that she said anything to him about something he did, something non-consensual that he did and on and on, he would say to her like, oh, you're making me feel bad about myself. And so there was this -- look, it's not uncommon, I'm sure you two have heard more about this type of thing from your female friends than I have heard. But it is this vicious cycle of toxicity.

And it creates A, an unfair blaming of the woman, and B, an unfair sense of shame that the women feel. Talk about that if you would.

HAJJAR: Well, look, I have a lot of sympathy for folks who are struggling with PTSD and the aftermath of combat, the type of combat --

TAPPER: Of course.

HAJJAR: -- these are very difficult things.

But at some point, you're running for Senate as somebody with zero experience doing so, and this cannot end up being an excuse for over and over again for very disturbing behavior. And again, it's not just that he's falling back on this explanation, it's that he has told his fellow Democrats over and over again that nothing worse was coming after.

And not only is that a liability for the party, both morally and politically. It's just not fair to Maine voters. I've spent a lot of time reporting on New England politics. I've followed this race since the very beginning.

TAPPER: You used to be with "The Boston Globe".

HAJJAR: I was previously with "The Boston Globe", and this is just deeply unfair to Maine voters. They deserve better. They've been lied to over and over again.

TAPPER: It's a wonderful state, wonderful people.

HAJJAR: It is.

HINOJOSA: Yeah, and in this instance, it sounds like he was using it as a permission structure to conduct the actions that he was doing. If I were advising him right now, instead of talking about who is going to be your successor, how do you get out, et cetera, if I were part of his team, I would tell him, go get some help. Go either to rehab, you need help. And whether that is saving your marriage, that is saving what is a piece of your life, go ahead and do that and exit the race.

I think at this point, there is enough out there. And from my understanding is there is potentially more. There are rumors right now in Democratic circles that Republicans are holding to opposition research, and they're waiting until after Monday to drop it because they wanted him to stay in the race. They want to run against Graham Platner.

There is more coming out. The longer he stays in, the more that there will come out, and this man clearly needs some help. TAPPER: Yeah, one of the things that also struck me in the interview with Lyndsey Fifield today, she talked about how Platner called her before he announced he was running, and she thought it was just like a check-in. And he told her how well he was doing. And she was really, really happy for him. Like, she really was glad. It sounded like he had gotten his act together. He had moved back to Maine, and on and on.

And then she realized later that he was just kind of like making sure I wasn't going to go public with anything. But as it was, she wasn't planning on it. But then came the lie about the Nazi tattoo. And she's like, that's not true. He called it a Totenkopf with me back in 2013.

And then came all the other stuff. And she felt like she had an obligation to tell the truth, not to stop anybody from electing him, necessarily, but although she painted a very vivid picture of what he could be like if he got power, but just to tell the truth.

HAJJAR: And what you're painting, basically, is that Democrats had warnings from the very beginning. You know, Lyndsey's not the only person that knew about this tattoo. There were people within the campaign that understood his political director, Genevieve McDonald, resigned in about October, I believe, when she figured out that this was all going on.

TAPPER: Which, and Democrats have completely attacked her also.

HAJJAR: Attacked her completely --

TAPPER: Yeah.

HAJJAR: -- unfairly for something that she is -- I mean, she's basically being vindicated right now, right? She warned them that this was going to blow up and be a bigger deal, and it has.

But Democrats right now who finally have said this is the final straw, well, you've had warnings since October, and I don't think there's an excuse for that.

TAPPER: What do you think, Xochitl?

HAJJAR: Yeah, I mean, I think that Democrats did have warnings when it came to this. And I do think that a lot of people are talking about vetting. I like to talk about it as a tested candidate. As we head into 2028, I do think you can do all the vetting that you want. There's one thing about vetting, there's another thing about running in a competitive race and being tested, whether that is in a swing state or a competitive district, where stuff like this comes out and you lose a primary or you lose your general election.

In this instance, he was not tested. And I think that is a big conversation moving forward.

TAPPER: Yeah, although we should note the governor, Janet Mills, who was running against him in the Democratic primary, she ran ads of women reading some of the offensive posts on Reddit, really disgusting stuff, blaming rape victims for their role in being raped, et cetera, et cetera. And he still clocked her in fundraising and then the primary.

Thanks to both of you for being here.

You can follow me on Facebook and Instagram and Threads and Bluesky and X. And on the TikTok @JakeTapper. You can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN.

If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch a show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.