Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

CENTCOM: U.S. Striking Iran At President Trump's Direction; Sources: Platner's Team Navigating His Campaign Exit Strategy; Judge Orders The Release Of Trump's $5 Million Payment To E. Jean Carroll. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired July 08, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks so much to my panel. "The Lead with Jake Tapper" starts right now.

[17:00:33]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. And we're going to start with the breaking news in our World Lead right now. The United States military is again striking Iran as whatever remained of the ceasefire appears to be crumbling.

U.S. Central Command saying that these strikes were at the direction of President Trump. And quote, "The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway," unquote. Iranian state media also reporting explosions have been heard near Iranian coastal cities.

To quickly catch up on how we got here, after the two sides traded strikes overnight, the U.S. and Iran, President Trump this morning said he believed the memorandum of understanding, the MoU that he signed three weeks ago, is finished. He has now concluded that the mullahs in Iran have had a change of heart after previously having called them nice and very rational.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's something wrong with them. They're cuckoo. As far as I'm concerned, it's over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So the president threatened to strike Iran very hard again tonight. And now we see at least some of these strikes are right now happening. CNN has live team coverage. Alayna Treene at the White House for us, Fred Pleitgen in Iran, Pamela Reid -- Brown in the region aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Alayna, you've been monitoring statements coming in. What's the latest you're hearing as the president leaves NATO in Turkey and heads back here to Washington, D.C.?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think there's a lot of questions still about what exactly these strikes mean for the state of the ceasefire, even as you mentioned, Jake, as the president is arguing that he believes the ceasefire and the memorandum of understanding signed just a couple of weeks ago, saying that that's over. In another breath in the same day, he said it will really be up to the negotiators, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, the vice president, of course, who've been leading those to decide how they want to proceed when it comes to talks between Washington and Tehran. But look, even as he threatened, he did give a preview of the strikes night which do, I should say, I should note, do appear to be kind of concentrated around the Strait of Hormuz, despite him saying that he would hit Iran again very hard. He also said that he does not believe it would lead to an all-out war. Once again, listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: No, I don't think it's going to start again. I think it's going to go very quickly. They hit a couple of ships and so we hit them much harder. We will only make it safer, including for oil.

Anything that happens is going to happen very fast. We're not -- we're not looking -- we're not looking for long term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So as you hear there, the president trying to argue that he's not looking for another long term war for this war to restart in earnest and span several weeks or months. I'd note though of course some of those comments likely also targeted toward the market with oil prices surging on these rising or on this exchange of attacks between the U.S. and Iran. So I think there's a lot of questions though that we have here that I have to go talk to my sources about, Jake, regarding what this actually means for the ceasefire. Is this really over, as the president said in his mind it is.

Or do they still believe that this is perhaps some sort of pressure to force the Iranians to a position where they're negotiating and I'd remind you as well a lot of the negotiations that were left in the 60- day technical talk period, of course, following the signing of the memorandum of understanding, they have to deal with the thorniest issues. That includes negotiations over the future of Iran's nuclear program. I am told that the president, in part, you could see that visible anger he had toward Iran this morning. A lot of that is because he is frustrated with the pace of these talks and specifically on Iran not doing enough on their commitments when it comes to their nuclear program.

So a lot to pay attention to. Hopefully we'll hear him talk again soon.

TAPPER: And Fred, are you hearing any response from Iranian leadership at this hour?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: One of the things that the Iranians have been saying about the better force, the better part of the day, Jake, is that if the United States strikes Iran, that there would be a massive response coming from the Iranian side. Now one of the things we have to point out is it seems as though these strikes are going on and are still ongoing in various parts of the Strait of Hormuz. Some of the places that we've been hearing from Iranian state media, but also from local people on the ground there, as they say, the town of Bandar Abbas, which of course is one of the main military ports for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy. There seem to be some explosions there.

Also the town of Sirik, which is more sort of in the eastern part of the Strait of Hormuz. Some explosions heard there as well. But it does appear as though these strikes that are going on right now do seem to be fairly substantial in scale. There's one town, for instance, is quite close to the border with Pakistan where some blackouts have been reported there and possibly some explosions is there. But of course, it is still very early going.

[17:05:21]

Nevertheless, the Iranians have throughout the entire day. And this is from various officials, Jake, said that there would be a massive response coming from the Iranian side, that U.S. assets in the region would be under attack. One of the things that we have to keep in mind is that when yesterday's attacks happened by the U.S. military, that it was first and foremost U.S. assets in Bahrain and Kuwait that the Iranians say that they target. It's unclear whether or not it's going to remain at that this time.

One thing that we need to look at, one of the things that President Trump spoke about earlier today was Kharg Island, as he said, possibly taking Kharg Island. The Iranians today responding to that as well, saying they are waiting for the U.S. in Kharg Island, and they say that it would cost substantial U.S. casualties if they tried to take that island from the Iranians. Jake.

TAPPER: And Pamela, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, how are crew members there feeling about this ceasefire possibly being over?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, the crew members I'm speaking to say there has been so much change during this conflict and even the ceasefire that they remain unfazed and in a ready position. I'm learning more also, Jake, from a source familiar with the strikes tonight, about what exactly was targeted and it has to do with the ship I'm on right here, the source telling me that these strikes targeted ballistic missiles. We are not far from the Iranian coast here on the USS Abraham Lincoln. And so the U.S. military took out ballistic missiles that could be used against targets like this ship. Also, they targeted drones and other things around the Strait of Hormuz that could impact shipping.

I can tell you, Jake, in talking to the captain of the ship, Daniel Keillor (ph), there has been multiple attacks against the USS Abraham Lincoln. You heard President Trump say that today that there have been attacks. And I did confirm that the different types of attacks, ballistic missile attacks in the beginning of the war, as well as drone attacks. At one point, Iran sent over 12 drones to try to attack this ship. They were all taken down.

This ship is surrounded by different destroyers. Destroyer's jobs are to protect it. And that has been happening. Here's what the captain had to say more specifically about the threats against the USS Abraham Lincoln.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: The president today said that there have been many attacks against the Abraham Lincoln. I wonder what you can tell us about the attacks you have fended off.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

BROWN: What you've seen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since we've gotten here, clearly during Epic Fury, they -- you know, the Iranians were looking for opportunities to attack this ship. I think we're very well defended. They don't get close.

BROWN: Today they targeted military bases. Have you seen the threats against the Abraham Lincoln go down in recent weeks and months? And like more toward the land?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I think it's cyclical and you'd have to ask, you know, Iran why they're picking what they're picking. But I think we're a very hard target because we move and some of those land based targets are not as difficult because they're obviously fixed. So, you know, I think I understand that Iran would probably want to go after things that they have a higher confidence level that they can attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And I'm told by a source familiar, Jake, that the situation is still very dynamic. You have these strikes in Iran right now. There could be more strikes. The source telling me that the military is in a wait and see mode.

Now here on top of the USS Abraham Lincoln, we know there will be defensive flight operations here just a few hours from now. It's midnight over here on the ship. And so we're keeping an eye out for that. But that could also change to offensive strikes depending on what the military decides to do.

And it's interesting, Jake, given all the news that has happened with what the president has been saying today, that it's over and all of the heightened rhetoric, as a reporter here on board the ship, I'm often the one telling people here about what's happening, that they're really not paying that close of attention to the actual rhetoric. What they're paying attention to is what the orders that come down are and just what, you know, what they know, what they can see on their radars and what the different threats are. But in terms of the rhetoric and the back and forth that this captain of the ship, he called that background noise. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, CNN covering this as only CNN can. We have Alayna Treene at the White House, Fred Pleitgen in Tehran, Iran, and Pamela Brown aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Thanks to all of you. And Palmer, stay safe. Fred, you too.

Does President Trump have strong allies backing him as he launched these new strikes on Iran? We're going to get into that with the former U.S. ambassador to NATO right after Trump's visit with NATO.

[17:10:00]

Also this hour, more of our T.V. exclusive and the new details against Graham Platner from one of his former girlfriends, accuser Lyndsey Fifield. What she told us about trying to move away from what she described as a toxic relationship as sources tell CNN that the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine is going to drop out of the Senate race today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Back with more on the breaking news in our World Lead. Right now, the U.S. military says it is launching new strikes against Iran, this at the direction of President Trump after earlier today he threatened these strikes, calling the ceasefire over.

Let's discuss this all with Ambassador Victoria Nuland, who served as a U.S. ambassador to NATO from 2005 to 2008. A diplomat for 35 years. Nuland has served six U.S. presidents and 10 secretaries of state from both political parties.

Ambassador, thanks for joining. So this morning, President Trump said that as far as he's concerned, the ceasefire is over. And now we see these new strikes. So is this an end to the ceasefire or is it possible that this is just a negotiating tactic and the ceasefire is still officially on?

[17:15:01]

VICTORIA NULAND, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Jake, it's good to be with you. I don't think that the United States and President Trump ever had a true agreement with Iran. What Iran thinks it got out of this ceasefire was the ability to control the Straits of Hormuz, to exact tolls and other tribute from ships going through it. And when we tried to pass ships on the Omani side or without paying, the Iranians attacked. So we never really had a deal.

And it's not a surprise that it's breaking down. I think the question is what the president is willing to do to enforce it and to keep the straits open and to set this free navigation standard for the world.

TAPPER: Before these strikes started, Trump said he did not think an end to the ceasefire would mean a return to full scale war. Is it going to be that simple? I mean, it seems like we've been involved in a full scale war for quite some time, even during this so called ceasefire.

NULAND: And by the way, a war that we are losing, Jake. As I said, the president has never gotten us back to the status quo ante, which was a Strait of Hormuz that was open to navigation without fees or tolls, and that Iran did not control. You know, Iran has been testing this all the way through and frankly, this war that we started has left us in a far worse position than we were in before.

TAPPER: Was asked why he's been apparently unable to end the Iran war. And after claiming that the U.S. was doing so well, he said this. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They're dealing with very fine people. They're dealing with Steve Witkoff, they're dealing with Jared Kushner and J.D. Vance, and they're dealing with Marco and Scott. They're dealing with great people. But I don't -- I don't know, I think they're a little loco, they're a little crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What's your read on what's going wrong with the Trump administration's efforts to end the war? And do you think that the Iranian leaders, I don't know if I would say loco or crazy, but they are -- they -- I mean, they believe in some pretty extreme theological beliefs. And is it possible you can't negotiate with them?

NULAND: Well, as you know, we did negotiate with them in the Obama administration and we had a deal that wasn't as broad and as strong as some of us would have liked, but nonetheless put a cap on the Iranian nuclear program. And President Trump ripped that up in his first term. We were trying to get back to that. And President Trump himself in the second term was trying to negotiate with, frankly, an Iranian leader who had once before reached an agreement with the United States. Instead we bumped him off.

And now we have a far more extreme set of leaders who have to prove themselves to each other. And frankly, if we're not willing to exact more pain on the Iranians, I mean we as part of this deal, immediately sanction -- relieved sanction pressure on them and allowed them to sell oil again and to make money. Why should they come to the table? Why should they agree to anything if we're not willing to put the kind of pressure on them to make them move? Especially after we started this.

We were the ones who were in the middle of negotiations and then decided to launch a full scale attack. So why should they trust any of it? That's not to say they're good guys. They are not. But we're going to have to put far more pressure on them if we want to get a solution here that is good for the free world.

TAPPER: Ambassador Victoria Nuland, thank you so much.

As the U.S. launches these new strikes on Iran, another factor to consider the perspective of America's ally in the region, Israel. Do the Israelis see the ceasefire as over now? The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. is here in D.C. We're going to get his take next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:23:12]

TAPPER: Back with the breaking news and the U.S.-Iran agreement likely up in smoke as the U.S. begins another round of intense strikes on Iranian port cities. President Trump -- President Trump insisted earlier today that the U.S. will hit Iran, quote, "10 times harder" after Iran responded to yesterday's U.S. strikes. Despite the ongoing campaign, Trump says he does not think a full war will start again. Joining us now, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Michael Leiter.

Ambassador Leiter, do you believe another full scale war is starting and would Israel be supportive of another full scale war with Iran?

DR. MICHAEL LEITER, ISRAEL AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Well, we're supportive of the position of the United States. We've conducted operations together with the U.S. army in very close proximity. The planning, the implementation, and sure enough, if we're called again to fly alongside the U.S. aircraft, we certainly will. But it's not clear how exactly this is going to proceed. The MoU between the United States and Iran was intended to open the straits, not to end the war.

It was to embark on a process whereby the war would end ultimately with a complete denuclearization of Iran. The only obligation they had in this MoU was to keep the straits open and they're in violation of it. So the president is very clear that he's not going to allow them to violate this understanding. And it could be that if they persist in their malign intentions that the war will be back on in full swing.

TAPPER: Why in your view, was a military campaign against Iran preferable this time, not last year during the bombing of the nuclear sites, but for this campaign? Why is this preferable to a full scale diplomatic effort?

[17:25:00]

LEITER: Well, we see what a full scale diplomatic effort is with the Iranians. I mean, people who murder their own also tend to lie. They're blatant liars. And they do it very well and they do it consistently. We needed this time Epic Fury and roaring lion, because even after the 12-day war, the Iranians went back to once again trying to reconstitute their nuclear program to building ballistic missiles to the tune of three to 400 a month.

So ultimately they'd have thousands in a few years, which they've been able to rain down on Israel and all of our regional allies and of course, support for their proxies of the Houthis and Hamas and Hezbollah.

So the reason why they're trying to hold on to the straits, and here I have to disagree with Ambassador Nuland, the reason why they're so frenetically and ferociously trying to hold on to the straits is because they have nothing left. It's because they've been so degraded militarily and their proxies have been so degraded that the only way that they continue to hang on and say we do have some degree of regional hegemony is to hold on to the straits. And that's exactly what has to be defeated now.

TAPPER: One of the points of contention between the United States and Iran was Israel's continued campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon. President Trump urging Prime Minister Netanyahu to cease or at least pause that campaign while a peace effort, a diplomatic effort, was made. Is Israel going to use this opportunity? President Trump says the ceasefire is over to again pursue Hezbollah in Lebanon?

LEITER: The objective in Lebanon is for Israel -- our objective in Lebanon is for Israel to live in security. We have no interest in Lebanese territory. We have no interest in being in Lebanon. But we've gone through four decades of Hezbollah reconstituting, firing missiles and trying to invade our towns and villages, killing our people. And now we're holding onto a security zone which we will leave the moment that the Lebanese armed forces are able to take control and really rid the area of Hezbollah. Until now, it's all been smoke and mirrors.

But now we have an agreement with Lebanon and we're actually on the same page. We have the same interests here. Lebanon wants to be free of this Hezbollah occupation of Iranian involvement. And the agreement that I helped negotiate and signed last week is for Iran to be out and Hezbollah to be out of the process of dominating Lebanon. This is what the Lebanese people want.

This is what the people of Israel want. This is what the region needs. So it's absolutely imperative that any deal that's reached with Iran does not include its proxies, does not allow Iran to try and reconstitute and once again become a regional hegemon. This is the big danger for the future.

TAPPER: Former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, also a former ambassador thinking about running for president in 2028, he gave a speech earlier today at Tel Aviv University about the U.S.-Israel relationship. Here's one of his messages. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAHM EMANUEL, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Your government has been complicit in the horrors now being inflicted on innocent families in the West Bank. That undermines your international legitimacy as a small nation at a time when you can least afford it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What's your response?

LEITER: Well, Rahm Emanuel has a long history of moralizing about Israel. I mean, he'd like to see the Israel that's created in his image. He doesn't like the government. There are people who like the government and there are people who don't like the government.

But as far as his references to the West Bank, I absolutely agree with him that we have to put a stop to all violence. But I would recommend to Mr. Emanuel and those who are so easy to criticize us that selective moral outrage is really a problem, you know, because you have to be morally outraged about all violence. And violence perpetrated by Palestinians against Jews is as morally outrageous as any terror perpetrated by Jews against Palestinians. So we have to condemn all of that. And actually, there's far more attacks on Jews than there are by Jews and Palestinians.

But they're both condemnable. They both are outrageous. They both have to be stopped. And we have to do more to stop both.

TAPPER: Israeli ambassador to the United States, Dr. Michael Leiter, thank you so much for your time today, sir. Appreciate it.

LEITER: Good to be with you, Jake.

[17:29:25]

TAPPER: Up next, more of the T.V. exclusive. What you have not yet heard from Graham Platner accuser, his former girlfriend Lyndsey Fifield, what she told The Lead about trying to get out of a relationship that she described as toxic. And will the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine end his campaign today, as sources say he will? We're back with more next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our Politics Lead now, any moment now, we are expecting an announcement that Maine Democratic candidate for Senate, Graham Platner, will end his campaign, that's according to CNN sources, following a on-the-record rape allegation earlier this week from a woman Platner dated from 2019 to 2021, Jenny Racicot, who told me on camera, on the record Monday, about that horrible night in 2021.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNY RACICOT, PLATNER ACCUSER: This wasn't just like, oh, hey, somebody showed up and I'm going to tell him to go home. Like, he was heavily intoxicated, had intentions with me, and wasn't listening when I said no. And --

TAPPER: And you were saying, no, don't, no, don't, over and over and over.

RACICOT: I remember, you know, obviously I've had to recall a lot of this. This is something that I tried for many years to forget. And so small details, you know, might get past me. But yes, I remember very specifically saying, I'm not into this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:35:10]

TAPPER: Now, to be clear, Platner denies any, "non-consensual behavior." The ripple effects of Racicot's story have turned into a tidal wave of consequences for Graham Platner. Democrats pulled endorsements, called on him to step aside. In moments, you're going to hear more from my sit-down yesterday with another one of his ex-girlfriends, Lyndsey Fifield, who was inspired by Jenny to speak on camera about the violence and mistreatment she says she endured during her relationship with Platner. Platner's campaign tells CNN that her claims are false and politically motivated. She denies that.

Today's sources tell CNN that Platner met with strategists to find an exit from his race against Republican incumbent Senator Susan Collins. The question remaining is what role, if any, Platner and his progressive supporters should play as Democrats scramble for a new candidate and a process to find that candidate. Maine's Democratic leadership pulled its endorsement of Platner Monday. They've been pretty clear about how they feel about him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEVON MURPHY-ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAINE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Unfortunately, Graham Platner's team has repeatedly reached out to us in an attempt to put their thumb on the scale of what this process looks like. We have repeatedly reiterated to Graham Platner's team that they have no role in determining our next Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, nor in determining what this process looks like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The clock is ticking because Platner must pull his name from the ballot by July 13th. Under Maine law, the party then has until July 27th to name a replacement. Now, CNN has been on the ground in Maine talking to voters who want Platner out but have concerns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's really important that we find a candidate who's going to uphold the platform that all of us had voted for to endorse.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're so close to the actual election itself. It's going to be pretty hard to bounce back in such a short amount of time. But I'm hopeful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Platner has endured an almost unprecedented amount of scandals since he began his run, other than President Trump, of course. Controversial social media posts, a Nazi symbol tattoo, extramarital sexting. He has survived all of these tests up until now. This week, Jenny Racicot's choice to come forward about her experience with him and talk about it on camera with us at CNN has changed the course of his campaign.

And now I want you to hear more from my conversation with Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner from 2013 to 2014 when they both lived here in Washington, D.C. A warning to viewers, this interview contains some violent and disturbing content.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: In "The New York Times" story, you describe one time he put your arm behind your back and kind of twisted it. Another time he locked you in a room.

LYNDSEY FIFIELD, PLATNER ACCUSER: That was the same, yes, the same time.

TAPPER: The same time.

FIFIELD: Yes, yes.

TAPPER: And there was another time he grabbed you by your shoulders, I think?

FIFIELD: Yes, he liked to kind of like, sorry, this is so hard to talk about. He liked to move me where he wanted me. Like if I was trying to leave, if I was going to cross the room, if I was trying to put a barrier between us like a couch or a table or something in an argument or a discussion, like it would provoke him in a way. And so like, yes, he would just kind of like grab me by the shoulders and move me.

I think something else that's kind of missing from this conversation is that particular period of time and the people that I was socializing with because my cousins were working at Walter Reed, they were military, I was working for a military service group. A lot of these post-9-11 vets, but that also wanted to continue having military careers, they knew that a PTSD diagnosis was like a career killer.

And so getting people help, getting him specifically help for his PTSD, which he was very much struggling with at this time, that was my main focus was just like, how do I get him help? How do I keep him from killing himself? My biggest concern throughout most of our relationship was like, he's going to kill himself and he kept, it would threaten it, he had a plan.

And it was really hard for me to try to navigate my own social, like my own sphere and kind of feel like I had to keep that a secret from everybody. And so it made our relationship and a lot of those elements more secretive than they otherwise would have been. Like, maybe I would have been able to tell a friend and say, hey, Graham's been like this, or just telling them about specific incidents with more clarity, but I was in this like, this is a suffering man who needs help.

TAPPER: It sounds like you think he was the victim.

FIFIELD: And I'm going to make it worse. Yes, I did at the time.

TAPPER: You treated him like the victim, even though you were a victim.

FIFIELD: Yes. Oh yes. And that was actually kind of a common theme too. Anytime that I like, he would say, oh, you're making me feel bad. And I was like, that's, you know, like in retrospect, like, well, yes, you should have felt bad about, you know, and he would accuse me of like guilt tripping him if I brought up things, especially if I brought up things like, if I was putting a pattern of behavior together, he would accuse me of like, that's like, oh, you're always going to bring up the past.

[17:40:05]

Like, we're never going to be able to move forward if you keep bringing up the past, you know, that kind of thing. But then when it became clear, like there is no future here. The only reason for this relationship was for me to keep him from killing himself or to try to get him help. I moved. I physically moved from the hill across town to get away from him.

TAPPER: Really?

FIFIELD: Yes. And I didn't feel, it wasn't just that I didn't feel safe in our neighborhood because it just felt like he could pop up at any moment, but he would literally show up on my doorstep when he knew that I was dating other people. He would come to where I was. He would come to where we were. He would wait at my house in the snow on one occasion.

And it felt very, I never -- I don't know that I ever felt like, I don't know, it seems naive in retrospect because when I look back on it, I'm like, oh my God, you were in danger and you didn't even realize it.

TAPPER: Sounds very threatening.

FIFIELD: At the time, weirdly enough, this is going to sound pathetic. I felt like, oh, he really loves me. I'm sorry. It felt like he really cared. Like, oh, his jealousy when I started new relationships at that time felt like love. And now I know that that was not love and it was not really, we thought we were in love, but it was --

TAPPER: It sounds very toxic.

FIFIELD: Yes. Yes, toxic is a great word. I do think one of the reasons that I was so vulnerable to Graham's abuse was that I was raised in a very, and I don't, you know, there's good and bad, but I was raised in a very conservative Christian environment where I was raised to be accommodating. We were raised to be servant-hearted. We were raised to, you know, if someone's in help, you help them. And I took that very seriously and I wanted to help him. And I didn't -- you don't give up on people was kind of my attitude about it.

And now I don't know how to raise children who still are servant- hearted or want to give back and want to love others and want to be loving people, but caution them of like, here are the signs that you look out for, or here's, you know, how to know that you should talk to someone to, you know, to get help. But there's so much pain and I know he was hurting too. And there was just -- but I think what's been the most disturbing to me after these stories have come out is realizing it wasn't just me, that this was a pattern of behavior, that this is something that he's done and that he's continued to do.

And Jenny's story resonated so much with me and the details of it mirrored mine so closely. I was just in my early career. I was -- I had my trajectory was, you know, I was really, I don't want to say that it, but yes, this impacted that. I mean, it impacted the whole trajectory of my life.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: CNN spoke with friends of Lyndsey Fifield who corroborated that long before Grant Platner started talking about running for Senate, that she had discussed being frightened of him and experiencing violence during their relationship. CNN also reviewed several of her diary entries and messages outlining similar concerns, as well as Lyndsey Fifield's descriptions of Platner discussing plans to kill himself while they dated and then repeatedly confronting her after the relationship had ended.

This afternoon, our team reached out to the Platner campaign regarding these allegations made by Fifield against Graham Platner in the portion of our conversation that we just brought to you. In a statement to CNN, the Platner campaign says her claims are "categorically false and come from a person with a well-documented political agenda." There are resources out there for you or anyone who might be struggling with any of the topics we've touched on throughout this report and our reports this week. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is free 24/7, completely confidential. You can call 1-800-799- SAFE. That's 1-800-799-7233.

You can also go to thehotline.org. That's thehotline, all one word, dot org. The number for the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is 988. 988, you can call or text that number 24 hours a day, seven days a week for free and confidential support. Again, that number is 988. There is help for you. There is love and support for you.

[17:44:43]

Coming up next, the outcome President Trump did not want after a special request trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a case that he already lost.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, a major legal blow for President Trump. Today, a federal judge ordered the immediate release of more than $5 million to E. Jean Carroll, rejecting the president's attempt to delay the payment. The ruling came just hours after Trump asked to stop the payout, wanting the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in again.

Let's discuss with CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and CNN's Katelyn Polantz. Elie, a major blow for President Trump, but what do you make of the ruling?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jake, it's all over but the shouting at this point, and even the shouting is almost over. This case was essentially over last week when the U.S. Supreme Court said we are not taking this case. There were no dissents, by the way, from that decision, meaning it was unanimous not to take the case. Trump is now saying, but hold on, I shouldn't have to have that money released yet because I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider to give me a rehearing.

[17:50:04]

You have the right to ask for that. You have no right to an actual rehearing. However, there is as close to zero as you can get chance the Supreme Court actually rehears this. So the district court judge was right today to release this money. It's only a matter of time that money's going over to E. Jean Carroll, like it or not.

TAPPER: And Katelyn, the U.S. Supreme Court last week denied Trump's petition to challenge the jury's verdict, as Elie just noted. On Monday, Trump filed a motion with the Supreme Court for reconsideration. What happens if the Supreme Court decides to reconsider the case?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, they can. It probably wouldn't do anything until much at a much later date. And as Elie said, it is just doesn't happen very often, if at all, for the Supreme Court to reconsider something where there hasn't been a major change in the underlying law. But the bottom line here is that Trump litigates to the bitter end and then he keeps litigating after that.

And that's where we are now with this. He's litigating, telling the Supreme Court he wants them to consider it again. But he's also going to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals today and saying, I want to challenge the judge just deciding to release the $5 million to E. Jean Carroll. And remember, Jake, there's the other case that's still out there in appeals where Trump is going to want to put that before the Supreme Court.

He said that as much as this is the other defamation case where E. Jean Carroll was awarded an even bigger sum of money, $83 million. And so just keep waiting for filings. There's going to be as many as Trump can ever put on this case, whether it actually changes anything. That's a really big cast.

TAPPER: He is a historically bad loser. Historically bad.

POLANTZ: Or a great litigator.

TAPPER: No, I think what I said is accurate. Another legal defeat for President Trump. In April, the Justice Department issued a subpoena seeking information about Georgia poll workers from the 2020 election. This is what I meant when I said bad loser, Katelyn.

Tuesday, a Trump appointed judge blocked it, saying the use of subpoena power to investigate the 2020 election was not legitimate given the Statute of Limitation on any potential crime. He didn't mention it, but I'll just say President Trump lost that election and he lost it fair and square. And it's insane. We're still talking about this. Elie, what message does this decision send about the Justice Department's effort here?

HONIG: Well, Jake, it is extraordinarily rare for a judge to block a prosecutor subpoena. When you're a prosecutor, you can subpoena just about anything you want for just about any reason you want. However, there is a line. You cannot subpoena something where you have zero percent chance of bringing a criminal case or for a bad reason. And here, the ruling, by the way, by a Trump appointed district judge was straightforward. He said even if you were investigating crimes from the 2020 election, the Statute of Limitations on almost all federal crimes is five years. Here we are five and a half going on six years. So there's no possible way you could bring a valid criminal investigation here.

And I should note, this is now the third time in the last few months that three different district court judges have blocked subpoenas. And I think it just shows that DOJ is running away with its discretion.

TAPPER: And Katelyn, you report that in the wake of this loss, the Justice Department is making new attempts to insert itself in election administration. What are you learning?

POLANTZ: Yes, there's actually a couple of letters that the Justice Department has been sending out in recent weeks to election officials. One of those sets of letters was to all 50 states telling them that if they allowed non-citizens to vote, they could be prosecuted as election officials, reminding them of the federal law. You won't be surprised that there are election officials and state officials who are taking that as a bit of a threat and are very unhappy that this is the way the Justice Department wants to approach how they conduct elections. The states do it.

But then there's also efforts by the Justice Department to send in election monitors to states, which they used to do. But there are a lot of Democratic states and counties that want to make sure voters aren't going to be intimidated. There's just a lot that the Justice Department's trying to do to watch elections more closely than ever.

TAPPER: And Elie, I read with interest your latest New York Magazine article, "A close read of the Reflecting Pool prosecution" in which you dig into the case against the former Olympian David Hearn, who is facing one count of destruction of property after prosecutors say he violently ripped out part of the Reflecting Pool sealant. And some legal experts say the odds that prosecutors will secure a conviction are rather low. What's your take?

HONIG: I agree with that at this initial point. That's my gut instinct. But you'll hear people come out and declare conclusively he's wrongly charged or he's absolutely guilty. Both of those are just guesses at this point. We know this case was approved by a grand jury. We know there's some evidence, not as much as you would need at trial. And we know that Jeanine Pirro has said she has multiple Park Service eyewitnesses. Now, the key question is going to be how many witnesses and how clear is their testimony.

But ultimately, Jake, I think this case will either fail on the merits, I think they may fail to carry their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if they have the proof, this is a D.C. Jury. Trump is wildly unpopular in D.C. and we've seen grand juries and juries in D.C. alike reject cases by DOJ that they see as political. So I think it's premature to pronounce conclusive judgment in this case, as I've seen some people do. But the early indicators that I've seen caused me some skepticism about this charge.

[17:55:14]

TAPPER: And a reminder, of course, that President Trump pardoned the Capitol Hill rioters on January 6th who were literally beating up police officers, many of whom have lifetime injuries. And he is pretty pursuing this guy for taking on some sealant. Thanks to both you. Appreciate it.

President Trump just posted new videos, presumably of new U.S. strikes on Iran, although he did not post any details. Much more of the new video coming in and what we know about this escalation in the conflict. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:59:54]

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We are following two breaking stories tonight. One, the United States military launching new strikes on Iran, which Central Command says are meant to, "further degrade Iran's ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz."