Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

DHS Plans To Launch Voter Fraud Investigation Surge; Democrats Grapple With Generational Fight In Massachusetts; 4,400-Plus Still Missing, 1,000-Plus Dead Nearly a Week After Flood; U.S. Army Vet Pardoned For Crimes That Led To His Self-Deportation; Tropical Storm Edouard Makes Landfall Near Texas-Louisana Border. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 01, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, a new effort is underway to investigate what President Trump claims is widespread voter fraud, despite no proof it's actually happening.

[18:00:05]

We're breaking down exactly what the Department of Homeland Security is doing and the nine states they are focusing on as we gear up for the midterms.

Plus, we're in the final hours of voting in Massachusetts, where age is on the ballot in three key races. Will voters decide to choose decades of experience or a newer generation of leaders? We're live on the campaign trail in moments.

Also, a U.S. Army veteran whose self-deportation was at the center of a fiery hearing, now he's hoping he can return to the United States. Sae Joon Park was just pardoned for the crimes that led to him moving back to his native South Korea. He joins us live ahead to share the next steps in his immigration fight.

And Tropical Storm Edouard is lashing Texas and Louisiana after making landfall this afternoon. Flash flooding, tornadoes, and winds over 50 miles per hour still are possible with this storm. An update on that forecast ahead.

The Lead tonight, a massive new investigative undertaking kicked off today in President Trump's hump- hunt for purported widespread election fraud. CNN exclusive reporting shows the Department of Homeland Security's investigative arm is launching a voter fraud, quote, surge initiative to look into leads, conduct field interviews, and quickly review any new evidence. Experts worry it could chill legitimate voting ahead of the midterm elections, particularly after President Trump tried to overturn the 2020 elections based on lies.

CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is here. And, Priscilla, you and our team broke this story. Homeland Security Investigations looking at specific states here. Tell us more about what you learned. PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's review what Homeland Security Investigations is. They are a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Typically, they are working on human trafficking, drug smuggling, and other types of crimes. And in this case, and I should say over many months now, they have put an unprecedented number of resources toward this voter fraud crusade that the president has endeavored on, and as the Department of Homeland Security has more often become the central part of that under Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

Now, starting today, there is a new effort underway, and it is described, according to the guidance that we reviewed, as a coordinated criminal voter fraud surge initiative, which does some of what you described there, like conducting field interviews and researching new investigative leads and supporting timely prosecutorial review. Because, remember, while they will do the investigation, they would have to refer these cases to U.S. attorneys to move forward.

This surge is happening in nine states. They include, for example, Wisconsin, Missouri, Georgia, California, among others, and it's going to happen from now until mid-October. And that timing is, of course, just shy of midterm elections, which raises questions about why now. Generally, federal governments have avoided overt investigations into elections as they come closer because of concern of influencing the election or the chilling effect.

Now, that is under the Justice Department manual. That is not -- the Department of Homeland Security is not obligated to follow that policy, but as a sense as to how this has generally been conducted.

Now, again, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that, quote, while ICE Homeland Security Investigations is not able to comment on any active investigations, HSI is actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found.

Now, Phil, experts say there is no widespread voter fraud that has occurred in recent elections, but it is clear the administration is continuing to tout this and double down on this. Just last week, the Justice Department announced charges against an Ecuadorian national that they say falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen and registered to vote. This administration, or rather this department, is continuing these investigations with full force.

MATTINGLY: In my experience covering past law enforcement surges of all kinds, there's always a justification, a numbers basis for why you're deciding to deploy because you're taking these agents or this personnel away from other jobs or other priorities. Do they have one here?

ALVAREZ: Well, all the sources that I've spoken with say that this is the priority for the Department of Homeland Security and for the administration. Therefore, they are shifting resources to comply with that.

Now, what's interesting, Phil, is that even as they're conducting this work, we've seen some of the correspondence with county election officials and HSI agents, and in that correspondence, HSI also says, we typically don't do voter fraud work, and yet they're having to add this to their work. And that includes also looking at naturalized citizens and whether before they became U.S. citizens they registered to vote or voted.

And so a lot of their time is being dedicated to this, and the reason they're being given is simply that this is a priority. How many of those investigative leads lead to the referrals and then to prosecutions? Well, that's something that we just don't know yet.

MATTINGLY: Yes, hasn't been widespread up to this point. We will obviously continue to cover it. You will continue to cover it. Great piece, Priscilla Alvarez, great reporting.

[18:05:00]

Well, joining us now, two people with a lot of experience in the Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, who served during President Trump's first term, and John Sandweg, who served under President Obama.

Ken, just to start with you, the timing aspect here that Priscilla mentioned, obviously this is a DOJ thing. It doesn't necessarily apply explicitly to DHS. But the question of doing something this close to the elections and what effect that may have, what's your read on it?

KEN CUCCINELLI, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA: So, Priscilla noted that this has been going on for months. So, this isn't kicking off now. This is just -- you know, there's a lot of public reporting about it now, and we are headed into an election.

The DOJ guidance is typically related to candidates and people involved in an election, not discovering illegal activity by individual voters, which is what the HSI effort would be directed to. It's not directed at candidates or parties. It's investigating illegal activity by non-citizens, which is entirely within the jurisdiction of HSI, and it's been going on for months.

So, we'll see how it ends. As Priscilla noted, this is an investigative funnel into the DOJ prosecutorial decision. That's where ultimate prosecution decisions will be made. And I can tell you as a former attorney general, that's a painfully slow process.

MATTINGLY: You know, John, earlier this summer, DHS announced an audit of public voter rolls that identified more than 250,000 registered non-citizens in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Nevada. DHS hasn't really shown the methodology behind that. Some of those numbers have very much been called into question. What is your sense from your time and your experience of how widespread voter fraud is at this time?

JOHN SANDWEG, PARTNER, NIXON PEABODY: You know, Phil, it's not that widespread, right? The number of cases that you find are exceedingly low. I think the other problem with it, Phil, is you got to remember, what is this costing HSI, right, in terms of the diversion of resources?

As Priscilla mentioned, and as Ken knows, HSI does a lot of critical work for the United States. They are tip of the spear in terms of export control laws, preventing Iran from getting microchips that lead to these drone strikes, or preventing, you know, sensitive military technologies that end up in North Korea, big money laundering cases like with Chapo Guzman, right, drug cartels, that is the responsibility of HIS. And so we're pulling agents off that to say we're going to focus on these voting cases.

Now, there are cases. Typically, though, Phil, what it involves is someone who's been a green card, not some part of nefarious plot to influence the election, but lived here a long time, got confused, made a mistake, tried to vote. And I think the thing people need to understand is I'm not saying that's not serious. There are other ways in the immigration system you can deal with those, you know, short of a criminal prosecution. But it just, again, the big concern here is what is the cost in terms of what cases are not being made while we mess around with these cases?

MATTINGLY: Ken, that's actually -- I wanted to ask you about that, the balance. I mean, resources are finite. You've been in the game. You understand the reality of being in the arena at a leadership position trying to figure out what you dedicate and what you prioritize for your personnel and for the resources that you do have.

You know, there was an I.G. report a couple weeks ago that said, related to immigration enforcement and the push on immigration enforcement, other cases have not gotten the attention perhaps that they would have in the past, particularly talking about certain drug cases. What's your sense of if the balance is right, right now, for HSI, which can do so many different things?

CUCCINELLI: So, certainly I have always felt that HSI was, and it sounds like an odd thing to say, not skewed enough toward targeting of illegal immigration and illegal immigrant activity that they, in many ways, use their jurisdiction to be a secondary FBI, and that is, we have an FBI. They ought to be focused on this population.

And to your point that you keep making, Phil, about you'd like to say it's not widespread, but we just watched New Jersey accidentally, in only one year, put over 6,000 non-citizens on their voter rolls, and over 400 of them voted. That's -- and that's in a state that was doing it themselves.

You did mention that people can become confused. People can get on these voter rolls a wide variety of ways, but some of those ways are inappropriate, illegal, and so forth. And given the tens of thousands that have been discovered on the voter rolls, this doesn't seem illegitimate.

And last, I would say that my understanding of the distribution of work for this is that existing leads are parsed out to the appropriate geographic offices and are put on their sort of work list, if you will. And it is undeniable, the point you made, that human resources are always finite. John made this point as well. That is always true. And while you may say there are other immigration entities that can deal with this subject, the fact of the matter is most of them don't have significant investigative resources, and some of them don't have investigative authority.

[18:10:12]

So, that's what HSI was for. Part of what it was for was to perform all manner of investigative undertakings that involve this population. So, I think this is very appropriate and a productive use of manpower.

MATTINGLY: John, last week, Maine's Republican nominee for governor said he would ask DHS to provide ICE agents and U.S. marshals at polling places for the midterms. That's according to the Associated Press. Here's what DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: ICE isn't there to patrol the polling places. We're there to enforce specific threats. The only reason why we would be at polling places if there is a threat to that polling place or we're serving to -- yes, or we're or we're serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: You were the acting director of ICE. Your reaction to how the secretary responded to that.

SANDWEG: I mean, Phil, I want to keep ICE as far away from polling places as possible. Look, let's be clear. We'll see what happens, right? Let's see what happens. And, certainly, I would have no objections if there's a specific threat and you're calling out HSI to deal with a specific threat.

But if you're talking about the widespread deployment of ICE, look, no one knows the difference between HSI and ICE. They see on the back of the, you know, ERO, the immigration side of ICE. They see on the back of that, you know, jacket ICE, that means one thing, right? That's going to have a massive chilling effect on large segments of the population.

And, certainly, you worry that any idea of mass deployments of ICE to polling sites would be designed just to do that, right? To reduce voter participation and to send a message that this is a part of a larger immigration enforcement effort.

MATTINGLY: John Sandweg, Ken Cuccinelli, always appreciate your guys' time and expertise. Thank you both.

CUCCINELLI: Good to be with you.

SANDWEG: Yes. Thanks, Phil.

MATTINGLY: We are now watching Speaker Mike Johnson. Take a listen.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): -- and that Representative Edwards be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the speaker.

MATTINGLY: You have just been watching, you heard from Speaker Mike Johnson. There has been a formal censure at the well of the House. We're going to keep watching this as we go forward. We'll have more when we come back.

In the meantime, it's election night in America, and voters in Massachusetts are choosing between decades of experience or a new generation of leaders. We're live on the campaign trail next.

Plus, CNN's Anderson Cooper is live in Nepal tonight, where thousands of people are still missing after devastating flash floods, and contact has still not been made with some of the hardest hit areas. We'll check in with Anderson ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

MATTINGLY: You know that music. In our Politics Lead, we are less than two hours away from the polls closing in Massachusetts, where today's primary election pitted the parties established against younger candidates banking on a generational revolt. Senator Ed Markey, 80 years old, 50 of those years in Congress, is trying to fend off a primary challenge from 47-year-old Congressman Seth Moulton.

And it isn't just Markey. Two of the state's 70-something Congressmen are also facing challengers nearly half their age.

It's a campaign trail event, so that's where CNN's Arlette Saenz obviously is, on the trail, on the ground for us at Senator Markey's headquarters. Arlette, what are you hearing there?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, voters will soon make their voices heard in this Senate primary here in Massachusetts that has really shown the dividing lines within the Democratic Party surrounding the generational and ideological fights that have been playing out.

But there has been a bit of a twist here in Massachusetts. There is Congressman Seth Moulton, a 47-year-old Marine Corps veteran who is trying to wage this generational change argument against Senator Ed Markey, the 80-year-old incumbent Democrat. But it's Markey who has campaigned as the more progressive candidate in this contest, and that's how this varies a bit from some of the debates playing out on the national level within the Democratic Party.

But we spent time speaking with voters earlier today who told us that they were supporting Markey because they believed that his support of progressive policies mattered more than his age. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He has a much stronger progressive record, I think, and that's what, personally from my perspectives, I think matters the most in Massachusetts. I know a lot of people are concerned that he's older. Hopefully, this is his last term and he can throw his support behind somebody else who's really progressive and great.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now, Markey did survive a general generational challenge back in 2020 when he ran against Senator -- or Congressman Joseph Kennedy III. Ultimately, Markey was successful in that bid. He's hoping to repeat that here today. But voters will soon weigh in on whether they have any concerns about older candidates, something that's come up in Democratic politics, or if they will side with the more progressive candidate in this race in Markey. Phil?

MATTINGLY: I find this to be low-key one of the most fascinating primary nights, and not just because Whitney Houston is playing behind. The one and only Arlette Signs on the campaign trail in Boston, thank you, my friend, as always.

Well, a new report says there were warning signs in the days before devastating flashfloods killed more than 1,000 people in Nepal and China. Up next, CNN's Anderson Cooper is on the ground in Nepal, where the search continues for the missing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

MATTINGLY: Our World Lead takes us to Nepal. Nearly a week after the devastating flash floods, more than 1,000 people are dead. The Nepali army says it rescued 119 today, and harrowing stories of narrow escapes are still surfacing, like this Nepali mother seen sprinting to higher ground with her two young children, the road behind them swallowed by the floods just seconds later.

Still, more than 4,400 people are missing, including around 75 Americans, according to the U.S. State Department. Rescue workers are focused on the hundreds of people who were working on four different hydropower projects when the floods hit, using excavators to dig tunnel entrances completely blocked by mud and rock.

CNN's Anderson Cooper is in Kathmandu. Anderson, walk us through what you've been witnessing there.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. I actually visited two of those tunnel sites just yesterday, one where Nepali forces are working with Indian army forces, and the other site is being run by Nepali forces.

[18:25:02]

It is very difficult work. They have not gotten any signs of life at these two tunnel locations.

Nevertheless, they are still holding onto hope and they are still working around the clock to try to do whatever they can. They've had a really hard time at this tunnel complex 3A it's called, A, just finding the tunnel was a big issue because it was completely covered by debris from the river.

They were able to get into the other tunnel a little bit more easily but they have not had any signs of life. They have not made the kind of progress they really want to, and the government here is starting to come under criticism for not bringing in, you know, tunnel experts earlier in the process.

They're pushing back on that a little bit. They said they asked for help as soon as they realized what they needed. But that is very much the focus of this government right now, trying to rescue anybody who may still be alive, or at the very least, bring out their bodies so they can return them to their families.

MATTINGLY: Anderson, you spoke to an Indian army colonel who told you it's particularly difficult to survive in tunnels because people tend to panic and get disoriented. How optimistic at this point was he about finding people a week later?

COOPER: You know, I mean, he's holding onto hope but he's also realistic. He's a -- by the way, he's a remarkable Indian army officer. He has two doctorates in tunnels. He is an expert on this, and he is the one overseeing this operation, his team's operation at this very remote site, very far up upriver.

But it's difficult. I mean, it is really hard. He's consulting with other people as well. They are working very, very hard. But there's a lot of sediment. There's a lot of debris. You know, these tunnels were completely covered in water, the entrances to them. The amount of mud, and it's this -- it's like liquid cement that they are -- it's not just water and mud. It is -- I've never s- seen anything like this. When you're trying to walk through it, you literally sink into it, so getting through this stuff is very, very difficult.

Anderson Cooper, you and your team have been doing remarkable, tireless work in Nepal, thank you very much. And, of course, Anderson will have much more of his reporting from on the ground in Nepal during AC360 tonight at 8:00 Eastern.

Well, the breaking news from the, from Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives just voted to censure Republican Congressman Chuck Edwards. We will explain why next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

MATTINGLY: The breaking news in our Politics Lead, moments ago, the House of Representatives voted to censure Republican Congressman Chuck Edwards of North Carolina. Now, this comes weeks after the bipartisan House Ethics Committee found Edwards violated house rules related to sexual harassment and hostile workplaces, saying he, quote, Engaged in persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers.

Ahead of the vote today, Edwards spoke on the House floor trying to sway his colleagues not to censure him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHUCK EDWARDS (R-NC): I am imperfect. I have made mistakes, but I do not believe I committed sexual harassment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: CNN's Manu Raju is live for us on Capitol Hill. Manu, can you walk through more of the allegations and then what happens next here?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this was a rebuke, an overwhelming rebuke by the United States House. Pretty much everybody in the House voted to censure the Congressman, Chuck Edwards, on a vote of 413 to 2, the two who voted against this, Chuck Edwards and also Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina. Everybody else falling in line because of what the House Ethics Committee found in this investigation about how he treated two young female staffers.

According to this report, it said the committee found that Representative Edwards engaged in persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers, and says that while Edwards denied that any of his conduct was intended as sexual or romantic advance, his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable observer to interpret it as such. And this includes, Phil, providing the young women with lavish and recurrent gifts, making comments regarding their appearance and dress, inviting them to intimate dinners and vacations, sending notes regarding his effusive affection, and inviting them to other activities as a way to spend time together.

It went on to say the committee found no evidence that Edwards engaged in sexual activity with them or explicitly propositioned them with any way, but he said he put them in an untenable position.

Now, Edwards denied that he intentionally tried to sexually harass these staffers, and he sent a 22-page letter to his colleagues a few days ago trying to sway them to vote against censuring him. And he went to the House floor and made an appeal to his colleagues just moments before the vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: I want to say something directly and publicly to the two women who have been at the center of all of this. I am sorry. I'm sorry that my actions, my judgment, or the way that I expressed a friendship ever put either of you in an uncomfortable position. My intentions were only grounded in what I understood our friendship to be and in genuine admiration and respect that I had for each of you, not only as professionals, but as people.

I recognize now that my understanding of those relationships may not have always matched yours.

(END VIDEO CLIP) RAJU: A censure's a pretty rare thing, Phil, as you know. Less than -- fewer than 30 members in the history of the United States House have been censured, and as a result of these findings, Edwards decided not to run for re-election, but he will continue to serve as a member of the House until January. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Manu, separate question. I want to ask you about an exchange you had with House Speaker Mike Johnson. You asked him what I thought was a pretty fair, normal question about Iran. Things kind of took a turn. What happened?

[18:35:00]

RAJU: Yes. You know, the speaker has been in line with the president over the -- how the Iran war has been prosecuted and oftentimes making very rosy projections about things, initially saying that this would be a short war or be done in short order, and that it was simply just a skirmish, it was not an actual war, and said that any pain that people would feel at the gasoline pump would be a, quote, temporary blip. And I asked him if voters should hold him to account for his comments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: On Iran, you said repeatedly that this war was going to be over soon. You said that this would be a temporary blip on short-term, on gas prices. It is more than six months. People are getting hurt still at the pump. Should the American people not also judge you on your projections here that were clearly off-base?

JOHHNSON: Manu, that is one of the stupidest questions you've ever asked.

RAJU: Why? It's not stupid.

JOHNSON: I have nothing to do with the prosecution of the war across the globe. I am responsible --

RAJU: You are responsible. You are selling this to the American public. Are you not?

JOHNSON: So, should the House Speaker be held responsible for the duration of a military conflict around the globe? You answer that question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And, of course, Congress has the authority, constitutional authority, to declare war, and there's been a raging debate, Phil, here on Capitol Hill about checking the president's war powers when it comes to Iran. The speaker himself has opposed that time and time again, and he has advanced an effort to pass legislation through the House and the Senate to provide tens of billions of dollars more for the war in Iran.

So, Congress undoubtedly has a role here, and the speaker's role in this moment has been to align himself with the president as the president carries on with this conflict, Phil.

MATTINGLY: There's like an Article 1, and then there's, like, an Article 2, and they check -- yes, no, everything you asked and then said afterwards was accurate.

Manu Raju, as always, my friend on Capitol Hill, I appreciate you.

RAJU: Well, joining me now, former Trump White House Communications Director Mike Dubke and Democratic Strategist Maria Cardona.

MATTINGLY: Mike, I don't -- I will give him a pass for not caring about the Army secretary that we talked about last hour. This, and I will preface with I love the Hill, I love Congress as an institution, I grew up in it, it is my favorite place in the world, like there is authority. You are the speaker of the House. What -- like what --

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Are we going to the question that was asked here? Because the question was really about should they, should you be held accountable for making a statement, a guess, or whatever on the prosecution of the war.

I kind of -- well, I did not like how the speaker said, I'm not qualified. I thought that was a terrible way to address it on the earlier thing. I think his answer here is fine. I don't like the use of the word stupid, but I think he's fine pushing back and saying, look, I'm not the person that is in control of the prosecution of this war. And that's what he was referring to when he was giving his comment back to Manu.

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But he does have responsibility for the budget of the war, for controlling what kind of money goes into the war. So, a big part of that is the prosecution of the war. And so I think by him saying that he has absolutely no responsibility for the prosecution of the war is similar to him saying that he has no opinion or qualification to talk about the defense secretary and his role.

And so, to me, it continues to underscore this notion, Mike, that I think voters are aware of and are going to hold Republicans accountable for, which is they have completely given up any control whatsoever that they ever had about anything that President Trump does. And what voters want more than anything in this election is to hold this president accountable, to have some kind of guardrails on what he is doing or not doing, because they believe, and we have seen this in poll after poll after poll, that he has betrayed the American people on so many issues, including the Iran war.

DUBKE: I think you fundamentally have touched on something, because I do believe that Democrats think that this election is only about Donald Trump's actions. And I would say when we were talking earlier and you were talking about cost of living and all of this, I think that's what the American people are going to vote on in the midterm elections.

And that's why I'm concerned, yet thrilled today, that the White House did a press conference and brought all these folks together to talk about cost of living. Because I think that's what this administration and these Congressional members are going to be judged on, not necessarily this anti-Trump movement, which is fueling and giving, you know, a big momentum to Democrats right now, and you're seeing it in the primaries.

CARDONA: I completely agree with you that this election is -- there you go.

MATTINGLY: What's going on?

CARDONA: It is going to be --

MATTINGLY: This is fun.

CARDONA: It's going to be about cost of living. But you know what else, Mike? You know what voters are able to do?

[18:40:00]

They can thread the needle between the cost of living and the gas prices that they are now paying at the pump, and the completely irresponsible way that Donald Trump has prosecuted this war. And in doing so, they can also put responsibility on Congress because they have done absolutely nothing to rein him in or to go up against him, or even ask difficult questions about, what are we doing in Iran? They have done everything to just genuflect at the altar of Donald Trump, no matter what he says.

MATTINGLY: Manu's question was related to gas prices. You promised people this was going to be short.

CARDONA: Exactly.

MATTINGLY: Cost of living is the issue. My personal fear is tied to Congress's general abdication of its responsibilities --

CARDONA: Yes, that's right.

MATTINGLY: -- which I clearly am unbiased on entirely regardless of party.

Okay, I want to move to -- and, by the way, Manu's been called much worse, Mike. You don't need to worry about him being called stupid. It's a very rare Mike Johnson show where Manu --

DUBKE: I don't think he was called stupid.

MATTINGLY: I have called Manu worse many times.

DUBKE: It was a stupid question. It was different.

MATTINGLY: Stupid question, stupidest question. It was a ranking, high up on the ranking.

Okay, I want to ask about Massachusetts primary because, Maria, this was like the defining post-2024, the age issue, everybody who was kind of i, in the, the latter s- tiers of their career were getting knocked out. It doesn't seem like it's going to happen here. What am I missing?

CARDONA: I think there's two things that we can gauge from this. The first one is we can no longer make sweeping judgments about anything and apply them to everything.

MATTINGLY: You're agreeing and we can't make sweeping judgments? This is a cable news show.

CARDONA: I know we love to do that, Phil, but we cannot do that anymore. But it's related to my second point, which is the following, what voters care about this election is not so much labels, is not what you call yourself, frankly, in this specific race, not even age. They care about how you are fighting for them. They care about what you represent vis-a-vis the issues that they are passionate about.

And, clearly, in this race, what they care more about than the age issue is the fact that they see Senator Markey as the one who is fighting for them, as the one who is representing those progressive issues that they care so passionately about.

And so -- and I have talked about this ad nauseam when we get asked about, oh, you know, the Democratic Socialists of America, are they taking over versus the moderates, and who's going to win? They are not. But what voters care most about is not labels. Voters could give an F about labels. They want to know, what are you going to do for me today?

MATTINGLY: Yes.

CARDONA: What have you done for me, and what are you going to do for me tomorrow?

MATTINGLY: And I should be clear, we're not calling the -- like we have no idea how this is going to end.

DUBKE: No.

CARDONA: That's right.

MATTINGLY: It's Massachusetts polling, but it's just a very interesting kind of counterintuitive dynamic, yes.

DUBKE: Because I do think that there's a civil war going on in the Democratic Party between the progressives and the moderates, or whatever you want to call them. And maybe you look at this race and you look at Moulton and you look at Markey and you say, well, if the polls are right and the progressive is leading, regardless of the fact that he's 78, that tells you something.

But then you see other places where just one state over in Connecticut, where you've got -- where you had John Larson lose to a much younger candidate. And then you look at Florida and the Democratic primary there, and you have a woman who is vastly outspent by an incumbent- member of Congress losing in that race. So, I think there's a little bit of a twist here, which is, in Massachusetts, you have two federal office holders running against each other. But what we've seen in other races, and maybe this is in agreement with you, is when you have someone outside the federal system, whether they be a state rep or whatever, running against the federal government, that seems to be the difference maker here.

CARDONA: I think it's the difference in they see that candidate in that specific race, in that specific district with those specific voters, they see that person as the one who is fighting for them.

And this is another thing. You can't overlay what's happening in one district with what is happening in the other. When candidates win is when they speak to the specific issues in their district, when they know what their voters want, when they know what their voters are worried about, and when they see that their voters are looking for the fight, and you show your voters that you're the one who's going to be fighting for them.

DUBKE: But if there's a trend line, either they're with Democrats or Republicans, it's they want something new.

MATTINGLY: They hate everyone.

CARDONA: Maybe.

MATTINGLY: People hate everyone.

CARDONA: But maybe not.

MATTINGLY: That's like my simplified reason.

CARDONA: Because then that wouldn't be the case in Massachusetts.

MATTINGLY: I really have issues with the level of nuance here. We should not be doing this.

Thank you guys both. I really appreciate it.

CARDONA: Thanks, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Well, a U.S. Army veteran who self-deported now is hoping for a chance to return to the United States. He joins us live to explain his story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:48:39]

MATTINGLY: A veteran and Purple Heart recipient who spent nearly 50 years in the U.S. may be one step closer to coming back. Sae Joon Park came to the United States from South Korea at age seven, served in the U.S. Army, and was wounded in combat. But old criminal convictions tied to undiagnosed PTSD and drug addiction threatened his immigration status. He self-deported last year, leaving behind his children.

Now, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has pardoned him, and it could be a critical step forward in his pursuit to return to the United States.

Joining me now is Sae Joon Park and Congressman Seth Magaziner.

Sae Joon, you said you were shocked by the news. What did it mean to you

SAE JOON PARK, U.S. ARMY VETERAN WHO SELF-DEPORTED: I was shocked. I didn't expect a pardon, but when I got the news, I was overwhelmed. I was so grateful and I was ecstatic, to tell you the truth.

MATTINGLY: I believe it.

Congressman, you've advocated for Sae Joon Park's case for months. He's now been pardoned by Governor Hochul. What was your reaction when you heard?

REP. SETH MAGAZINER (D-RI): Well, very grateful to the governor and very hopeful for what this means for Sae Joon, hopefully being able to come back to the United States. I want to acknowledge that what Sae Joon is doing is just incredibly courageous. He served our country in uniform, courageously took a bullet for our country.

But by sharing his story, he has helped illuminate and educate people about what is really happening with immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, where they are deporting veterans, they are deporting children, they are deporting people who have no criminal record -- people who, you know, have every reason to believe that they should be in the United States.

[18:50:22]

And so that takes courage. It takes courage to open up about your struggles with PTSD and addiction, but also to just paint a picture for people about what is happening.

You said that Sae Joon self-deported. That's technically true, but he did. So essentially under threat from the Trump administration that he was going to be deported regardless, despite the fact that he gave so much to our country. And by sharing his story, I think he's helping to shift public opinion and help us push back against just the reckless nature of what the Trump administration has been doing.

MATTINGLY: Sae Joon, can you -- sharing your story is so important. Can you take people back to the day in June 2025, when you boarded that one way flight to South Korea, leaving your children, your elderly mother, what was going through your mind?

PARK: To tell you the truth, I was still in disbelief. I knew it could have been a one-way trip and never returned. Um, I was very hopeful, but it was tough. It was really tough. And my first week in Korea, I was still in disbelief, pretty much. I guess my PTSD was kicking in. I was crying every day, very emotional, and just missing my family and not sure what my future is going to be.

I understand even now this doesn't guarantee me coming back home, but I'm so grateful that it's in the right direction. MATTINGLY: Congressman, to that point, the pardon doesn't

automatically bring Sae Joon Park home. What needs to happen next? And do you believe that will happen?

MAGAZINER: Well, first of all, there are any number of ways that Secretary Mullen and the Trump administration could bring Sae Joon back. If they chose to do so. They could do humanitarian parole. There's a number of different legal avenues.

But, you know, again, the fundamental fact here is that President Trump lied to the American people when he said that they were only going to be going after, quote, the worst of the worst. By their own data, that's not what they've been doing. The vast majority of people who they have been going after and deporting have no violent record at all, including Sae Joon.

They are deporting veterans. They're deporting people who should not be deported and, I'm very hopeful that this is a big step forward. And I think this is a big step forward in Sae Joon's case.

But this is also about educating the public heading into the November elections so that people understand what's really happening here and that the indiscriminate way in which they have been detaining and deporting people is just catching so many people who should be here in the United States, particularly veterans like Sae Joon, who have sacrificed for our country, put on the uniform of our country and deserve, at the very least, to be able to continue to live in this country that they've called home.

MATTINGLY: Sae Joon, to that point, after everything you've been through, combat, addiction, prison, rebuilding your life, then being forced to leave, what is coming home mean to you now?

PARK: It means everything. That's where I'm from. That's where I grew up. That's my home. That's where my family, my children are.

So, it means a great deal to -- for me to make it back home.

MATTINGLY: Just one last thing. What is your message right now to your family as you go through this?

PARK: Asking them to hang tight on where I owe a lot to my attorney, Danicole. He's worked so hard for me. And once again, this is unbelievable that I've got the parton so far. And I understand once again that this doesn't guarantee my return home, but I'm really hopeful. And I pray every day to try to make it back home to my family.

MATTINGLY: We will certainly keep reporting on your case and what happens going forward.

Sae Joon Park, thank you for your service.

Congressman Seth Magaziner, appreciate your time, sir. Thank you both very much.

MAGAZINER: Thank you

MATTINGLY: Well, a tropical storm is lashing parts of Texas and Louisiana tonight. Those details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:45]

MATTINGLY: Our last leads start in our national lead. Heavy rain and gusty winds are lashing Texas and Louisiana tonight as Tropical Storm Edouard pushes inland. The storm made landfall around 3:00 p.m. Eastern. It did strengthen before coming ashore, but fortunately avoided the worst-case scenario of becoming a hurricane.

In just minutes, a Utah judge is set to announce whether Tyler Robinson's case will go to trial. The 23-year-old is accused of murdering activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University almost a year ago. Today, the judge heard hours of closing arguments from each side. The prosecution argued Robinson killed Kirk, quote, "because he disagreed with him," while the defense insisted there's no way to know for sure what Robinson was thinking. Kirk's widow, Erika, left the courtroom when prosecutors shared details of how Charlie Kirk died.

In our national lead, Tiger Woods is scheduled to appear in court tomorrow for a change of plea hearing in his DUI case. Woods was charged with driving under the influence in March after a rollover crash. Days later, he said he was stepping away from public life to seek treatment. It's not clear if Woods has reached a plea deal in the case.

Well, I hope you'll join me for my video series, "CNN Breaks It Down". We tackle some of the most pressing questions in business and politics. You can find new episodes on CNN.com/watch. You, of course, can follow this show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.