Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Early U.S. Intel Shows Strikes Did Not Destroy Iran's Nuclear Sites; Trump And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Trade Barbs After She Floats Impeachment; GOP Speaker Suggests War Powers Act Is Unconstitutional; "NewsNight" Discusses Trump Handling Of Israel-Iran War; Cuomo Concedes In New York Primary. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 24, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. We begin with the breaking news tonight, the president at odds with his own Pentagon Intelligence when it comes to the impact of American strikes against Iran. He's been adamant that Iran's nuclear program has been totally obliterated after the U.S. struck three of their nuclear sites this weekend, but at least one early intelligence assessment suggests otherwise. Sources tell CNN that the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency believes the strikes did not destroy the program, only setting it back a few months.
Now, keep in mind, it's an early assessment that could change as more information is gathered, but Israeli intelligence is also making a similar conclusion. For its part, the White House is calling the assessment fake news, despite also admitting that it exists and, of course, contradicts what the administration has been telling Americans all along.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: We have destroyed the Iranian nuclear program.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are confident, yes, that Iran's nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated.
TRUMP: Iran will never rebuild its nuclear -- from there, absolutely not. That place is under rock. That place is demolished.
It could have destroyed, everyone hit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CNN's Natasha Bertrand is one of the reporters who broke this story. Natasha, tell us more about what you're reporting uncovered here. NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Abby. So, we found that the Defense Intelligence Agency, they based their initial assessment on a Central Command battle damage assessment that was done in the days following the strikes. And, essentially, what they found is that the US military strikes on these three key Iranian nuclear facilities, they did not fully destroy the facilities. In fact, they did not appear to have knocked out the underground portion of these facilities, where some of the most core key elements of Iran's nuclear program actually are including the enriched uranium, including the centrifuges.
In fact, according to this DIA assessment, which was described to us by over a half a dozen sources who have been briefed on it the damage to these nuclear sites was largely confined to the above ground structures. And, you know, these sources emphasize that damage was significant. The bombs did knock out, for example, the power infrastructure. They did knock out the facilities that the nuclear sites used to turn uranium into metal for bomb-making, so not a small thing at all. But the idea that these were completely and totally obliterated by these bunker-buster bombs is, according to the Defense Intel Agency, at least currently, which, again, is only one assessment, not correct at this point.
Now, it's worth noting also that there has long been debate in the intelligence community and the defense community about whether these massive bombs could actually penetrate those deeply, deeply buried underground nuclear facilities. And, in fact, Michael McCaul, who is the chair of the emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he was actually on CNN earlier today. And he said that he had been briefed on these military plans and they were never intended to fully destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Here's a bit of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): I've been briefed on this plan in the past. It was never to completely destroy these three facilities, but rather cause significant damage, but it was always known to be a temporary setback.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERTRAND: Now, it's also worth noting that according to sources, Iran also maintains other secret nuclear facilities that were not targeted as part of this U.S. military operation that do appear to remain operational. Abby?
PHILLIP: Natasha Bertrand, thank you very much for bringing us that reporting.
Here in the room with my experts and analysts. Jamie Metzl, this is I don't want to say predictably what might have occurred as a result of this, but the victory lap that was taken this weekend did seem premature because there hadn't been a sense of what really happened here.
[22:05:00] And I want to just point out one key part of the reporting that that she mentioned. So, the stockpile of enriched uranium, according to two people, was not destroyed. One of the people that our reporter spoke to said that the centrifuges are largely intact, and another source says that the enriched uranium was actually moved out of the sites prior to U.S. strikes, so setback but not an obliteration of the nuclear program or ambitions for that matter?
JAMIE METZL, SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTA COUNCIL: Well, this was never, that it was going to always going to be impossible for this for us to totally obliterate the Iranian nuclear program. But based on the 13 days of Israeli attacks based on the U.S. attack, it's fair to say that the Iranian nuclear program has been pushed back significantly. Iranian capabilities have been degraded. It was never going to be one and done. And Iran is still standing and they're going to do everything possible to reconstitute their capabilities.
PHILLIP: But that's what -- I guess the point is that's not what Trump said.
METZL: Yes.
PHILLIP: And that's not what the administration said at all.
METZL: It was always premature to say, totally obliterated when all we had knew that we had done is drop the bombs but we didn't have any damage, any full damage assessment.
And so Israel has done a lot. They've just -- they've killed a lot of the scientists. They've destroyed a lot of the blueprints and the backups. I mean, there's a lot of degradation in Iran. But whatever happened, Iran was going to try to reconstitute. And it's very likely that Russia and China are going to try to help Iran reconstitute its deterrent. So, this is always going to be whack-a-mole, and it will be whack-a-mole going forward.
But I completely agree that this overstatement and hyperbole --
PHILLIP: It's more than just overstatement though, Jamie, because I think that the narrative last week when we were talking about this from the Trump team was the decision that Trump is going to make here is something that no other president has been willing to do. He's the only one who's been willing to act to stop Iran. But the truth is he's not really stopping Iran. He's delaying Iran, which is kind of actually what all the other presidents did without dropping bombs.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is an active victory for non-proliferation. Nothing has happened that's been this concrete in moving back the Iranian nuclear program. We knew they probably would move their mostly enriched uranium out of these facilities. Right now, we know they're pile of rubble. This early assessment, we will see how much of it proves to be right.
The seven people inside the DIA who've leaked to CNN, congratulations, you got your moment in the sun. There'll be more assessments that come after this, and then we'll get a true picture of it. But we do know that there are three key sites or piles of rubble today. That is a step forward. It's good for peace. It's good for the United States.
JOY REID, HOST, THE JOY REID SHOW: I find it rather extraordinary that we are very casually having a conversation about the tactical success or failure of dropping a 3,000-pound bomb or two on a sovereign country that did not attack us. And we are failing to unpack or even address as we're discussing whether or not it was effective how we bombed Iran, whether Donald Trump was correct in saying we obliterated their facilities and not asking, why on Earth is the United States bombing a country that did not attack us? What on Earth are we doing there at all? And why is it that there is this arrogance in the west and in the United States to say that we get to decide who can have nuclear energy? We get to decide that and not just decide it. We get to act on it and drop bombs on a country that didn't attack us.
We had no business dropping bombs on Iran. And so the question of whether the tactic worked or not to me ignores the fundamental moral question at hand. And I think that I'm not alone, probably among Americans who are saying that this was something that we had absolutely no right to do.
METZL: Americans recognize that for 46 years, Iran has been at war with us, starting with the hostage crisis. They've killed thousands of Americans. They supported the war against us in Afghanistan. They've built proxies and they've destroyed multiple countries. Iran has declared war on the United States. Death to America was their mantra.
The United States has been a nuclear power, obviously, since 1945. It is --
REID: And dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
METZL: Appropriately.
TODD: I want to address your question there.
METZL: And the American people understand that the United States plays an important role in the world. I am thrilled that the United States is trying to police the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Imagine what the world would look like if it was otherwise. And what people --
(CROSSTALKS)
REID: We would still be the only country that has ever bombed another country with nuclear weapons. And let me ask you one question. Why did the Iran hostage crisis take place?
METZL: So, certainly --
REID: I'm asking you why.
TODD: Fundamentalist radicals took over the government.
[22:10:00]
REID: Why? Why did they take over the government? Why?
TODD: Because they're religious jihadists who want to eliminate western society.
METZL: They hate our way of life. They hate our way of life.
REID: Or why did they overthrew the shah of Iran, who we imposed on Iran because the Dulles brothers, one at the CIA and one at the State Department, decided that the oil beneath the soil of Iran belonged to B.P. and belonged to us. And when Mossadegh, who was the leader of Iran, the democratically elected leader of Iran, said that we would like to audit B.P., because we want to know if you are cheating us or paying the people of Iran based on the oil under their soil, and they said, you may not audit us, and then we overthrew him and he wound up dying in prison because we decided that we, in our arrogance as a country, got to own their oil.
And wait a minute, one moment, one moment. And so the hatred of the United States had to do with the hatred of the shah, who brutally repressed the people of Iran for 26 years until he was overthrown within Iran because he was not their natural king. They didn't want a king anymore than we wanted a king.
The bottom line is the arrogance of the United States is foreign policy. We act as if people act in a vacuum, and that nothing we do has ever led to the hatred of us and other countries. And I'm not saying that positive issue to take but you just said because they hate our freedoms. That's B.S. and you know that.
TODD: They hate the western world. I want to answer Joy's question.
PHILLIP: Let me just say one thing, just to note, because Joy brought this up about what do the American people think. Two polls out today, a CNN poll, a CBS poll, both show that pretty large majorities oppose the United States bombing Iran, okay? 56 percent disapprove. 44 percent approve, basically identical results in these polls. Not a whole lot of things right now get results like that, and it's pretty clear where they stand.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That probably also includes a lot of Republicans who voted for Donald Trump because he promised not to wage World War III, not to get us involved in foreign wars and forever wars.
Look, we can debate the history, but we are where we are, right? And so I would feel a lot better because all of us around this table are old enough to have lived through a point in American history where we went to war and where foreign policy and military action was taken based on inaccurate, either purposefully or inaccurate or negligently inaccurate information about weapons of mass destruction.
I think it is important at this point for the president of the United States to be accurate, to be transparent, and to be deliberate. And, yes, I know that bragging, exaggerating, bluster and lying is part of Donald Trump's brand and his persona, but the American people and also the members of Congress who were supposed to get briefed today, and that briefing got canceled at the last minute, deserve transparency and deserve to know exactly what is happening here and what comes next. ARTHUR AIDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Is anyone going to talk about the fact that there's a ceasefire? Is anyone going to bring up the fact that they that Iran and Israel are not bombing each other as we speak? Is that not a victory?
PHILLIP: Arthur, it is a very good question.
AIDALA: Less death going on right now.
PHILLIP: Arthur, it is a very good question. I think people have been wondering why Iran reacted the way that it did to the strikes from over the weekend. Why did they telegraph to the United States that they were going to send missiles to those bases to that base in Qatar? And I think that some people are asking tonight whether one of the reasons is because they know that what's underneath Fordow and these other nuclear sites isn't completely eliminated.
TODD: No, it's because they don't want any more bunker-buster bombs dropped on Iran.
AIDALA: Exactly.
TODD: You know who said that that MOP, the massive ordinance penetrator, you know who said that was going to be the number one deterrent to nuclear Iran? Chuck Schumer. And he said it when Barack Obama was president. He developed it.
PHILLIP: But I guess the question is, is that true? Is it actually true it is the number one deterrent? Because what -- look, and I want to be clear, this assessment that we're discussing. It's preliminary. It will be added to by other intelligence agencies. There will be disagreement, as there often is, as you know, I know you know very well. So, I don't want people to think this is the Bible, okay? It's not. But at the same time, is it not likely that Iran has already moved the enriched uranium, could just restart this whole thing in a year?
METZL: This is not a story about one bomb. Iran's capabilities have been massively degraded over the last year and a half. Israel has done a remarkable job of destroying multiple armies, full armies. Israel has absorbed 28,000 rocket attacks, and this little David has defeated this massive Goliath, and that opened this opportunity for the United States.
[22:15:04]
And, yes, there is assorted history, but the United States since 1945 has basically guaranteed and overseeing the greatest period of peace and prosperity in the world relative to all other points in human history, in the United States is --
REID: I'm sorry, but Goliath is the United States. The United States did not start -- hold on.
METZL: This is Iran. Are you supporting the murders of Tehran? REID: First of all, one moment, one moment, one moment. Two nuclear powers, the United States and Israel, bombed a non-nuclear power, which under the Obama -- pardon me, under the Obama administration, signed a deal to decrease their enrichment of uranium. They signed that deal under President Obama. Donald Trump came along, abrogated and ended that agreement such that they could begin enriching again. Joe Biden came along, did not put that agreement back in place. Iran has been outside of that agreement since President Trump's first term. Did they in that time build a nuclear weapon? They did not.
The 16 intelligence agencies, which assess this for a living, it is their only job, have already concluded that they were not attempting to --
PHILLIP: Wait.
REID: No. And one other question --
PHILLIP: Hold on one second, just a second. Because, Jamie, I'm curious about this. What she just said was that since Iran is outside of the nuclear deal that Trump got out of, were they able to build a nuclear weapon in that time?
METZL: So, the answer --
PHILLIP: Eight-plus years.
METZL: Do they have a nuclear bomb now? Probably not. But here's what happened. As part of that deal, they were giving money --
PHILLIP: The reason I'm asking -- I know. I get it. I understand that. I just want to be clear, because I think the point that she's making is that, in that time, Iran has not actually -- at that time, the talk was that they were weeks away, months away from building a nuclear weapon. We're eight years later.
REID: Weeks away since the 90s.
TODD: On May the 31st, the International Atomic Energy Association censured Iran for being out of compliance. They say they've not been truthful. They say they have undeclared nuclear material. They have nuclear material that's enriched to 60 percent. Why do they do that, Joy?
PHILLIP: I think one of the questions about --
REID: One moment.
PHILLIP: One of the questions about what the American people know and what they trust is, do we have a good understanding of where things stand in terms of Iran and a nuclear weapon? And I think to Ana's point, there's such a long history of Americans feeling misled. I think that people --
TODD: being misled, not feeling. PHILLIP: Oh, absolutely, being misled. I think people are legitimately wondering, when you warn that this is weeks away, how true is that? And should we really be getting into a war because of that?
TODD: Because we know they have uranium enriched to 60 percent, which you don't need for a civilian nuclear energy program, which, by the way, they don't need a civilian nuclear energy program anyway.
METZL: Or a space program or a ballistic missile program.
REID: In your view. So, not arrogant to tell them what they need. They have been two weeks away since Bibi Netanyahu who said it in '96. He said it to George W. Bush. He said it to Joe Biden. He said it to Barack Obama. He's been saying they've been two weeks away since 1996, when my children were infants. He's saying that we're two weeks. The bottom line --
NAVARRO: Can I tell you what I'm also legitimately wondering about? This almost seems too easy, and in the same way that Donald Trump's two weeks to decide was a ruse, apparently. I don't -- you know, how do we not know that Iran's tepid response in sending the missiles to Qatar and telegraphing that they were doing so is also not some sort of ruse and that this is, you know, just beyond what we are comprehending, particularly because we have a president, a secretary of defense and an entire administration that is telling us over and over again that their capacities have been obliterated? And that seems not to be --
PHILLIP: Well, the risk there is also that it doesn't come in a conventional form and that there's -- you know, we've heard people, Pompeo and others warning about sleeper cells. So, I mean, I think the idea that everything is all great and there's no threat to the United States --
TODD: They already had sleeper cells.
METZL: We had 13 days of an unprecedented, successful, targeted attack, degrading Iran's capabilities by Israel. It is a miracle. Against --
(CROSSTALKS)
METZL: It's a strategic triumph by the United States. United States is so much better off than we were --
REID: It sounds like the Iraq war. It sounds like, oh my God, 2003 wants its history back.
TODD: I want to go back when Joy asked a question.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Brad has been wanting to get in. Brad, go ahead.
TODD: Joy asked a question earlier. She said you allege that the United States has not been attacked by Iran. Iran-backed militias that attacked the United States forces 170 times in Syria, in Jordan and Iraq. You know who said that? Joe Biden said. That's why he authorized F-15 strikes against Iran.
REID: By the way, Joe Biden is the same president who was allowed Israel in an unrestrained manner to slaughter Palestinians in Gaza.
[22:20:04]
So, I'm not sure that Joe Biden is who I'm looking at.
TODD: The Iranian backed Hamas.
REID: I'm not sure Joe Biden is not going to for the moral authority here.
And the bottom line here is the way that we know that Iran did not have nuclear weapons is that if they had nuclear weapons, Israel would not attack them. The reason they're trying to get nukes and probably Saudi Arabia is trying to get them, is because an expansionist power in their region keeps threatening them and actually bombed them.
And the bottom line -- I don't think it that Israel --
(CROSSTALKS)
REID: And so the bottom line is Israel does not even subject its nuclear weapons to the IAEA. And so my question is, should anyone in the region --
PHILLIP: But, Joy, this is not just about nukes. It's also about Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism and chaos and violence and death around the world. So, I mean, there's that too.
AIDALA: How about democracy? Why are we doing this? Because Israel has a democracy, like the United States of America. Joy, the fact that you're backing a country that slaughters homosexuals, that slaughters people for their religious beliefs --
REID: In the United States, people or LGBTQ people can't even serve in the military under the president you prefer.
AIDALA: They are -- oh, I'm sorry. They're only a little bit discriminated against them. Oh, they're allowed to live, but they're not allowed to serve in the United States military. They're being persecuted. They can't have their stories told in schools. The United States is not exactly --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: All right. We're going to hit pause --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let's hit pause on this conversation. We have much more ahead.
More Democrats are accusing Trump of illegal strikes against Iran, and that is set off a back and forth between the President and AOC.
Plus, stunning results tonight in what's seen as a race that could signal the future of the Democratic Party. In New York City's mayoral primary, a Democratic socialist is beating Andrew Cuomo, the establishment Democrat in that race. Much more ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: Back to our breaking news. The ceasefire between Israel and Iran appears to be holding for now while President Trump spends his night in the Netherlands for the NATO summit just hours after announcing that deal. But he spent his morning taking shots at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as calls for his impeachment over striking Iran grow louder over on Capitol Hill.
Today, Trump dared AOC and her Democratic friends to impeach him again, going full on Clint Eastwood, saying, make my day. AOC hit back, accusing the president of illegally bombing Iran and dragging the U.S. into war.
PHILLIP: As we were discussing in the break, this idea that the president never goes to Congress, frankly, to authorize strikes or authorize war has spanned. Virtually no president. But let me just play, actually, this is how Speaker Mike Johnson, who is arguing that the Congressional power here, the War Powers Act, actually, that's the part that's unconstitutional.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander-in-chief. I think that's right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He is the speaker of the House, the legislative branch.
AIDALA: I think the way the, I think the way it was supposed to play out by the founding fathers was Congress determines if there's going to be a war, and then the president as the commander-in-chief, then he takes -- he or she takes over.
PHILLIP: So, you think Mike Johnson's wrong about that?
AIDALA: So, I think that's what the Alexander Hamilton and the founding fathers, one Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers, that unlike a king who could declare war on his own, the president of the United States can't do that. Congress has to do that.
But the way we've got -- and I do believe George W. Bush did go to Congress regarding Afghanistan. But the way they get around it, President Clinton and many others is, when President Clinton went to Haiti, is like, look, I'm not starting a war. I'm just going in to fix a couple of things, it's a little bit of self-defense, it's in the national best interest. And here it's so minimal. It's just like, we went, we bomb. That's it. We're done.
PHILLIP: Well, it is, it might be right now's, but I think therein lies the rub is that when you start something -- I've said this every night this week, you start dropping bombs, you don't know that it's going to end with those bombs.
NAVARRO: And you begin with the debate of that depends on what the definition of war is, okay? And so you're okay. But, listen, I think that's part of the reason why Congress has such low approval ratings because, you know, it depends on what team is in charge and what they say.
And in our lifetime, there's been at least a dozen military actions by Democrat and Republican Congress presidents where they don't go to Congress. And if you're a Republican and it's a Republican president, then it's a-okay. If you're a Democrat and it's a Democratic president, then it's a-okay. If it's the opposite, then you -- so then you come off looking inconsistent and like a hypocrite partisan.
But I do -- but let me also say this.
[22:30:00]
I think it is insane and ridiculous that the President of The United States, in the middle of this international incident, in the middle of this war, as he is negotiating a ceasefire, en route to a NATO meeting, from Air Force One, is waging a war of words and tweets against a -- a Democrat congresswoman from New York who's not even in a leadership position. So, I mean, dude, how can we possibly have any confidence on this child with a Twitter feed who can't even control his impulses?
(CROSSTALK)
JOY REID, "THE JOY REID SHOW" HOST: Can I just --
(CROSSTALK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Go ahead, Joy.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: -- Yeah, but one is the President of The United States. The other one is not.
ARTHUR AIDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Okay.
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Joy.
REID: Abby, you talked about the fact that the majority of the American people are opposed to this. And I-- I think I am among them, and I speak for them in some ways. Because I think that -- that there's --used to be a saying that The United States should no longer be the world's policeman. And, you know, Dwight David Eisenhower had his low moment, hired the Dulles brothers -- not -- not a fan.
But at his high moment, at the end of his presidency, he warned about the military industrial complex, that there would be endless wars because there was endless profit to be made. We have had military action after action after action and have not declared war against another country we bombed since World War two.
And yet the American people are becoming exhausted by this idea that at any president's whim, we are bombing this country and then we're bombing that country. We're going to fix a little thing here in Haiti. We're going to tweak a little thing there. We're going to pick governments for countries that didn't ask ask us to do it.
We're going to remove and depose and -- and change governments and do regime change. It's -- the American people are exhausted of this. There is so much more that we could do with the precious funds the American people, the taxpayers give to the government. How about helping to make people's lives more affordable?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, Trump -- okay.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: How about making people's lives better and stop the endless wars?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Donald Trump ran on that. He ran -- Donald Trump ran on that. And he is now in -- in a way walking away from it in parts.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So did Woodrow Wilson --
(CROSSTALK)
JAMIE METZL, SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Joy is right that President Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex. President Eisenhower also believed in the essential role of American leadership. That was why he was president, because of his leadership in world war two when America had to step in to save the world.
So, America has this role. You may not like it but we have lived since 1945 in the greatest time of peace, prosperity and wealth creation and innovation in all of human history. Thanks in large part to American leadership, with -- there have been many, many frustrations that many people like myself have.
We have had all kinds of interventions that have been ill advised and downright wrong, but America does have this role. If you want to say we want to say we want to live in this democratic world that you -- that you're kind of imagining, that is a much more dangerous world than the one we live in now.
(CROSSTALK) REID: May I ask you a question, guys? I assume you're -- you're in favor of the Iraq war.
METZL: I was not. I was not in favor. Yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: How did we make -- oh, okay. All right, then, we keep on going in and making the decision in our arrogance as to what governments people --
(CROSSTALK)
REID: -- but bottom line --
METZL: Yeah, but sometimes there are better decisions and sometimes there are worse decisions.
REID: And you are saying that you feel that there is a strong moral case for us using our leadership in the world to simply bomb countries that have not attacked us.
METZL: Not countries.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: And that when we do that, it's justified. In 1979 -- you're taking us back to 1979.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: The bottom line is -- the bottom line is that
PHILLIP: Guys, one a time, please. One at a time.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: -- without an Iran nuclear agreement since the Obama administration. And you cannot --
(CROSSTALK)
METZL: While they had that agreement, they were funding all these proxies that were attacking were attacking and killing us.
REID: Okay.
TODD: You think -- you think a piece of paper is going to stop fanatical Mullahs who want to be --murder Americans to stop that? A piece of paper will never do it.
REID: The bottom line is Iran would not be led by fanatical Mullahs had The United States not imposed the Shah of Iran upon them.
(CROSSTALK)
METZL: That is total baloney.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: The United States intervention --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Can I - can I also just -- Brad, let me -- let me just ask you, or maybe make a -- make a point. Donald Trump, oh, 13, 14 days ago, wanted a deal with Iran. He wanted --
TODD: When he won Friday.
PHILLIP: He wanted a piece of paper because he -- I think he understands, he did the Abraham Accords. He understands the power of making a deal. So, I don't know that the idea of a deal with Iran is, just a piece of paper. Trump wants it. He would prefer that because it's less messy than dropping bombs, which he knows is unpopular.
TODD: Well, let's go back to what Chuck Schumer said a good deal would be, back when he opposed Obama's silly --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, I know but I'm talking about the --
TODD: Hang on. Hang on, though.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
TODD: He's -- Chuck Schumer said we needed a deal where Americans could inspect Iranian facilities at any time with no notice as often as possible. That's the kind of deal Donald Trump wanted --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: How do you -- but how do you get there but for diplomacy? That's my point. You have to get to the table. And so, at the end of the day, the bombs are -- are a delay, but it does not resolve the problem.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Well, I think he has been clear that he's willing --
METZL: America's in a stronger diplomatic position now across the board than we were last week. And so --
UNKNOWN: Sure.
METZL: If -- I mean right now, we -- we did drop these bombs and have obliterated their nuclear, America's in a stronger position. Diplomacy is advanced, about the possibility of an agreement with Saudi Arabia is increased. This so far, I mean, I'm a -- I'm a Democrat. There are all kinds of things where I critique vocally, President Trump. But so far, this is a pretty big win for The United States and for -- for -- certainly for the Democratic countries --
(CROSSTALK)
[22:35:00]
PHILLIP: All right. We got to leave it there for that conversation. Jamie Metzl, thank you very much. It's always interesting at this table when people from different parties actually agree with each other. But breaking news tonight, a Democratic socialist is leading. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Mayoral Primary in a race that could very well be a sign of where the Democratic Party is heading. Another special guest is going to join us in our fifth seat.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:03]
PHILLIP: Breaking tonight, the results are coming in in what could be a real time referendum on the future of the Democratic Party. Many analysts see New York City's Mayoral Race as a litmus test between establishment Democrats and the younger, more progressive wing of the party. CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, is with us at the table now. Harry, woah.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Woah.
PHILLIP: Woah.
ENTEN: An earthquake.
PHILLIP: Woah. Yeah.
ENTEN: I mean --
PHILLIP: Okay. Tell us where we are right now.
ENTEN: I mean, look. Mamdani is ahead by plenty at this point. You could see on your screen right there, that's a seven-point lead right now in terms of the first round votes. Now obviously, New York uses rank choice -- rank choice voting system where essentially, you eliminate all the candidates, you reallocate their ballots because the folks who get a ballot will rank their candidates one through five, and you essentially reallocate the votes until one candidate gets at least 50 percent.
But I will tell you this, if you look on your screen, you see the third place candidate, Brad Lander, co-endorse or co -- cross endorsed with Mamdani. Most of his votes are very likely to go to Mamdani, and not a single pre-election poll that I saw had Cuomo getting anywhere near the type of support that he would need once those ballots reallocated. That lead will almost certainly hand stand up, and that is why I do believe that Cuomo has conceded the --
PHILLIP: Yes, he has.
ENTEN: -- Democratic nomination -- PHILLIP: And he has called Mamdani to concede, which is extraordinary. Extraordinary.
ENTEN: Let me tell you this. I study New York City politics in my entire life. The only New York City primary that I think is tantamount to this in terms of the earthquake is 1989 when David Dinkins came in and defeated Ed Koch who was running for a fourth term for mayor. That is the type of earthquake that we're seeing here and he's done it.
He came into this race, down, what, 30, 40 points to Andrew Cuomo, the former governor who everyone thought was a huge favorite. Apparently not. He did it by activating younger voters, by activating very liberal voters, by cutting into Andrew Cuomo's base with black voters. The bottom line is this, Mandani is now a force to be reckoned with in Democratic politics nationwide going forward.
PHILLIP: Joy, you talked to him to on what? No. Friday.
REID: We had him on the show on Friday and we also had Brad Lander on, and Brad Lander talked about being tackled by ICE agents as he was trying to defend immigrants. What Mamdani said that I thought was really extraordinary, he would be the first immigrant mayor of the pre-eminent immigrant capital, in The United States, a city that is a sanctuary city where people are still being accosted at their I -- at their immigration hearings.
And so, I think just symbolically, I think this is a message about people's revulsion, in the treatment of immigrants by this administration, and about the -- the ways in which the Adams administration has been complicit in that. And I think that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Can I -- can I play a little bit, Joy, from your interview with him?
(CROSSTALK)
REID: Sure.
PHILLIP: Where he talks about this. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D) NEW YORK MAYORAL CANDIDATE: You know, I would be the first immigrant mayor of this city in generations, and I would be proud to be that, but even prouder for what I would actually do. This is a city of immigrants we've said for so long. Forty percent of New Yorkers were born outside of this country, and yet what we've seen in the current mayoral administration and even in Andrew Cuomo's campaign is an insufficient readiness to actually take on Donald Trump and protect New Yorkers.
One of the things we should be proudest of in New York City are our sanctuary city laws. These are laws that have kept New Yorkers safe for decades, been defended by Republicans and Democrats alike for that time period until the demagoguery of this current mayor. I would proudly stand up for those laws.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, he's talking there also about Eric Adams, who we haven't really talked about because he's not in this primary, but is expected to run on another line in the general. This will be an indictment on Eric Adams, too, and his willingness to, I guess, in the words of Mamdani, stand up to Donald Trump.
AIDALA: There's no one happier after Mamdani and his family than Eric Adams tonight. Because everyone over 50 years old who remembers Times Square in the 1970s and the 1980s when you -- you couldn't walk through. It was all pornography and crack, and -- and muggings and rapes and robberies. Everyone who remembers that is going to vote for Eric Adams.
"The New York Times," who didn't do an endorsement, did say, please don't vote for Mamdani as did "The Daily News," as did "The New York Post." So, anybody who knows how bad New York can get, all came out against Mamdani because a 33-year-old with zero experience running anything except a little office with five employees --
(CROSSTALK)
REID: I'm sorry --
AIDALA: -- should not be running the city of New York.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: Donald Trump is President of The United States. His experience was being on "The Apprentice." He's got -- his head of the Pentagon --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: He had businesses. He's a billionaire, Joy. Are you going to compare a 70-year-old man -- are you going to compare a 70-year-old man to a 33-year-old kid?
(CROSSTALK)
REID: -- a weekend anchor on Fox. Are you kidding me? Doctor Oz is in his administration. Doctor Oz. Are you kidding me?
TODD: He's a 33-year-old socialist who's never run a popsicle stand. Like, it's -- it's --
REID: He's literally in city government right now. Sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
REID: After Donald Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: That's not city government. It's state government. He's not even --
REID: I'm sorry. After Donald Trump and his "Pinky and the Brain" administration, no one ever gets to talk about qualifications again.
[22:45:00]
Sorry, the bottom line is --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Socialism will not save the --
(CROSSTALK)
REID: What -- I want to ask you a question. What is your evidence that Mamdani would return New York City to the 1970s hellhole Times Square?
AIDALA: It's very simple.
REID: What is your evidence?
AIDALA: It's very simple. So, he wants to raise taxes on people who make the most money. What eventually is going to happen is you're going to lose that tax base. Once you lose that tax base, our bonds will get degraded.
Now, the city -- the city budget will not be substantial enough to -- to subsidize not only the cops, but the fire department, the sanitation department. Once you start losing Wall Street and people who pay 11 -- $12,000 a month to live on the other side, you're done. You're done.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. Let me -- let me ask you.
AIDALA: And you go back to the '70s when Gerald Ford said --
PHILLIP: Okay.
AIDALA: --to New York, "drop dead," and --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. Just as somebody who is just listening to you, you raised the taxes on wealthy people in this city, maybe a couple percent, right?
AIDALA: We're already at 50 percent.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
AIDALA: Fifty-three percent.
PHILLIP: And that's exactly my point.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: They're already paying some of the high --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I know, Arthur. But, Arthur, they are already paying right at this moment some of the highest taxes in the country. And you think that one or two percent is going cause a mass exodus out of New York?
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: But it already has started. It's already there.
PHILLIP: I just want to be clear that that's what you're saying because--
AIDALA: Yes.
PHILLIP: I think that seems pretty extraordinary.
AIDALA: Because he's also not going to focus on crime. Right now, you have Police Commissioner Tisch and John Chell, the Chief of the Department. Crime in the state in the city of New York right now is set to break all records as the lowest ever in recorded history for shootings and murders. Once that starts going up in the other direction and the tax base is gone --
(CROSSTALK)
REID: And I'm sorry --
AIDALA: -- and sanitation has gone, and --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on. Last thing I will say, then I'll let you in there. The last thing I'll say and then I'll let you in. Under Eric Adams, crime did go up in the city, okay?
AIDALA: And they went down.
PHILLIP: Yes, but --
AIDALA: That was during the pandemic.
PHILLIP: Yes.
AIDALA: And migrants.
PHILLIP: Exactly. But -- but I'm just being clear. Crime has already gone up in New York, and it has come down. So, even when crime went up in New York, there was perhaps some departure, but there was not a collapse of the tax base in New York City. Okay, Anna, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Okay. So, I am not a New Yorker. I live in Miami where we don't have 50 percent, tax rate.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: We have -- we have our share of insane elections and insane politicians. But this reminded me, you talked about the Dinkins election. To me, this reminded me of -- of the AOC --
ENTEN: Yes.
NAVARRO: -- versus John Joe Crowley --
ENTEN: Correct.
NAVARRO: -- election, where there was this --
ENTEN: You're correct.
NAVARRO: -- establishment Sacred Cow who thought that by -- because of his name and because of his pockets, he could walk into it, and there was a young upstart who put a lot of leather. And you know, a lot of -- a lot of footwork --
ENTEN: And boots on the ground.
NAVARRO: -- and boots on the ground and did it. And so, you know, I -- I would say, when it comes to New York, do not end -- underestimate --
REID: That's right.
NAVARRO: -- the sweat of these folks.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: And by the way --
AIDALA: He won. I'm not under estimating him.
ENTEN: I would just say this.
NAVARRO: And I would not have voted for him.
(CROSSTALK)
ENTEN: If -- if you were saying that Eric Adams is the person who's this -- loves this result the second most compared to --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: He believed --
ENTEN: -- after Mamdani --
(CROSSTALK) AIDALA: He'll be the anti-Mamdani.
ENTEN: But I will say this. The people who hate this result the most are the Democratic establishment. We have seen poll after poll after poll showing Democratic voters fed up with their leaders in Washington, fed up with their leaders in government.
And all of a sudden, Andrew Cuomo, who five years ago was leading those COVID, you know, press conferences, was this guy who was held up in such high esteem. And now, all of a sudden, the best he can do is what? Thirty -- seven --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Sixty-two percent --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- of Democrats say that they are --
TODD: The Tea Party, this is the Chai party taking over the Democrats. And I run campaigns for Republicans all over the country. If they turn to 33-year-old socialist who have never run popsicle stands, that's great for us. We'll win a lot of elections --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay.
NAVARRO: So, can somebody explain this to me now? So, this could end up -- so, Cuomo could end up running as an Independent.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Adams as an Independent. And then this guy --
PHILLIP: In other words -- in other words, it is not over, folks. Okay? We will be talking about this, I think, for a little bit of time. Everyone, thank you very much. Next for us, everyone heard Donald Trump drop the F-bomb today, but hear how Fox reacted to it compared to when Democrats did the same thing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:54:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the (BEEP) they're doing. Do you understand that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: After the President dropped a four-letter word on the White House lawn, it appears not all F-bombs are created equal. At least on Fox, here is how one host reacted to Trump, and then 20 minutes later, reacting to a Democrat using the same word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMILY COMPAGNO, FNC HOST: The President feeling very frustrated this morning and using some salty language as he lashed out at both countries, accusing them of violating the agreement that he hopes will lead to peace in the region. I was particularly repulsed by Rep. Jasmine Crockett's comments where she said, I'm the one that's supposed to make the F-ing decision on bombing Iran. First of all, it's a pretty foul mouth of her for someone that went to a tidy little all-girls Catholic school.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:55:00]
PHILLIP: In fact, it seems there's a lot of pearl clutching over at Fox whenever the swearing is done by liberals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I don't understand all the Democrats cursing. I find it very unpersuasive and undignified.
UNKNOWN: They've got expensive education, some of them. Why are they out of words? I'm just -- I'm confounded by the fact that they've got to cuss.
UNKNOWN: When you swear repeatedly like that, that doesn't equal passion. It equals disrespect.
UNKNOWN: Now, they think cursing like drunken sailors will somehow make the American people like them again.
UNKNOWN: Look. To me, the Democrats are like a bunch of potty mouth kids.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But when Donald Trump does it, zero Fox given. More on our breaking news tonight. Sources tell CNN that an early intelligence assessment shows U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are likely only to set back their program by a few months. We'll get expert analysis straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
