Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Sources: Trump Considering U.S. Military Strikes On Iran; Soon: Jurors Reconvene For Deliberations In Karen Read Retrial; Democrats: Trump's Pardons Could Have Erased $1.3 Billion In Fines, Restitution. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired June 18, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:50]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, to our breaking news this morning. We are just getting this missive.

Iran's supreme leader just moments ago sending a message via X about the war saying, "The U.S. president threatens us. With his absurd rhetoric, he demands that the Iranian people surrender to him. They should make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened. The Iranian nation isn't frightened by such threats."

This, of course, comes as President Trump signals he's considering whether to involve the U.S. in the Israel-Iran war. The U.S. military has been ordered to surge forces in the region.

CNN's Zach Cohen is joining me right now. What are you learning about what this surge entails and what it looks like?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, Sara. We're told that the U.S. military has moved a number of assets into the region, including more than 30 aerial refueling tankers in order to give Donald Trump options should he decide the U.S. is going to become directly engaged in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.

And one of those options that's one the table is that these U.S. assets could be used to provide support to the Israelis as they continue to conduct offensive operations against Iranian targets. These aerial refueling tankers, for example, can be used to give Israeli jets more flying time, which could be critical if they continue to try to target Iranian ballistic missile and missile defense capabilities.

Another option that's been presented to the White House by U.S. Central Command, we're told, is that -- the possibility of joint strikes. U.S. and Israeli joint strikes on Iranian targets. Of course, we've talked a lot in the last few days about how one of the key targets potentially that would require U.S. involvement is some of these Iranian nuclear sites that are embedded really deep underground and can only really be targeted using a heavy munition that the U.S. has and can be deployed from an aircraft that the U.S. also only has and Israel does not.

That, of course, would be a bomb that would be dropped by a U.S. B2 bomber. Those are not currently in the region as far as we're concerned but that really doesn't matter. They can deploy from the United States and make the 30-plus hour trip overseas if called upon.

Of course, there's also an additional aircraft carrier strike group on its way to the region as well. That means that there will be, at least for a time, two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups in the area at the same time.

So really a lot of firepower -- U.S. firepower moving its -- or making its way to the area and to the region as this conflict continues to heat up.

And look, this is something that we know that U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon has been preparing for for months now. They are prepared for all various contingencies. The really big question here is what Donald Trump will ultimately decide. Their goal is to give him the flexibility to carry out a range of options.

SIDNER: You've got pressure from a lot of different places, including Congress. We will see what happens.

Zach Cohen, thank you so much -- appreciate it -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Joining us now former deputy Pentagon press secretary and CNN global affairs commentator Sabrina Singh. Also, Dr. Vali Nasr, professor of Middle East Studies and International Affairs at Johns Hopkins University.

Sabrina, I want to start with you. We just heard from Zach Cohen about the U.S. assets being sent to the region. The Nimitz carrier strike group right there, and also these refueling air tankers, the KC-135 and the K6-46A.

When you send things like this to the region what they say Sabrina it's to provide options to the president. But when do options become a sort of inevitability? When you see all this happening how much do you think U.S. involvement becomes inevitable?

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, FORMER PENTAGON DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY (via Webex by Cisco): Yeah, it's definitely about options. It's about providing different types of capability to the president so when he decides either if we -- if the United States is going to conduct joint strikes with Israel or is the United States going to stay out of this. And this is really posturing and projection of power.

And that's what -- during the Biden administration we moved multiple different carrier groups to the region. We had one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one that would move in the Red Sea through the Gulf of Oman.

[07:35:00] And that was really to send a message to Iran that we are not looking for a wider regional war, but we have an incredible capability parked right outside your country with incredible air assets that are willing and ready to strike at any time.

And so what you're seeing move in the region is giving the president not only options but different capabilities that are not only there to protect U.S. forces but if there needs to be an evacuation of American citizens from Israel or anywhere else these are the type of assets that are good to have in the region.

And then, of course, the options to obviously joint strikes with Israel.

BERMAN: Professor, I want to ask you about this latest statement that we got from Iran's supreme leader, the ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Twitter. This is what they posted on Twitter. "The U.S. president threatens us. With his absurd rhetoric, he demands that the Iranian people surrender to him. They should make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened. The Iranian nation isn't frightened by such threats."

Look, I think we all want to parse that language and to figure out how strong it is, what message is he sending, and what does it mean?

What do you think?

DR. VALI NASR, PROFESSOR OF MIDDLE EAST STUDIES AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, AUTHOR, "IRAN'S GRAND STRATEGY: A POLITICAL HISTORY" (via Webex by Cisco): I think it means basically that he's rejecting what President Trump said in his Truth Social post -- that he's demanding unconditional surrender from Iran.

I mean, any time you ask the leader of another country in such a public manner and in such a bold way that you're demanding unconditional surrender, I think the answer that he got is probably what should have been expected. I don't think it was over the top in the sense that the Iranian leader did not threaten U.S. troops or hitting the United States with missiles, et cetera in the same tweet.

He basically said we will not surrender. It's a nationalist statement. I think it's what is expected of him as the leader of Iran. But it means that we're still marching towards a decision by the president in terms of what would happen.

BERMAN: Yeah, it is interesting because the supreme leader in another statement said there will be irreparable harm if there are U.S. strikes, but didn't say there would be irreparable harm on U.S. assets. So people are trying to figure out what that means.

And to that end, Sabrina, I want to show people where the U.S. has assets in the region, particularly right along here in Kuwait and the UAE, and Bahrain -- in Qatar right there. And what people need to know is those are awfully close to Iran. Like, if we put up a different map here you can see that all those assets are basically right here well within range of Iran's even short-range missiles. How at risk do you think these U.S. assets are? And give us a sense because you've been in the -- in the Pentagon. What's going on right now to protect these U.S. assets?

SINGH: Yeah. What's probably being moved is additional air defenses into the region.

When I was at the Pentagon post-October 7, we saw these Iranian-back militia groups within Syria and Iraq starting to launch attacks on our troops, but these were these smaller militias. We never saw an attack from Iran on one of our bases.

And so if Iran were to attack the United States and one of bases in some of the places that you mentioned on the map the capability -- the capability that we have on the ground there could use some protection. But it's nothing like what Israel has with its Iron Dome capabilities. And if God forbid Iran were to launch a ballistic missile towards one of our bases and overwhelm one of our bases I think that's something that the Secretary of Defense and the president has to really take into consideration because then we don't have the type of air defenses that Israel has to be able to shoot all of those down.

And so that's probably a calculation that's being made. Ultimately, I think this administration does not want to see a wider regional conflict, but I think that is exactly what will happen should the United States join Israel in any strikes against nuclear facilities.

BERMAN: And Professor, the stated goal of what Israel is doing and the stated goal, sort of, of the U.S. interest here is to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. You can see the different nuclear sites right there.

And the biggest issue right now seems to be this Fordow nuclear enrichment center buried deep inside a mountain where it's said that the U.S. has the only weapon that could penetrate that mountainside.

Be that as it may, how necessary do you think U.S. involvement is? How much can Israel achieve without the U.S. getting more involved?

NASR: Well, there's two arguments here.

One is that whether this war was at all necessary in order to stop Iran's nuclear program, which obviously Israel decided that it wasn't going to wait for the end of the diplomatic negotiations and started the campaign. Now that it has started the campaign it can only do so much damage without the bunker-buster bombs and the U.S.'s capability.

[07:40:00]

And I think this back-and-forth of the messaging that you heard between President Trump and the supreme leader is the president is trying to tell Iran that I really don't want to fight. I want you to surrender right now. And Iran is trying to deter the United States from any kind of military action by saying no, we will not stand down at this point and we're going to defend ourselves. So if the U.S. feels that it has to use these -- this bunker-buster missile and attacks Iran then all Iran needs is one or two missiles to hit somewhere where U.S. troops are killed, and then we're in a very different place.

BERMAN: All right, Sabrina Singh, Dr. Vali Nasr. Thanks to both of you -- appreciate it -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. Very soon jurors in the high-profile murder retrial of Karen Read will return to a Massachusetts courthouse to being their third day of deliberations.

Each day Read, who is charged in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, has been greeted by a sea -- you can see there -- of supporters; many of them wearing pink.

Jurors ended the day yesterday without reaching a verdict. They also had several questions for the judge, including one about a hung jury.

Here now CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. But first, let's get to CNN's Jean Casarez who is outside the courthouse. You have been following every twist and turn of this case and I'm curious to know what exactly the jurors have been asking.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN REPORTER: Well, they've been asking pointed questions, truly. One of them was in regard to the OUI charge. Now, if we're literally talking about that charge that is the lessest (sic), meaner -- lesser included that you can have because it does not involve John O'Keefe and it simply is talking about driving under the influence.

So they were asking about the alcohol level. Do we judge from 12:45 a.m. or 5:00 a.m.? Twelve forty-five being when she dropped John O'Keefe off.

Another question had to do with we can't get resolution on one of the charges, but we found her not guilty on two of the charges. Does that mean the whole thing is a hung jury?

Another they wanted to know if the clips of Karen Read were evidence. They are.

But now while all of this is going on there has been that one person that has stood by her side, and he didn't ask for this. He didn't want to be in that courtroom, but that's her father. And we spoke to him yesterday in the midst of all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM READ, FATHER OF KAREN READ: It's been hell. It's been hell. A wrongful conviction and persecution of our daughter. It's been hell. Look at these hundreds of people. The vast majority of them women because they recognize what Karen Read has been put through. Dehumanized, objectified. I don't watch her as a defendant. I watch her as our daughter. She's not guilty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: In regard to the question on if we found not guilty on two charges but we can't find resolution on one, is it a hung jury, the judge said to attorneys this is not hypothetical. It's theoretical at this point. I'm not going to answer it. Just have them continue to deliberate.

SIDNER: All right. Those details important was we are going into the third day of -- a full third day of deliberations.

I want to go now to Joey Jackson. From the questions that you heard there from Jean from the jury what does this indicate? Does it indicate which way they are leaning, and should prosecutors be concerned here?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: So Sara, good morning to you.

It absolutely does. There are many times when a jury asks questions when they're deliberating where you really are reading tea leaves and really don't have a roadmap to what they're deciding. Here I think the indications are pretty clear, at least from my perspective. And that is that they're leaning to not guilty.

If you look -- and just re-examining the charges, the first of which is second-degree murder. It doesn't mean that you planned it, but it means that he was dead nonetheless by the result of what you did, which is backing into him. That's a significant charge carrying of sentence of life. Seeming to be if they say hey, if we acquit on two charges. So it doesn't appear that they're convinced as to that.

As to the other charge of manslaughter while driving while intoxicated they've had questions about the lesser included offenses. What does that mean in English? It means if we don't believe that she's guilty of that is there something else we can consider. And on the verdict box (PH) there certainly is. And as Jean mentioned, the lowest one you consider is whether she was driving while intoxicated --

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: -- but not responsible for his death.

And then finally on the leaving the scene of the accident.

So all indications are from what the jury is telling us -- not us, but asking questions --

SIDNER: Um-hum.

JACKSON: -- that they are leaning towards finding her not guilty.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you. Finding her not guilty, that ends it. No more case going forward.

JACKSON: Correct.

SIDNER: The prosecution cannot come back.

If there's a hung jury what would be the chance that the prosecution would try to try her a third time?

[07:45:00]

JACKSON: Yes. So you know what happens, Sara? That depends upon what the hung jury would be to.

SIDNER: Ah.

JACKSON: And just as a reset, a hung jury is when a jury can't reach a determination as to a specific charge.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: Why? They're split. You know it needs to be unanimous.

So let's say, for example, they acquit, meaning find not guilty of the second-degree murder, right? Murder, but not intentional -- not premeditated.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: It's over. You can't try it again at all.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: Let's say they find not guilty as to leaving the scene and causing the death. Cannot try it.

Let's say that they're hung up on this driving while intoxicated causing the death. Did he really do it? Did she, excuse me, really do it? What are the nuances of it? If it's hung, they can try again.

I don't see in this sort of climate and environment, particularly the support she has and particularly the nature of the case very briefly. This is a narrative that's very clear and compelling between the defense's version, this is a set up by the police. You framed her. She's an innocent woman and the police are protecting their own.

That's a defense narrative versus the prosecution saying she hit him. She knew what she did. She left. Couldn't be clearer.

I don't see a retrial in the event that it's a hung jury on that count.

SIDNER: All right. You are the best at this paying attention to all the details.

Joey Jackson, thank you so much, as to you Jean Casarez, who is following all the twists and turns. And if you hear anything we will come right back to you, whether or not there may be a verdict potentially today in the case. Appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: Sara, you are the best at this. SIDNER: You are.

BERMAN: You are.

All right. New this morning House Democrats have released a new report claiming President Trump's federal pardons may have wiped out $1.3 billion in fines and restitution. The report says those payments could have gone to victims, could have gone to taxpayers. The White House says the pardons were righting wrongs from political prosecutions.

With us now CNN's Katelyn Polantz. Tell us what's in this report, Katelyn.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well John, this is a report from the Democrats on the Hill in the House Judiciary Committee. They're adding up the numbers of more than 1,000 pardons or executive clemencies that Donald Trump gave to people who were committed or accused of crimes.

And they're tallying that number and saying there was a $1.3 billion total that these criminal defendants could have paid in restitution to the American government, the U.S. Treasury, the American taxpayer in the case of, say, January 6 defendants or to victims of, say, fraud schemes.

When they're looking at this and pulling to altogether though, John, the House Democrats -- they're trying to make a political statement.

In this report they say, "Our analysis shows that Trump's criminal pardon spree is, in addition to everything else, an astonishing giveaway to lawbreakers." People who essentially are backers of Donald Trump in a lot of those instances. That's the point the House wants to make.

The White House though -- they say, "President Trump is righting the wrongs of political prosecutions and providing justice after care consideration of thoroughly vetted cases presented to him."

The number that the House Democrats are putting out there, it's $1.3 billion. But I have to say John there's a lot of asterisks around that estimate. It's not money that these defendants have already paid to victims or given as restitution for their crimes. Once that's paid the court system basically says it's paid, it's over. That money is gone.

These are largely people who were waiting on having their final amounts that they would have to owe set or defendants who were appealing their convictions, like in the case of a handful of January 6 prosecutors. In those situations the courts are saying yeah -- actually, you're not going to have to pay that, and the Justice Department is standing behind them.

It is millions of dollars in total but, John, a lot here in politics, specifically. Less so in the legal world.

BERMAN: Yeah, it was interesting to put a dollar value on it. It's something that I hadn't heard discussed before. So that in and of itself was interesting to look at.

Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for being with us this morning.

All right, breaking news. Two officials tell CNN that President Trump is increasingly warming to the idea of striking Iran's nuclear facilities. And it comes as Iran's supreme leader just put out a new statement saying the U.S. should only make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened.

Plus, for the first time, the family of the murdered Minnesota lawmaker is speaking out in an emotional new interview.

(COMMERCIAL)

[05:53:55]

SIDNER: All right. On our radar, the family of murdered Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman spoke out for the first time in a new interview with CBS remembering her legacy while calling for an end to the division in this country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK HALUPTZOK, BROTHER OF MELISSA HORTMAN: The police got their man, but we didn't get my sister back.

LINDA HALUPTZOK, MOTHER OF MELISSA HORTMAN: There was a time not that long ago when we could all work together and we can't let hatred and division rule the actions that are happening now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Hortman's mother also told CBS that a prayer was found in her daughter's wallet that said, "Make me a channel of your peace."

We are standing by for new details this morning about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's condition after she was rushed to a D.C. hospital yesterday. The Department of Homeland Security says Noem had an allergic reaction. A spokesperson says she was taken by ambulance to the hospital "out of an abundance of caution." No word yet on what caused that allergic reaction.

[07:55:00]

And tributes pouring in for beloved chef and television personality Anne Burrell who died Tuesday at just 55 years old.

Chef Robert Stewart saying of his friend, "Anne wasn't just a fiery chef, she was a radiant spirit who lit up every room she entered."

Former chef and television host Sandra Lee saying of her friend, "You were the next generation of light in the culinary Food Network world. We all adore you and will forever remember your quick wit, sassy drive, determined nature, and magical laughter."

John. BERMAN: All right. Happening now millions of Americans are facing a double severe weather threat: dangerous storms and increasing heat.

Let's get right to CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar for the latest on all of this -- Allison.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Yeah. So we begin with the storms. We've got a couple of different areas that we're going to be talking about here in terms of who has the potential for some of these storms.

Now, look -- behind me is a live look at Chicago and you can see it's awfully foggy in the distance there. You'd normally be able to see a lot of those skyscrapers very clearly. Not so much this morning.

But more of these clouds are going to start to filter in and even some thunderstorms as well because the line of storms is starting to slide back into some of these areas. You can see right through here we've got a line of storms just right there crossing from Illinois into Indiana. We're really starting to see some of those eastern suburbs of Chicago getting in on some of those storms.

We also have another line down here across portions of Arkansas, southern Missouri, as well as eastern Oklahoma.

Now, the main threat for severe storms today is going to be in this tier of the country right here for today. By tomorrow you can see it shifts slightly to the East. Now more of the focus across portions of New England stretching down into the mid-Atlantic. The overall threats remain the same though. We're still looking at damaging winds and the potential for an isolated tornado also cannot be ruled out.

As we go through the afternoon that main line will continue to slide eastward across portions of the Midwest, especially into the Ohio Valley. And then by the time we get to Thursday we start to see it slide farther into the Southeast but also into the mid-Atlantic and the Northeast.

But that's not the only thing the Northeast is going to be dealing with. We're also looking at the potential for some really high temperatures. And also, when you add in the humidity those feels-like temperatures are going to jump. So feels like 95 in some places around Philadelphia. But these temperatures are going to continue to rise not just for this weekend, but we could be looking at near triple-digits in New York next week.

BERMAN: Yeah, that's not welcomed. We don't want that.

All right, Allison Chinchar. Thank you, sort of, for that -- appreciate it -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right, thank you so much, John.

A new warning for Amazon employees. Job cuts are coming, and they can thank artificial intelligence. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy says as it rolls out more AI tools it will need to change the way work is done, and they will need fewer people to do it.

The warning comes just weeks after one big tech CEO warned AI could wipe out half of all entry-level, white-collar jobs over the next five years.

CNN's Clare Duffy joins me now. This is just another example of the fear that is on everyone's mind as to how AI is going to work in our society because as you're hearing from Amazon now it's going to mean less jobs.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yeah. I feel like another day, another warning about AI taking our jobs. And it's remarkable how similar this warning from Amazon's CEO Andy Jassy is to the warning that we heard from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei just a few weeks ago about AI wiping out entry-level, white-collar jobs.

Andy Jassy's warning is a bit more vague. He doesn't give a specific timeline or a number of jobs, but he does say that agents are going to make workers more productive. It's going to allow them to focus from -- on more advanced strategic work and less on rote work. That sounds a lot like entry-level work.

SIDNER: Um-hum.

DUFFY: He says, "It's hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company."

And his advice is very similar to Dario Amodei's advice as well. He says educate yourself. Learn to use AI tools in your work.

But, you know, this also comes as Amazon is among those companies that is also building the technology that Andy Jassy is warning will take out jobs from his workers and other workers. And this is technology that's making Amazon even more profitable. Amazon's stock is up 17 percent over the last year.

And so I think there is some question about how much of this is hype to sell a product and how much of this is a genuine warning that employees should be heeding right now.

SIDNER: Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of concern about this. It's talked about pretty much every day, especially when you're hearing these warnings come out week after week after week.

DUFFY: And my question to tech leaders right now is how do you build a workforce over time if you're wiping out entry-level jobs? How do people get those higher-level jobs if they don't start somewhere?

SIDNER: Yeah, it's a really good point.

Thank you so much, Clare Duffy.

DUFFY: Thank you.

SIDNER: Great reporting for us this morning.

Another hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

BERMAN: All right, the breaking news. President Trump said to be increasingly warming to the idea of U.S. military strikes against Iran.