Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Graham Platner Wins Senate Primary; Interview With Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA); Inflation Spiking; Trump Threatens Strikes on Iran. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 10, 2026 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:01:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Payback. The president says more attacks on Iran are coming today, as talks with Tehran stall. We are live from the White House.

And the war is fueling higher prices for Americans. An alarming new report shows how much more Americans are paying just to get by.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And Bill Gates grilled about Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire facing questions from lawmakers about his ties to the late convicted sex offender.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: We have breaking news on the war with Iran. President Trump is vowing more strikes as peace talks stumble.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But we hit them hard yesterday. And we're going to hit them again hard today, in case you miss it, in case you don't turn on your television set.

And we will see what happens with the deal. We were really close to a deal, but they keep tapping us along. They keep playing us for suckers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The U.S. and Iran have already been trading retaliatory strikes after Iran downed an American Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz, Iran targeting U.S. forces in Bahrain and Jordan, as Iranian state media report the U.S. hit two water reservoirs in Southern Iran.

At least 20,000 people are now said to be cut off from drinking water. The U.S. military has not confirmed the strike, but it says numerous military sites inside of Iran were struck.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is live for us at the White House.

Kristen, what's the latest there?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

And, Brianna, I mean, notice what you just said there. The administration continues to say that military sites were hit. We had been specifically told by U.S. officials that this was targeted strikes on military sites around the Strait of Hormuz. They did extend that yesterday in a series of strikes.

However, it was told -- we were told that this was supposed to be limited. That's obviously not what President Trump is saying today, talking about them playing him, playing the United States like suckers. And it sounded as though he's grown increasingly frustrated.

Just listen to another part of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Iran very simply cannot have a nuclear weapon. And they won't. And they have agreed to that. All they have to do is, they have to start signing a paper. It's fully negotiated. We have a fully negotiated, but they're tapping and tapping. And I said, all right, let's give them a couple more days. They're tapping.

Because it's a meaningful paper.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Of course, we have been reporting this for several weeks now, actually the last two months, that President Trump has not wanted to escalate any kind of military operation, in hopes of some kind of diplomatic off-ramp.

But we also heard him today ramping up his rhetoric. And I want to be clear. It is not really certain if he is just ramping up rhetoric or actually going to follow it with action, because we have seen this before. At one point, he said in an interview that he wouldn't rule out striking civilian targets.

Now, look back. It feels like Groundhog Day. There's a reason for that, which is, these are a list in front of you of times that President Trump has threatened against Iran versions of going after their various targets that aren't military targets, hitting and obliterating. "We're blowing up the whole country. A whole civilization will die tonight."

Obviously, none of this happened. This is all in the interim period where he has been trying to get some kind of a deal, which is why I say it's not clear if he's just trying to force Iran back to the negotiating table or if in fact we're going to see a heightened military presence, more of a military operation over the next several hours, several days. KEILAR: All right, Kristen Holmes with the latest from the White

House, thank you -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: As the war with Iran drags on overseas, here at home, it is driving up prices. U.S. inflation just hit its highest level in three years, climbing past the 4 percent mark in May.

Here is the president's reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Are you concerned, Mr. President, about the latest inflation number which came out this morning? Could that be a...

[13:05:03]

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: No, I love it. The numbers were great.

You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because, as soon as this war is over -- you know, I can say it now, something you didn't notice. You know, we have been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it.

You know who doesn't know about it? Iran, until right now. We took out the other night 22 ships late at night with no lights, because they don't have any radar, because we blasted the crap out of it. We took out -- that's why oil's $85 a barrel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: He went on to say that, when the war ends, inflation will come down like a rock.

CNN's Matt Egan is here to break down the numbers on the inflation report for us.

Matt, take us through what it shows.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Boris, it shows how American families are getting squeezed financially right now. The problem is really twofold. One, prices are going up too fast, faster than before the war, faster than before the president took office.

And their paychecks, their paychecks are just not keeping up. Let me show you, so consumer prices up by half-a-percentage point between April and May. This is just way too hot of a figure to translate to anything close to what's considered healthy inflation.

And it was enough to bump up the annual inflation rate to 4.2 percent. It's the first time we have had inflation back above 4 percent in three years. Now, let's look at the longer-term trend for annual inflation.

So, this is roughly when COVID started back in 2020. And you could see, as supply chains broke down, there was this historic spike in inflation. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, and we had 9 percent inflation in America. That was under former President Biden.

Then there was this massive yearslong improvement for inflation. And by the time the president took office in January 2025, inflation in the U.S. was 3 percent, so not healthy, but not terrible either. But, clearly, it is going in the wrong direction right now.

In fact, annual inflation is now a full percentage point higher than when the president took office. And, of course, that's exactly the opposite of what he promised, which was lower prices. Now, the good news is that core inflation, which excludes food and energy, that hasn't gone up nearly as much.

And so that does suggest that this current inflation increase is more contained than this one from four years ago. But, look, our viewers, they can't exclude food and energy from their budgets. They are facing this 4.2 percent inflation head on.

And the problem is that their wages, while going up, they're not going up enough, right? Annual wage growth in May 3.4 percent. So that means, if you adjust for inflation, real wages, they're actually falling. And this has forced consumers to dip into savings. It forces some people to rely on credit cards.

And this is also a shift, right? This red line shows annual inflation. The blue line is wages. And you can see how, four years ago, prices were going up way faster than wages. And then, for three years or so, the opposite happened. Americans were experiencing real wage growth, but not anymore.

You can see how it's crisscrossed again. So, look, Boris, a lot of people, they feel like they can't keep up right now. And the data suggests that's because they literally can't.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

And, Matt, where does the data show that people are feeling this the most?

EGAN: Well, look, not surprisingly, ground zero is energy, right? That accounted for about 60 percent of the monthly increase in inflation, gas prices up by 40 percent in May versus last May.

Now, thankfully, gas prices have come down. We have had 20 days in a row where the national average for gas has gone down, but it's obviously still much higher than before the war started. And this is not just gas, though.

When you look at the monthly price increases, there were big increases in a number of different places, including airfare up by almost 3 percent. That's because of jet fuel. We have also had significant increases elsewhere, milk, apples, eggs. And this was gasoline, a 7 percent increase just on the month.

Now, the news isn't all bad when it comes to prices. Grocery prices, they barely budged on the month. And some things, they did get cheaper. Drug prices went down, meat, car insurance as well. But, look, I know the president is optimistic that inflation is going to drop like a rock.

The market is not as optimistic. Investors believe the Fed may have to raise interest rates this year to try to get inflation back down. A month ago, the market saw just a 15 percent chance of a 2026 rate hike. Now, Boris, the market sees a 67 percent chance.

And, of course, if the Fed does raise rates, that's just going to make it more expensive for consumers to pay down credit card debt, to get a mortgage, or to finance the purchase of a car -- back to you.

SANCHEZ: Yes, the big question is going to be what Kevin Warsh does during the next Fed meeting.

[13:10:02]

Matt Egan, thank you so much.

Still to come: The subject of some of the most explosive documents in the Jeffrey Epstein files sits down with Congress. One of the lawmakers questioning Bill Gates on Capitol Hill will join us in just moments.

Plus, we're following opening statements in the Palisades Fire arson trial, as prosecutors are now blocked from using key evidence.

And, later, hear why Madison Square Garden is calling New York City leaders party poopers ahead of game four of the NBA Finals.

That and much more coming your way in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:00]

KEILAR: We have breaking news on Capitol Hill.

We're getting some new details about Bill Gates' testimony about his ties to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Right now, Gates is appearing behind closed doors. He is before the House Oversight Committee. And in his opening remarks, he denied any knowledge of Epstein's crimes.

He described their interactions as limited. But the billionaire also revealed that Epstein tried to use information about Gates' infidelities to pressure him. Gates said Epstein tried to foster a personal relationship, but Gates insisted it never developed.

You will recall Bill Gates is referenced hundreds of times in the Epstein files. He has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing related to Epstein, and he is appearing today voluntarily.

We're joined now by someone who got to question Gates today, Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia. Congressman, thanks for being with us.

Gates said he engaged with Epstein because Epstein promised that he could raise billions for global health, that he did not fully understand the extent of Epstein's crimes when he engaged with him in 2011, which, of course, was after that controversial plea agreement he reached in 2007-2008.

But they did have some interactions for a few years, and he says they were limited interactions. Was that credible to you?

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): It's what he told us.

I will say that Bill Gates is one of the richest people in the world. He may have been the richest person in the world at that time. And so he would have had access to private investigators. He would have had access to things that none of us have access to when it came to judging the background and even character of anyone he met with to support his foundation.

And so the fact that he would let Jeffrey Epstein come into his orbit and be a part of fund-raising for the Gates Foundation is certainly troubling. And, to that, he apologized. He's being cooperative. But, certainly, I think it raises concerns, in my mind.

KEILAR: Does it raise questions?

SUBRAMANYAM: We have asked him a lot of questions, and we have gotten a lot of apologies and there was an error in judgment. We have asked him whether he was directly involved in any of the wrongdoing or was introduced to any girls by Jeffrey Epstein. He said no. He's denied any wrongdoing generally.

And we even asked about any financial relationship he may have had. He said it was strictly limited to the Gates Foundation. So we have asked him many questions surrounding this. And he's answered to us. To his credit, he's been answering our questions.

KEILAR: OK, so there are these two stream of consciousness draft e- mails in the Epstein files. They appear that Epstein wrote them to himself in July 2013. But, of course, that can't be confirmed that it was him that wrote them or saved them and if that information was ever passed on to Gates in some regard.

But the e-mails claimed that Epstein facilitated sexual encounters for Gates and helped him obtain medication to hide a sexually transmitted infection from his wife. Gates has strongly denied those claims. What did Gates say when you all asked him about those draft e-mails? Did you ask him about them?

SUBRAMANYAM: We did. And we read them to him, asked him again. He denied that again.

He said that he's never introduced to anyone by Epstein. He said that no one tried to procure drugs for him to help with any sort of sexually transmitted disease. I believe -- I will have to look back at the transcript -- he even denied having an STD to begin with at that time.

And so we asked him questions about this. Again, he denied over and over again any of the contents of that e-mail.

KEILAR: Did he give you any idea of why he thought Jeffrey Epstein would have -- if it was Jeffrey Epstein -- it was in the Epstein files. It was in the e-mails. Did he give any idea of what he thought was happening with that draft e-mail?

SUBRAMANYAM: Many of the people who come before our committee, they tried to portray themselves as victims of Epstein, even if they were people who were friends with him or even facilitated his wrongdoing.

So, in this case, Gates is kind of claiming he was in some ways a victim because Epstein, he believes, was trying to blackmail him or trying to coerce him into reengaging with the relationship, a relationship that Gates says he cut off in 2014.

So I think that seems to be the answer Gates is telling us to many of our questions about why this was coming up, why these e-mails exist.

KEILAR: Did he say why he cut it off in 2014?

SUBRAMANYAM: He was trying to get Epstein to fund-raise for the Gates Foundation. He said Epstein himself was never going to be a direct donor to the foundation, but Epstein had billionaire friends who could maybe write the foundation into their wills, for instance, or into their financial plans.

And so when Gates realized that Epstein wasn't delivering on some of those promises, that's when he cut the relationship off.

KEILAR: So, "The New York Times" says Gates had noteworthy help preparing for today. He actually hired the former top investigative lawyer for the House Oversight Committee, for your committee.

[13:20:04]

This is an individual who up until a few months ago was spearheading the Epstein inquiry for the committee. This is an individual I imagine you're familiar with. Spokespeople for both Gates and the investigator did not respond to "The Times"' request for comment.

Does this raise conflict issues for you? Should that kind of thing be allowed?

SUBRAMANYAM: Well, there's a one-year cooling off period already on the books when it comes to representing someone. So that individual is not actually in the room with Gates, but he did help prepare Gates for the hearing.

This is the revolving door in Congress that we see a lot. It doesn't just happen with members of Congress. It happens with staff. That doesn't make it right. I'm all for changing some of the rules to make it stricter, maybe making that cooling off period longer, and also trying to restrict the activities of someone, for instance, representing someone who's coming before our committee months after they left.

KEILAR: All right, Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, thank you so much for being with us.

SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.

KEILAR: Democratic voters in Maine signing off on scandal-plagued Graham Platner, but can he survive months of more scrutiny as he tries to unseat Republican Senator Susan Collins?

Plus, President Trump describing the moment an Iranian attack drone lodged itself into a U.S. Apache helicopter, forcing the pilots to crash-land in the water before escaping. That's his account.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:25:44]

SANCHEZ: The matchup in one of this year's most critical U.S. Senate races is now set. Graham Platner overwhelmingly won the Democratic primary in Maine, despite a wave of recent controversies over his past personal conduct.

Platner will take on longtime Republican Senator Susan Collins in November, and in his victory speech last night, Platner briefly spoke about the scandals surrounding his campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: If you believe, as I do, that we can change our politics and change our country, then you must also believe that people can change.

(CHEERING)

PLATNER: And the reason I believe that is because I have lived it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Today, Republican leaders are warning of a tough battle ahead for Susan Collins, despite Platner's past.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee releasing a memo saying in part -- quote -- "The political fundamentals in Maine remain challenging, and it is a fatal mistake to assume that Platner is too damaged to win."

We're joined now by Alex Seitz-Wald. He's a deputy editor of the "Midcoast Villager" newspaper in Maine.

Alex, thank you so much for being with us again.

What did you make of that message from Platner last night, alluding to personal change? It seems that he's trying to sort of cast these stories as having been a version of himself that he has since shed.

ALEX SEITZ-WALD, "MIDCOAST VILLAGER": Absolutely.

I mean, Platner's entire campaign has been about this redemption arc, where he returned from combat overseas, four combat tours, very dark place, PTSD, drinking too much, and then returned home to Maine, got involved with his community, his business, met his now wife, and became a new person. That's his arc.

Some of the later revelations have complicated that narrative. But I think what he was trying to do last night is turn the page and put the focus on Susan Collins, rather than him. And I think the results -- he did what he needed to do last night. Turnout was up across the state, even from 2020, when there was a big Democratic presidential primary that would have gotten a lot of interest.

He won basically every single town. He's going to finish around 72 percent, even though there was no doubt about the outcome. And so I think that will quell the doubters, consolidate the Democrats behind him, and quell this nascent, although it never really got off the ground, movement to try to get him to step aside before a July 13 deadline under state law.

SANCHEZ: Yes, and he repeated a refrain, and it's also the sign that's in front of him on the podium, "They don't know Maine." Obviously, Maine is unique electorally and politically. It's also seeming to be a message that resonates nationally, as if to say that some of the naysayers around his campaign don't understand what local voters do.

How do you read it?

SEITZ-WALD: A hundred percent.

And I think Platner has very effectively sort of weaponized or politicized this deep sentiment in Maine, a sort of chip on his shoulder that the state has. There's Mainers and then there's from away, which is everybody else.

And there, frankly, has been a disconnect between the feelings on the ground, the sentiment on the ground, and the national media coverage of this race over many months. And Platner has tried to, and I think somewhat effectively, positioned himself as a defender of Maine, as representing Maine.

He looks like the state. He sounds like the state. He works with his hands as an oysterman, and almost doing what Donald Trump has done effectively of saying any attacks on me or criticism of me is criticism of you and of the state.

And that's really made him very tight -- tightly connected to his supporters, who have endured a lot with him and stuck with him throughout all this.

SANCHEZ: So then how big of a factor do you expect the balance of power in Congress and even President Trump himself will be in November's election?

SEITZ-WALD: It's huge.

I mean, I have talked to a lot of Democratic primary voters who are very uncomfortable with Graham Platner, especially women, who don't like these stories about him.