Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Ceasefire Deal Signed by Trump Under New Scrutiny Amid Strikes; Interview with Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME): Platner Suspends Senate Bid, Rails Against Democratic Establishment; Democrats Begin Two-Week Sprint to Replace Platner. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired July 09, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Strikes between the U.S. and Iran continue. Scrutiny over the agreement meant to keep this escalation from happening is also growing.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Today, CNN is learning more about some of the potential flaws in that Memorandum of Understanding's design, including the unconventional approach, sources say, that U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner took to reach it. CNN's Rene Marsh is with us now with her new reporting on this. Rene, what did you find out here?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So working with our colleagues Jennifer Hansler and Zach Cohen, we're really starting to pick up some behind- the-scenes detail on just what the strategy has been for Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff at the center of trying to get to this path of a nuclear agreement. And our sources tell us that just one day after the president signed that very vague MOU, Kushner and Witkoff were on the phone with very concerned Republican lawmakers. They were concerned about the lack of detail.

And fast forward to today, we can see why they would have been concerned about the lack of detail. But Kushner and Witkoff, they were essentially reassuring these Republican lawmakers that the MOU was a sign of progress. They had just come back from that secret visit to Oak Ridge National Lab.

And they said that the next thing that would happen immediately, and in those words immediately according to a source familiar with the call, were these technical nuclear talks. But we're now three weeks later, and we know that those technical nuclear talks didn't really get off the ground. In fact, you know, the negotiations have pretty much fallen apart.

But all of this has really started raising a lot of questions about their strategy, as well as about the two men at the center of this, Witkoff and Kushner. And when we talk about strategy, we've spoken to several former U.S. officials who were involved under Trump with the Iran file who say that the process did not look anything like it has looked with previous nuclear negotiations, i.e. the Obama-era nuclear negotiation. They said that they were operating with this very tight circle, which consists of political advisers. They were not at a very early stage incorporating these government experts who had this deep knowledge of some of these very technical aspects of any deal with Iran. Again, the circle was extremely tight, focusing on these political advisers. And many of the people who we spoke to thought that that was a mistake.

We did speak to the White House about this. But the source also said that, you know, Witkoff oftentimes looked at Iran with a real estate frame of mind. You know, he's a real estate developer.

He looked at the nuclear program as a bad investment and thought that financial incentives could potentially get Iran to walk away from their nuclear program. And these sources said that that was just an example of a miscalculation when it came to Iran. And so these were many of the examples that they said that not only was the strategy different with the smaller circle, there was just this basic fundamental misunderstanding of Iran's place, how they viewed this negotiation, what their goals and what their, you know, what was important to them.

SANCHEZ: What is the White House saying about all of this?

MARSH: So we spoke to the White House, and they didn't deny this tight circle approach. I mean, they said that, you know, they had to keep a tight circle because they had concerns over leaks. But it really speaks to their longstanding distrust of these government employees.

The White House said to us in a statement that people who complain to CNN about feeling left out clearly cannot be trusted with sensitive information and are not included in national security conversations. They also pushed back on this idea that government experts weren't integrated very early on into the process. They said that they were.

But we spoke to many who say they beg to differ.

[14:35:00]

KEILAR: They say that your reporting there is correct on that. Rene Marsh, thank you so much.

Let's talk a little bit more about this and the situation in Iran with Leon Panetta. He served as defense secretary and CIA director under President Obama. I wonder, sir, what you think about that.

It seems that some of these Republican concerns about how this Memorandum of Understanding was orchestrated may have been valid. And I wonder how you're seeing the MOU and the process of getting to it now that we're learning some details about that.

LEON PANETTA, DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, one thing is very clear right now, Brianna, and it's that the war is not going well. And it's been badly handled. I'm struggling to try to determine just exactly what is our objective now.

Is it to try to deal with the Straits of Hormuz? Is it nuclear? What exactly is our objective? What's our strategy for trying to achieve that objective? And what's the end game to try to ultimately bring this to a close? And the problem is that we have not presented a clear direction here.

Rather, we're using an MOU that has a lot of problems that's not very clear. Our negotiators are not the most experienced negotiators to deal with this situation. And so what we're winding up doing is basically bombing the hell out of Iran and having them attack us with the hope that one side or the other might blink.

I think that's the only strategy I see right now.

KEILAR: So as the U.S. has struck Iran at least 170 times in the last two days, which is a huge uptick by a factor of 14 compared to the last strikes that we saw last month, I mean, what do you see then as the objective? Just that? This is just, you know, taking strikes for strike's sake or?

PANETTA: Well that that's what concerns me is that, you know, what we're seeing is kind of the worst elements of a forever war in the Middle East, which means that we just attack targets, attack a number of targets, and Iran strikes back at targets involving our bases in the Middle East. And both are hitting each other. But the issue is, what then?

What then? Where are we headed here? And the options don't look very good.

It's either continuing this kind of forever war. It's trying to arrive at some kind of ceasefire, but ceasefires have been very weak in terms of maintaining them, largely because, frankly, we don't have a clear position on the Straits of Hormuz. That's their greatest leverage right now, and it continues to be probably the primary element that is upsetting almost every approach to trying to resolve these issues.

And we haven't even begun to get to the 60-day negotiations that are supposed to deal with nuclear, deal with missiles, deal with proxies, deal with other areas that need to be covered. And so right now, very frankly, it is very difficult to identify what are we trying to achieve? I mean, look, if I were recommending something to the president, I would say as long as the Straits of Hormuz remain in control of Iran, we will never have any kind of ceasefire.

We will never be able to resolve these issues. And I think the president has a tough decision to make whether he's going to take control of the Straits of Hormuz and remove that leverage from Iran. That's not easy.

It'll involve casualties. It'll involve military action. But I do not see any kind of clear path here as long as Iran controls the Straits of Hormuz.

KEILAR: Can you describe that a little bit more? I mean, what type of engagement are you looking at to take control of the Straits of Hormuz? Are we talking ground troops?

What would it have to look like?

PANETTA: Well, there's been a lot of military planning that was even involved when I was secretary of defense, because we anticipated if there was any action with Iran that the first thing they would do is to close the Straits of Hormuz. That's unacceptable. That's unacceptable, because that gives them a tremendous amount of leverage to cut off 20 percent of the oil supplies to the world.

[14:40:00]

And so we had plans. What it involved is basically boots on the ground, capturing about 50 miles on either side of the Straits, 100 miles in depth, and then using our Navy, obviously, to make sure we control access to the Straits of Hormuz. We have got to have control of the Straits of Hormuz, hopefully along with our allies, helping us to try to develop a free access to the Straits of Hormuz.

KEILAR: Can I interrupt you real quick to ask you a clarifying question on that? So then when you're talking about taking that much land to maintain control, is that a prolonged, indefinite occupation of that land to provide that? I mean, how would that play out?

PANETTA: No, you'd have to maintain control over those areas that are critical to the Straits of Hormuz. And that means either making sure that there is a secure area near the Straits that is controlled by the United States and our allies. It means that we have to ensure that the Straits are now controlled in terms of traffic by the United States and our allies.

We have got to remove the Straits of Hormuz as leverage from Iran, because every time we try to engage in a ceasefire, every time we try to engage in negotiations, if Iran doesn't like what's going on, they are going to disrupt the Straits of Hormuz. That's the reality. And we either are going to live with that and continue what we're doing now, or we've got to change that.

I do not think we are going to get anywhere as long as Iran controls the Straits of Hormuz.

KEILAR: Which they are desperately trying to hang on to and make sure that they still have that leverage. We're seeing that play out. Leon Panetta, great to have you.

Thank you so much.

PANETTA: Good to be with you.

KEILAR: Graham Platner says he's dropping out of the main Senate race. And now Democrats are in a race against time to replace him. That is next.

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Democrats in Maine have just two and a half weeks to pick a new candidate to take on Republican Senator Susan Collins in a race that could determine control of the U.S. Senate. The party is scrambling after their now former nominee, Graham Platner, suspended his campaign. He was under intense pressure to exit the race after a former girlfriend accused him of raping her while he was intoxicated nearly five years ago, an allegation that Platner denies.

In a statement announcing his decision, he blasted what he called the corporate media system and the political establishment. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM PLATNER, (D) FORMER MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: They would rather see Susan Collins win than have me be the next senator from Maine. All we were asking for was health care, was to end the genocide, to use our taxpayer dollars at home to uplift our communities instead of waging war overseas. We were asking for a fair system.

We were asking for an end to the corruption, the end to the money in politics. We were asking for real democracy, and we did it the right way, and we won. But now the ball is in the court of the Democratic establishment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with Democratic Congresswoman Chellie Pingree of Maine. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us. First, I just want to start with what you made of that announcement from Platner.

REP. CHELLIE PINGREE (D-ME): Well, he certainly gave the sense that he was very angry. There were no apologies. There was no acknowledgment of the pain that women may have experienced through this process, and kind of put it back on everybody else's shoulders, and I think people found that somewhat disturbing and unsettling.

He has generated an enormous amount of excitement, and, you know, I'm enthusiastic about the same policies, and I think so many other people across Maine have been, and so now people are thinking about, OK, how do we pick up the pieces? It's all hands on deck, you know, making sure that we can get another candidate as soon as possible, and put up a real race against Senator Collins, which is, you know, an important year for the United States Senate, and Maine feels that pressure. There's a lot of disappointment, but I think people are anxious to move forward.

SANCHEZ: You ran against Collins back in 2002. Have you, Congresswoman, ruled out perhaps jumping in this race?

PINGREE: I have. I took my turn at that, and, you know, people often ask you when you're in politics, like, what are you going to do next? Where are you going next?

And frankly, I'm very proud to be a member of the House of Representatives. When we're in the majority next year, I'll be a committee chair on appropriations, you know, of a subcommittee, and they've been doing a lot of damage to the areas that I care deeply about. So I'm anxious to get back in a position of power in the House and clean up some of the damage that this president has done, investigate some of the corruption, and do my work.

So changing in midstream to a Senate race is not only, you know, not the right time for me, but it's also a very complicated process. I would literally have to resign my seat right now and, you know, scramble to try to, you know, get into a very crowded field. But the fact is, I don't feel any need to move to the Senate.

That's a sort of do-nothing place over there, and the House is a busy place.

SANCHEZ: I'm not sure some of your colleagues would agree with you, but we'll take your point of view. I want to ask you --

PINGREE: Let me just say this. The House is not a busy place with the Republicans, but we've got big plans for being in the majority.

SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you about the process for how you get to a nominee, because our reporting indicates the state party has approved a convention process.

[14:50:00]

The details about a timeline or the participation rules, they've not been made public. It's unclear that they've zeroed in on exactly what they're going to be. Are there any details that you can share about it? Do you see this process as sufficiently transparent?

PINGREE: I think they're doing their very best to be transparent. You know, state party committees have been there for years, and generally people have no interest in participating in them. And all of a sudden, it's a place where people really want to know what the process is going to be.

And I think it's very important we have as many people engaged as possible, and that it is a transparent process. It looks very likely that they're going to replicate what we do at a state convention, which is in our 16 counties, there'll be an allocation based on population of the number of delegates that will go to the committee. And people will be able to go to the county committees and pitch themselves to be the delegate.

I'm sure every candidate who wants to run right now will be organizing their people to be the delegates to the convention, and then we'll have some process at the state convention, which will happen within the next couple of weeks, somewhere in Maine. And the candidates, I'm assuming, will have a chance to make a pitch for their story. They probably will have already done that for the two weeks beforehand.

And we will take a vote. It's not easy to replicate this in a short period of time. And I don't think it would be possible to rerun the primary or do the kinds of things that, you know, some of the people on the outside have been trying to get us to do.

I think the state is going to try to do as best as it can in a very short period of time.

SANCHEZ: Have there been any candidates who have thrown their hat in the ring so far that you could see yourself supporting, that you might be willing to endorse?

PINGREE: You know, I never endorse in primaries, and this is just like a primary as well. There are some great candidates. We have a good bench in Maine.

We just ran a gubernatorial primary, a primary in the second CD, and there were people who had been thinking about getting into this race that Platner was in that decided not to. So there's quite a few people interested in this. And so many of them are talking about the very same policies you just heard Graham talking about, health care, housing, childcare, you know, not having billionaires in this country and reducing, you know, the taxes on the middle class, but increasing them on the rich.

I mean, there's just so much people are talking about now. I think it will be a very progressive field. And I think we'll get a good candidate out of it.

SANCHEZ: The executive director of Maine's Democrats accused Platner's team of, quote, trying to put their thumb on the scale. Should voters at this point listen to Platner and his team? Should he just stay out of this race?

PINGREE: Look, I mean, just like everybody else, he has the opportunity to endorse somebody. I think he's been encouraging some people to run. And there are so many people who like what he stood for, even if they feel discouraged about things that have come out about his personal life.

Of course, they'll listen to some of the things that he's interested in. But let me just tell you something about Mainers. We are hardcore, independent, individual people.

We don't like to be told what to do. And everybody who wants to be a delegate at this convention will be going there because they have an idea of who should get elected and who should win. They want to keep this momentum going.

They want to make sure we have high turnout and they want to make sure we have a Democratic majority in the Senate. So I think we'll have huge involvement. Maine is always a high turnout -- high voter turnout state.

And I think you'll find a lot of people have a lot to say about this. And of course, they'll be happy to listen to Platner and his team. But I don't know that there was a role for him to play if we had an open and transparent process.

I mean, that's what caused a little bit of the confusion was whether he was anticipating that he actually got to pick the candidate because he had been the candidate. And unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Or maybe unfortunately for him, you drop out of a race, it's all hands on deck and we start over again.

So that's just how it's going to be.

SANCHEZ: Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, we have to leave the conversation there. Very much appreciate your time.

PINGREE: Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still ahead, another brutal heat wave about to push temperatures to record highs. We'll tell you where Americans will be feeling that heat next.

[14:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: For friends out West, this weekend could be brutal. A heat dome is settling over the region.

KEILAR: We all dread those two words, especially after last weekend's heat wave that we had here, which sent temperatures into the triple digits all along the East Coast. CNN's Derek Van Dam is with us now. You went through that heat wave with us, Derek.

How bad is this one going to be?

DEREK VAN DAM, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Sure did. Sweated it out with everybody else, too, on the National Mall there in D.C. This one has the potential to break records, but like you mentioned, not in the places that we've been used to lately. It will not be parked along the East Coast.

Watch how this builds from the Southwest into the northern tier of our country. I'm looking at you, Montana. You have the potential to set some daily record high temperatures that will be abnormal, especially that far north in our country. So we've already got the weather alerts in place.

It's starting to build here across the Southwest. This is, of course, the desert Southwest. Heat alert warnings.

We have watches and advisories. But look how those expand into the central and northern Rockies, inclusive of much of the central and northern plains as well. So the potential here for temperatures to top 100 degrees quite easily into Billings, Montana.

That's really kind of unheard of this time of year. It is the hottest month of the year, but to get it this far north into that far into the Rockies is really significant. We'll be flirting with 100 degrees in Denver as well.

So with it comes the abnormally high temperatures. We're talking 10 to 15 degrees above where we should be this time of year for the areas that I just mentioned. But that also places the major to extreme heat risk for vulnerable populations in those same locations.

So we're going to keep a close eye on this as we go forward this week -- Boris, Brianna.

SANCHEZ: Derek, sad to see that today you're not wearing a Boris and Brianna shirt the way that you were on the National Mall.

[15:00:00]