Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Longtime Senate Republican Lindsey Graham Dies At 71; U.S. Launches New Round Of Strikes at Iran; Outrage Over Deadly ICE Shooting In Houston; Remember Lindsey Graham; NYT Vows To Fight Trump Subpoenas After Air Force One Security Reporting; States AG's Finalizing Challenge To Paramount-WBD Deal; Maine Dems Face Tight Timeline To Replace Graham Platner. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 12, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:01:17]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to the CNN NEWSROOM, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez in New York.

New tonight, Senator Lindsey Graham's office says according to preliminary findings, Senator Graham died from complications from cardiovascular disease, specifically aortic dissection. Until further testing is done the death certificate will be considered pending.

Now, the longtime South Carolina Republican died overnight at age 71. Graham served in the Senate for nearly a quarter of a century and was known for his willingness to work across the aisle, as well as his steady push for U.S. military intervention abroad. Graham was one of the major supporters of both Israel and Ukraine, and had just returned from his 10th trip to Ukraine since Russia's invasion in 2022.

According to President Trump, the two spoke last night just before Graham's death.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's devastating. I thought he was fine. He called me last night. He just got back from Ukraine. He was tired. He said, I'm tired because it's a long trip. But other than that, he was fine. And he called me, I guess, just moments before because he called me like at 6:30 or something. And the medical people got there a little bit later, right after that. What a terrible loss it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: President Trump has directed all flags to be flown at half- staff for the next week in Graham's honor.

I want to bring in CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny and Bloomberg White House correspondent Jeff Mason.

And Jeff Zeleny, I just want to start with you. What is the latest that we are hearing from the late senator's office? What can you tell us?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Omar, the senator's office has said that there was a brief and sudden illness, and that was the word out at about 2:00 a.m. this morning. Well, in the last hour, we have gotten an updated sense of this cardiovascular disease that they say the senator was suffering from. And it says this, it says, "The preliminary findings were aortic dissection due to a cardiovascular disease." And it goes on to say this, "The death certificate will be pending until the toxicological and microscopic testing are finalized.

And at that point, the death certificate will be updated to reflect the cause of death and appropriately classify the manner of death. So this is coming from the senator's office here. But clearly there will be an autopsy, and those results will be released. But the senator's office is trying to get ahead of some speculation that has been running quite rampant about the cause of the sudden death of senator.

But clearly, the senator turned 71 last year. He traveled extensively. And for a senator, he was relatively not on the younger side, but certainly not on the older side of many members of the Senate, but a very active senator, a more active senator you really could not find. So that's why this is one of the most shocking developments. And Senator Graham really, you know, embodied the spirit of this Republican Party.

But he also bridged the gap from the Republican Party of yesterday, from the Bush era. He sounded like a hawk, like Reagan often, but he very much was a supporter, a loyal and a fierce defender of the Trump administration. But he just got back from that trip to a Ukraine. That's why this is so shocking. But he is the chairman of the Budget Committee. He has much work to do. So as much history as we've been talking about, it actually is going to impact the Senate significantly.

JIMENEZ: And Jeff Mason, going first and last name. We've got two Jeffs here. So this is rare. So Jeff Mason, I want to talk about Senator Graham's relationship with President Trump because, you know, as Jeff Zeleny was pointing out, sort of bridging that gap between the Bush era Republicans and the Trump era Republicans, Senator Graham obviously didn't start as allies with President Trump.

[18:05:11]

How did they get to a place where Graham became one of the president's most trusted voices in the Senate?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, you're spot on to say that they were not friends from the beginning. That's very true. And I can tell you that I started covering Senator Graham when he was traveling with John McCain on the 2008 presidential campaign, and they were super tight. He was part of what was called the three amigos, he and Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman. And certainly John McCain and Donald Trump, President Trump, were not close, but that ended up shifting for Lindsey Graham. And the senator just found a way to become friends with the president.

He found a way to find things in common between the two of them. They certainly did disagree on some things, including some areas of foreign policy. But Graham was someone who attached himself to people who were powerful. And that was certainly the case with President Trump and in both of his terms, his first and second term. But it was a shift for sure because the former senator was not only not friendly, but super critical of Donald Trump when he was a candidate the first time around. But they came to a place of friendship, as you said, and as the president certainly said in his remarks to Jake.

JIMENEZ: Yes, yes. And as part of those remarks, even saying now they didn't always get along, but clearly to the point of a relationship of trust.

And Jeff Zeleny, you know, as we look at sort of the tributes that have been pouring in from world leaders on the foreign policy side of things, we obviously know staunch supporter of Ukraine. We listed out those trips. Staunch supporter of Israel throughout all of this, despite even growing criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

What will his legacy be on the foreign policy front in terms of United States senator?

ZELENY: Well, there is no question that Senator Lindsey Graham really continued the work of John McCain, as Jeff was just talking about there, and traveled around the world extensively, as he always did as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But he was just meeting, as we are seeing right there with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And if you look at these words that we'll read them together, this a statement from President Zelenskyy, it's really quite poignant. And it actually had a big impact on the policy as well.

He says this, he said, "Lindsey was a true defender of freedom and the values that make our world safer. We will always be especially grateful for the recognition of our people and words of admiration for the courage of Ukraine's defenders. America and the world have lost a determined leader."

And the policy ramifications of this also are interesting because Senator Graham, who we've talked about, was a fierce opponent of the Trump administration a long time ago. But now he was a top ally, and he had the president's ear, and he was constantly reminding him and asking him for more support for Ukraine. So with that voice silent, that could have a significant impact on Ukraine. There's no question about it.

But Senator Graham, obviously a fierce supporter of Israel as well. So was not standing alone but standing as somewhat of an outlier in a today's America First Republican Party. But he was trying to work from the inside clearly to have an impact on this White House and this president.

JIMENEZ: And Jeff Mason, you know, Jeff Zeleny brings up sort of the loss in terms of the foreign policy advice or the trust that maybe President Trump had in sort of his voice on those fronts. When you look at just sort of impact on Washington and kind of what is going to happen in the weeks to come here, I just wonder how you see Graham's death affecting some of the debates happening in Washington right now, foreign policy wise or beyond?

MASON: Sure. Well, a handful of things. Certainly there are a few things that the White House and Republicans in the Senate and Congress writ large would like to get through. And this, at least temporarily, narrows that Republican majority in the Senate, at the same time, when Mitch McConnell is out for a sickness that his office has not been willing to describe. So it's just a tighter majority of senators that the Republican leadership can now count on to work with.

I would say more broadly to your good question, Omar, he also, despite being very closely aligned with President Trump, as we were both just saying, did have strong relationships with Democrats and was someone who had a bipartisan flair to him, even though, again, he was a conservative and he essentially became a MAGA supporter, even though he had those differences with the president.

[18:10:08]

So -- excuse me. Well, yes, had some differences with the president and certainly had differences with Democrats. So, you know, there aren't that many senators and congressmen and women now who are like that. And I think that that has an impact broadly on Washington and politics in Washington that you were asking about, too.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, you brought up Senator McConnell. You know, he was saying that he was briefly unconscious and had to deal with a mild case of pneumonia. But to your point, it will be, as they've laid out, it will be some time, it sounds like, before he's able to resume his Senate duties as he continues that recovery process there.

To both of the Jeffs, Zeleny and Mason, good to see you. Thanks for being here.

ZELENY: Thanks, Omar.

MASON: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: Meanwhile, overnight, Graham's office announced he had died from a brief and sudden illness. Dispatch audio revealed emergency personnel responded to a call around 8:30 last night for someone who was suffering from chest pains at an address associated with Graham. And then just a short while ago, as we were talking about a little bit earlier, we learned from Graham's office that the Washington, D.C. medical examiner's preliminary findings cited Graham had aortic dissection due to cardiovascular disease.

So I want to bring in CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner to talk through some of what we've heard on the medical side of things to this point. So I just want to start with what exactly is aortic dissection.

DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: So, Omar, the heart transmits blood to the body through initially a very large artery called the aorta. So picture a vessel about twice the diameter of a garden hose and highly pressurized. You know, the pressure in your aorta is the pressure that your doc measures with a blood pressure cuff. So it's highly pressurized. And the aorta is a vessel that has three layers and the innermost layer of the aorta is called the intima.

And an aortic dissection is a tear in that innermost lining that allows blood to get into the actual wall of the artery. And many bad things can happen when that occurs. So when blood moves into the wall of the artery, it can compress the channel that's actually carrying blood out to the body. And that creates a lack of blood flow to the heart itself, to the brain, to the major organs in the abdomen.

And the other thing that can happen is when that -- when the aorta dissects, it can also rupture. And this massive artery under high pressure can deliver a catastrophic amount of blood into the chest in a very short period of time. And when that happens, that's typically an unsurvivable injury. When the vessel is dissected but not ruptured, there is a relatively short window during which a patient can be salvaged.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, I think some who might just be looking at this in layman's terms here, chest pain, aortic dissection, as you just sort of laid out and might think to themselves, is this essentially just a heart attack or something of the, you know, in the layman's terms possible? Just -- can you just lay out the distinction here and what exactly we're talking about and why it might be different from what might be commonly understood?

REINER: Right. So a heart attack, you know, quite simply, is an interruption of blood flow to the heart, typically caused by a clot in one of the arteries on the surface of the heart, you know, that supply the muscle. An aortic dissection is a primary problem of the aorta, the giant blood vessel that leads out of the heart. So those are separate entities. Both a heart attack, an interruption of blood flow to the heart muscle itself and an aortic dissection.

This catastrophic injury to the aorta can both result in cardiac arrest, which basically means cessation of any meaningful movement of the heart. And what happens is when the aorta dissects blood can, as I said, enter the chest in massive amounts or even in smaller amounts it can -- blood can move into the sac that surrounds the heart and essentially impede the ability of the heart to actually fill with blood.

And those events can lead again to cardiac arrest, but not the same, not the same as a typical heart attack, what we call myocardial infarction, which is simply a problem with parts of the heart muscle not getting enough blood.

JIMENEZ: Important distinction. And we will likely learn more as these tests continue, obviously after the passing of Senator Lindsey Graham.

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, I really appreciate you being here. Thanks for your time and insight. REINER: My pleasure, Omar.

JIMENEZ: And stay with us. We are tracking lots of news as well, including the latest overseas as tensions boil over between the United States and Iran.

[18:15:05]

We're going to take a look at oil futures as more strikes are reported along the Strait of Hormuz. Stay tuned for that.

And "The New York Times" vowing to fight back after four of its journalists get late-night subpoenas from the Justice Department.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Breaking tonight we've got new U.S. strikes against Iran that are underway as U.S. Central Command posts this message a short time ago, saying, the strikes are to degrade Iran's ability to, quote, "attack civilian mariners and commercial ships freely transiting the Strait of Hormuz."

[18:20:13]

The U.S. and Iran exchanging new strikes this weekend as tensions simmer over the critical waterway. And President Trump insists it remains open, as Iran today says passage of vessels is not possible.

We're joined now by Bob McNally. He's the founder and president of the Rapidan Energy Group and served as a White House energy adviser to President George W. Bush.

And I just want to start with, look, oil prices already jumping roughly 3 percent after this weekend's new attacks. The jumps have been nothing new in terms of this tit-for-tat sort of environment. But when you jump back, when you step back a little bit and just look at it from a macro point of view, what does this dynamic mean for oil prices? Is this just where we're going to be?

BOB MCNALLY, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, RAPIDAN ENERGY: Hey, Omar, it's great to be with you. Yes. You know, the oil market, especially the crude oil market, they've been blowing off this geopolitical risk for years and even during this crisis. You know, even the 3.5 percent that we're up today is pretty tame. So traders are confident that the worst of Hormuz in this conflict is behind us and that the beginnings of recovery in Hormuz crossings, transits by ships, and also production, UAE, a little bit of Saudi Arabia, a few other countries, that that's the trend is your friend and things are going to get a lot better.

I would say, Omar, the oil market sort of priced for perfection. You know, the macro, you mentioned macro, the equity markets haven't really cared about Hormuz since early April. So there's a lot of complacency, a lot of confidence built into the market right now about oil. Everything has got to go just right. JIMENEZ: And you know, as you've been talking, we've been showing some

of the Brent crude prices, WTI as well. And to your point, that initial shock of when this war kicked off had those prices well past $100 a barrel, over $110 I believe back in early May. And you know, when you talk about this moment, Iran has outright said that American politicians have an Achilles' heel in their view, and that's oil prices. They clearly want to exploit that.

I just wonder, how do you think this administration is balancing the sort of that threat of rising energy prices and of course, the threat of Iran developing its nuclear stockpile?

MCNALLY: Balancing is the right word. Normally, President Trump or almost any American president would not want to pick a fight with Iran given the oil implications here, could be devastating for the economy. I think the president was being truthful when he said I didn't want to have a recession. We have to open up Hormuz or we could have a real economic and financial catastrophe. So he has to balance that.

But I think to his credit, he's principled and he doesn't want to leave future generations with an Iranian regime on the way to nuclear weapons. And everything we're seeing here would be much, much worse. So it is a balancing act. I think the president has been successful at reassuring the oil market. One of the reasons oil prices have fallen is the president has been continually reassuring the market, and they believe him.

So his verbal intervention has been successful. So I think when he's successful there, he can take a little more risk, as he's doing this weekend, with punishing Iran militarily. It is a balancing act. We are down. Gasoline before Memorial Day, regular was above $4.50 a gallon. Now it's $3.88. The main reason for that is because crude oil, the input that goes into gasoline and diesel that you and I use, it has fallen sharply. It's really unwound most of its war gains. And that's partly due to the president's messaging and balancing on that.

JIMENEZ: And messaging and balancing clearly key in terms of the markets as well. You know, there's one thing I want to ask about, you know, we're sort of it's obviously a very complicated picture in terms of there are some ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, sort of at their own risk, some without transponders, but obviously a fraction of what it used to be, as they could be targeted at any point.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the late Senator Lindsey Graham, along with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, on Friday announced or championed, you know, their champion deal with the Trump administration on an updated Russia sanctions package. And I bring that up because it would allow President Trump to impose heavy tariffs on nations that import Russian oil, uranium and natural gas.

Look, obviously, they want to send a message to Russia in terms of how they are dealing with the war with Ukraine. But from an oil perspective, does that add another layer of instability if sort of the place of alternate purchasing places for oil is hit in a significant way as well? MCNALLY: Absolutely, Omar. So Russia is the second largest exporter of

diesel fuel after the United States. We're by far the biggest, OK. And Russia has lost about 40 percent, 45 percent of its refining capacity due to these Ukrainian attacks.

[18:25:06]

So Russia has had to now put a ban on exports. So we were talking about crude a little bit. The gasoline and the distillate that you and I use, that hasn't gone back to pre-war levels. That is 30 percent higher still. And the margins that refiners make from turning oil into crude oil, into gasoline and diesel, are at record levels and rising. So this is a balancing act. If we're going to go after Russia and the Ukrainians are with their attacks, and we may with sanctions in a global market, I'm not saying we don't do it, but one trade off or one consideration is you're going to make a tight, refined product market.

Unlike crude, refined products are very tight and still pricey since the beginning of the war. And that's the product that you and I consume and the economy sees.

JIMENEZ: It's fascinating how interconnected everything is across conflicts, continents, and markets as well.

Bob McNally, really appreciate you breaking it down for us. Thanks for being here.

MCNALLY: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right. Coming up for us, we're following a number of headlines, including outrage in Texas over a deadly shooting involving ICE agents. We're live from Houston next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:40]

JIMENEZ: There's growing outrage in Houston after ICE agents fatally shot a Houston man earlier this week. A large crowd of protesters gathering to demand answers outside of Houston city hall Saturday, as local officials say they are frustrated that federal authorities are not sharing key information.

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was killed Tuesday after an ICE agent opened fire on his work van. There are differing accounts over how the shooting unfolded, with ICE saying one thing, and three men who were in that van saying another.

CNN correspondent Carolina Peguero joins us from Houston.

So what are you hearing? I know you've been there. You were there yesterday. You're here today as well. What are you seeing there on the ground?

CAROLINA PEGUERO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I am back here at the memorial site, Omar, and it's almost been a week since Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was shot and killed just a couple steps from where I'm standing. And we visited door-to-door some of the residents' homes and the local businesses, and they're very frustrated. They're seeking answers.

We also tried to see if we could find some new footage, surveillance video or cell phone video, and they also told us that there have been detectives here, but there hasn't been any updates from the authorities, state, local and federal authorities since Friday. Now, there have been a lot of protests, rallies, and we did speak to Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, and she went to go visit two of the three men that were with Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in that van. And they also shared their accounts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SYLVIA GARCIA (D-TX): I'm told that he knew he was crying for help, but that they had -- he himself got out of the car and immediately agents then threw him to the ground. Again, provided no aid, didn't quickly make a 911 call, and the -- both of them say that they were thrown to the ground. They couldn't help because they were immediately handcuffed.

I asked them if there were any questions that might be about this alleged assault to an agent, and he was just, what? None of us ever touched them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEGUERO: And as the anger continues to rise across the country and here in Houston, as far as for the family, we know as well with local civil rights groups, they are pursuing an independent autopsy on Lorenzo Salgado Araujo's body and seeking not only justice, but accountability -- Omar.

JIMENEZ: All right. Carolina Peguero, thank you so much for your reporting there on the ground.

Meanwhile, coming up for us, what Senator Lindsey Graham's death means for an already slim majority for Republicans in Congress and who could replace him? We'll talk about his legacy and the political process ahead as well, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:38:09]

JIMENEZ: Senator Lindsey Graham served South Carolina for more than 30 years, leaving an indelible mark on the state's political scene. Graham's office announced the longtime Republican senator died overnight at the age of 71. President Donald Trump has ordered all flags to be flown at half-staff this week in Graham's honor. He was a key voice in the Republican Party, who was also known at times for reaching across the aisle on Capitol Hill. He was also known as a foreign policy hawk.

I want to bring in Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party.

And, Drew, I just want to start, I'm sorry for your loss as I understand you knew him personally. I just want to start with, what do you think his legacy is going to be, not just on the Republican Party, but just for South Carolina in particular?

DREW MCKISSICK, CHAIRMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY: Well, look, he had an incredible legacy at the national level, the state level, his years of service with the military well over 30 years. His time as a statehouse member here in our legislature in South Carolina. That's when I first came to know him, to running for Congress and serving in Congress, representing South Carolina's Third Congressional District, and then running for Strom Thurmond's seat in the United States Senate.

Obviously, those were incredibly big shoes to fill for him at the time. And he went on and obviously served our state for many decades.

JIMENEZ: You know, moving forward, look, people are still processing the news of his passing. And on one side of things, there's a group that is mourning that aspect. On the other hand, there is still a political process that needs to move forward in the state of South Carolina that will come over the course of this week. He was also up for reelection in November.

Have you had discussions with the governor in the state there over how to fill what is this new vacancy and how you all are looking toward November?

[18:40:01]

MCKISSICK: Well, I have not spoken with the governor. Of course, you know, we just got the bad news early this morning.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

MCKISSICK: It's a Sunday. A lot of folks were in church and so forth. But, you know, the world, you know, does have to move on. And you know that means we have a process that we'll have to abide by here at some point. We will have to have a special election primary. That will take place basically three weeks from this coming Tuesday, and on August 11th. And then if necessary, we'll have a runoff on August 25th.

So it's an incredibly fast process. And, you know, from the Republican Party standpoint, our job is to be ready just as we would with any race, with any of our nominees, to put together the victory program, where we leverage our resources for all of our candidates up and down the ticket to make sure that we turn out the Republican votes and we win in November.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, to that end, look, things will move pretty quickly once that process gets going as it sounds like you guys are already preparing for. We don't quite know who is going to put their hat in the ring. You know, we've heard from South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace who's floated running for Graham's seat. I -- whoever it ends up being in terms of leading this race here, what

do you think would best fill Senator Graham's legacy here? What is the Republican Party looking for?

MCKISSICK: Well, I mean, you just look back on the things that were the top of his priority list. I mean, he was an incredibly staunch pro-life supporter, has been for his entire career. He was a big advocate of keeping Americans safe here at home because of dangers overseas. Staunch national security, conservative. And also when it comes to the judiciary and making sure that we have good solid conservatives on our courts all around the country, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He played an incredibly important role in that. That will be a huge part of his legacy. You know, so those are the things that people within our state and our party supported him on for decades. And I'm sure they would be looking for the same thing from anyone who would want to fill his shoes.

JIMENEZ: Drew McKissick, as you laid out a process that will get going pretty quickly once it gets going, but a lot of people today still processing the news that we got in the overnight hours that a lot of people woke up to. I appreciate you being here and helping lay out that political future ahead, though, as well. Appreciate it.

MCKISSICK: Yes, sir. Thank you.

JIMENEZ: Of course.

All right. Coming up, sources tell CNN that several states' attorneys general will likely file an antitrust lawsuit to stop the Paramount- WBD merger, Warner Brothers Discovery. We'll have more on that just ahead.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:45]

JIMENEZ: "The New York Times" is vowing to fight after four of its journalists got late-night subpoenas this weekend from the Justice Department. The reporters had worked on stories about security concerns with the new Air Force One, the plane that was a controversial gift from the Qatari government. "The New York Times" says the journalists must testify on Wednesday before a federal grand jury.

I want to bring in CNN's Brian Stelter, who's with us now.

So, Brian, I just want to start with how unusual is this? Have we seen this type of legal action against journalists before?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: This is generally very rare and it's very controversial every time a government tries to do this. There have been times before, during the Obama years, for example, and then during Trump's first time in office, where there were these skirmishes, where subpoenas were delivered to journalists, and then legal battles were undertaken. Sometimes these played out over a period of months or even years.

The difference now in Trump 2.0 is that the Trump Justice Department seems to be using these subpoenas as a first step, rather than as a last resort, when all other avenues of investigation have been exhausted. The Trump administration is now pursuing subpoenas right away, within a matter of days after this "New York Times" story was published on Wednesday, first on Thursday, and then by Friday night, these subpoenas were delivered.

That is a highly unusual, very aggressive and very troubling step forward, or a reassertion of the government's powers here because ultimately, a subpoena to a journalist is an attempt to compel them to testify, to reveal anonymous sources. And in this particular case, the anonymous sources are officials inside Trump's government who contradicted him, who said that the security concerns were the reason why the plane was not taken back from Turkey.

So we've heard from "The New York Times" this weekend vowing to fight this, and it sounds like this is going to be quite a court battle. Here's what Joe Kahn, the executive editor of "The New York Times," said in a memo to the staff. He said, "The Trump administration, with its impulsive subpoenas, used vague pretenses of a threat to national security to try to compel our reporters to appear before a grand jury. But the law protects news gatherers from this sort of retaliatory abuse of prosecutorial power.

"It is essential the courts reaffirm that protection and quash this overreach, and we are confident that they will do so in this case." So "The New York Times" saying it will fight this in court, not just to protect its own reporters, but to protect all other journalists from these kinds of subpoenas.

And, Omar, it's not even the first time this year the Trump administration has tried this. There were secret subpoenas sent to the "Wall Street Journal" and the "Washington Post" earlier this year. But in both those cases, the news outlets fought back and the DOJ withdrew those subpoenas. The difference this time is that this is all happening within a matter of days of the story being published in the first place.

And for President Trump, this is very personal. He is angry, according to CNN's sources, about the plain reporting. And it seems that all of this legal drama is now stemming from the president's own anger about the leaks.

JIMENEZ: Obviously, something that many, not just across the journalism world but beyond, are watching very closely as this plays out.

I want to shift gears slightly because lawyers for several states are finalizing an antitrust lawsuit challenging Paramount's $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to people involved in the legal process. Of course for viewers at home that involves us here at CNN which is part of Warner Bros. Discovery.

But, Brian, can you just lay out what are these state prosecutors arguing here?

[18:50:01]

STELTER: Right. My sources indicate this lawsuit could be filed as early as tomorrow. This would be a collection of states, Democratic attorneys general in states like California and New York. We've seen similar action from these Democratic state AGs in other cases in recent months, where these Democrats say they're trying to fill in where the Republicans in the Justice Department are failing to enforce antitrust law.

So you have this example of the states trying to be a counterweight to the federal government. It appears we're going to see that again with this Paramount WBD merger. And as you said, CNN, other assets, all a part of WBD. Paramount is trying to buy those assets, and it's basically pretty close to completing the deal. It has won approval from the federal government in the U.S. and from lots of other countries.

Basically, Paramount only needs two more approvals in the U.K. and the E.U., although the E.U. is about to approve it, and then these state AGs are the big wild card. So if these Democratic state AGs do move forward and sue as early as tomorrow, it could slow down the deal. It could make it take longer for Paramount to actually close and complete this merger. And, you know, it's undeniable the political aspect to this because so many Democrats, we've heard from lawmakers who are concerned about CNN being in Paramount's hands, they also raised concerns about Hollywood and the kind of impacts that would be had in the film industry as a result of all this.

And that is ultimately what this lawsuit will be about. If it is filed, Omar, it will be primarily about the concentration of power in Hollywood. We have heard from Paramount about this in advance however. Here's part of what Paramount said in a statement yesterday, quote, "This transaction will create a stronger challenger to dominant global streaming and technology platforms. It will expand consumer choice, increase investment in premium content and theatrical distribution, and create more opportunities for creators and workers."

So Paramount's message is pretty clear there. They say they're going to make more movies as a result of buying WBD, and they're going to be able to better compete with the likes of Apple and Amazon and Google, because those big tech giants have totally reshaped the rules in Hollywood. But these Democratic state AGs, they are determined to challenge this deal. So I think people are going to hear a lot about this in the coming weeks as Paramount faces this challenge from these states.

JIMENEZ: Yes, a lot to be seen here, which, as you mentioned, could get going in a very serious next step this week. We will watch for it all.

Brian Stelter, appreciate you being here. Thanks for the time. All right. Meanwhile, the Democrats' Graham Platner problem in the

Maine Senate race may not be a problem at all when it comes to flipping the state.

Harry Enten runs the numbers next. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:56:52]

JIMENEZ: Maine Democrats, that is the state of Maine, are facing a tight timeline to pick a nominee to replace Graham Platner, who dropped out of the U.S. Senate race last week after a rape accusation caused many of his allies to withdraw their support. We should mention he denies that allegation. Nevertheless, recent polling shows the Democratic Party may be better off without him.

CNN's Harry Enten runs the numbers.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Hey there, Omar. Happy Sunday to you. Look, Graham Platner officially out of the race in Maine. The race to replace him is on. And you know what I say to Democrats? You're better off. You're better off because Graham Platner was an anchor to your chances to winning the Maine Senate race.

Why do I say that? Well, why don't we just look, first off, at the prediction market odds? Because I think this really puts it into perspective for you. Democrats have a better chance now than they did before the latest accusation against Graham Platner, of course, hit the media just about a week ago. You can see it right here. Chance Dems win the Maine Senate race. Look at this. On July 2nd, at the beginning of the month, it was a 50-50 proposition. Look at this.

But now Democrats without Platner actually have a majority chance of winning in the Maine Senate race. A 63 percent chance, significantly up from the 50 percent chance that they had at the beginning of the month. Why is it? Why is it that the people who are putting their money where their mouths are, why do they think Democrats have a better chance now than they did at the beginning of the month?

And it is simply put, because Graham Platner was greatly underperforming the fundamentals in Maine. You can see it right here. Just take a look at this. OK. Maine Senate polling. You know, Platner versus Collins. Collins in the average poll actually had a slight advantage, was up by a point. Compare that to the generic Senate candidate that is a Democrat versus a Republican without the names attached.

Who did Mainers want to represent them in the Senate? Who did they want control, the Senate Democrats or Republicans? You can see it right here. Democrats had a 12-point advantage, a 12-point advantage on the generic ballot. The generic ballot Senate in Maine. And this was prior to the latest accusation against Platner. He was already running well, well behind the fundamentals.

Now, you might be saying to yourself, OK, how much of this is because Platner was a weak candidate versus Susan Collins being a strong candidate? Obviously, Susan Collins has been winning Senate elections in Maine since before. Yes, I did the math right here, before my 10th birthday. My goodness gracious. But you know what, Susan Collins' luck, at least her popularity with the Maine electorate, is actually more on the downward trend than I think a lot of Republicans would like. You could see it here.

Take a look at the popularity figure, the net popularity rating in Maine. And again, this is in June before the latest accusation against Platner. Look at Susan Collins. She was underwater. She was underwater by three points. That is, her favorable rating was three points lower than her unfavorable rating. But Democrats could not take advantage of that with Platner in the race. Why? Because Platner was even lower.

Look at this. He was at minus eight points on the net favorable scale. He was less popular than the already unpopular Susan Collins, who was underwater.