Return to Transcripts main page

Isa Soares Tonight

U.S. Supreme Court Limit Judges' Power; Gaza Aid Deliveries Face New Hurdles; Bezos Set To Marry Fiancee This Weekend In Venice; House Lawmakers Receive Classified Briefing On Iran; Closing Arguments Continue In Sean Diddy Combs Criminal Case; Possible Wedding Celebrations Right Now For Jeff Bezos. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired June 27, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

MAX FOSTER, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: A very warm welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Max Foster in for Isa Soares. Tonight, U.S. President Trump

calls it a monumental victory, while one justice warns it's an existential threat to the rule of law in America. The Supreme Court rules on what could

be a dramatic expansion of executive power. Details ahead.

Then, the daily struggle to stay alive in Gaza. Why one humanitarian organization is calling for an end to a controversial U.S.-Israeli backed

aid distribution program. And it's the invite everyone wants. A Venice romance gets prime time. We'll have the latest on the hottest wedding of

the Summer.

Starting though with breaking news. The U.S. Supreme Court has just handed a major boost to U.S. President Donald Trump, and a setback for states and

lower courts trying to check the President's power. The conservative- dominated court ruled that lower courts don't have sweeping power to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential executive orders.

In essence, the high court said a federal judge in New York, for example, cannot make a ruling that prevents the government from taking action in

California or Texas or Florida, for example. The ruling severely limits the courts as a check on the presidency. And Mr. Trump says he's ready to push

his agenda forwards.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This decision, and thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies

that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis. And some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now

comes to the fore. That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Well, this comes -- all comes from the Trump order trying to end birthright citizenship for children born in undocumented or two

undocumented immigrants. The order would upend more than a century of U.S. law, and it was met with swift legal challenges. Three district court

judges issued injunctions to block its enforcement nationwide.

Today's ruling didn't directly address birthright citizenship, but the U.S. Attorney General said she's eager for the Supreme Court to rule on that

issue next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would this be a situation where you have nurses and doctors checking for citizenship of parents or?

PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is all pending litigation, it's going to be decided in October by the Supreme Court, and we'll discuss that

after the litigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: We're covering this important story from multiple angles for you. Let's start at the White House, and CNN's Kevin Liptak. I mean, we're

talking about, you know, complex constitutional issues. But there's a very clear headline here, Kevin.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and the birthright citizenship issue was almost ancillary to this broader question of the

power of those lower courts, the district courts, to block the President's executive actions nationwide. And the Supreme Court taking a very clear

position, limiting that ability.

And it is something of a green light for President Trump to really take his expansive view of executive power, executive authority, and really turbo-

charge it. And you heard the President in that press conference today talking about all of the different areas that are currently blocked by

those district courts around the entire country, and saying that the administration would now go back to each of them and try and get those

unblocked, trying to make the decisions that these judges render much more local and much more narrow.

And so, you heard the President, he was very enthusiastic about what the Supreme Court did. And this is a big deal for his agenda. Just when you

think about everything that he has done on executive authority, you know, there's no President in recent memory who has wielded the powers of his

office quite like President Trump has.

That has led to a record number of these nationwide injunctions. And now, the President, really seeing his hand freed up to try and carry those out

in new ways. Now, on this question of birthright citizenship, they didn't really rule on the merits of it. That will be to come. You heard Pam Bondi;

the Attorney General there, saying that she was confident that the Supreme Court would rule in their favor eventually.

[14:05:00]

I think in reality, there are a lot of questions about whether what the President did is constitutional, but that will all be decided later on. The

way it stands now after this ruling is that there will be a patchwork system in the states. Some states will recognize birthright citizenship,

some will not, which could lead potentially to some bureaucratic complications going forward.

But it is this question of the nationwide injunctions that the White House is very much celebrating this morning. You heard the President really

single out the justice who wrote the opinion, the majority opinion, Amy Coney Barrett singling her out for praise, which was interesting. We know

behind the scenes, the President had been complaining something -- somewhat about her rulings up until now.

Remember, he appointed Barrett to the court during his first term in office, now, the President really sort of relishing that choice. It was

something that she wrote in that opinion, that White House officials really were circulating among themselves earlier today when she wrote that, when a

court concludes the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power too.

And you hear in that echoes of something that the President has been saying really for the last several months, that these courts have been acting

outside the law, that these judges have been acting essentially as emperors. That's what the Attorney General referred to them earlier today

as. And so, it's certainly a win for the President that in a lot of ways vindicate some of the language and some of the complaints that he has been

making over the course of his presidency so far.

FOSTER: Kevin, I mean, this has only just happened. But if I can ask you about it, Trump calling off trade talks with Canada, apparently over this

tax that Canada has imposed on the U.S., is that right?

LIPTAK: Yes, and Canada had been set to put in place this tax on American technology companies, it's called a digital service tax. So, companies like

Google or Amazon, places that are based in the U.S., but obviously operate in Canada as well. The U.S. had been trying to get them to pull that tax

back.

Canada, I think sees that tax as something of leverage in these ongoing trade talks between the U.S. and Canada. The decision by the Prime Minister

Mark Carney and his ministers in Canada to keep that tax in place has clearly angered President Trump, and he's saying today that those trade

talks that had been heating up ahead of that early July deadline that the President has set to negotiate these trade deals, that those talks are now

off.

And I think this really does now throw into question how these massive trading partners will proceed. The President says that he will announce a

new tariff rate on Canada within a week, which I think sort of scuppers any idea that they will be able to come up with a trade deal. And we had seen

the President and Mark Carney seeming to get along quite well.

He was at the White House earlier this year. The President was in Canada just last week for the G7. They had appeared to have a much more cordial

relationship than the President had with Justin Trudeau. But now, clearly, all of that souring somewhat.

FOSTER: OK, Kevin, thank you a lot to digest today. Thank you, again. We're going to get back, though, to what Kevin was talking about, the Supreme

Court win for Mr. Trump, and for some perspective on what this means for the power of the presidency. We welcome Brown University Political Science

Professor Corey Brettschneider.

He's also the co-host of the oath and the office podcast. Thank you so much for joining us. I mean, from what Kevin was just saying, the sense you get

is that it's going to make the executive orders a lot more powerful. You know, the states, the courts in the states won't be able to object to them

in the same way. Is that right?

COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Absolutely. You mentioned my new podcast, "The Oath and the Office". The

reason it's called that is because the first few seconds in office, the constitution requires the President to take an oath to preserve, protect

and defend the constitution.

And what's been happening in this Trump presidency is that the district courts have been saying in cases like birthright citizenship, in cases like

the deportation to the Gulag in Venezuela, a third party deport -- third country deportations, you can't do that, that the constitution doesn't

allow it.

And what the court has done just now, the Supreme Court is, it stripped that power that is so fundamental to enforcing the constitution, a power

that really goes back to Marbury versus Madison, our seminal case about judicial review, close to the founding and said, no, that's no longer a

power. So, a real question remains about how to enforce the constitution now that this power of the district courts has been stripped.

FOSTER: But it makes the President more powerful, right? Because his ideas won't be blocked as easily.

[14:10:00]

BRETTSCHNEIDER: That's exactly the way to put it, that the President has all sorts of ideas about his absolute power. And so, he's done things that,

to my mind, and most legal scholars fly in the face of the constitution. And so, the further instance, in this case, the constitution says that if

you're born in the United States, you're a citizen, full stop.

Now, he wants to revoke that right of birthright citizenship, and the lower courts had said, no, you can't do that. Full stop, and had an injunction

stopped, his ability to do that. What happened today is they've aggrandized presidential power. They've built it up by stripping out the ability of one

of the other branches to stop him when he acts unconstitutionally.

We have to wait, essentially, for the Supreme Court to opine on these matters. What does it all amount to, that a President who is trying to

destroy the rule of law is not stopped anymore.

FOSTER: But ultimately, he hasn't undermined the constitution, has he? Because the Supreme Court made the final decision here.

BRETTSCHNEIDER: Well, I think the constitution is a text and has a meaning that stands aside, certainly, from what this President says it means. And I

believe, frankly, it stands aside from what any of the justices think it means. So, when it says, for instance, if you're born in the United States,

you are a citizen. The idea of birthright citizenship, I think it's plain as day to anybody who reads it.

And what I've argued in my new book, "The Presidents and the People", is that often actually courts and presidents have conspired to destroy

democracy. And the way that we've revived it, for instance, when it comes to the idea of equal protection being incompatible with segregation, is

that citizens have pushed back and have pushed for legislation.

So, that's what I'm looking to, for a way of saving the constitution through the congressional branch, through the people, now that the courts

have essentially joined with this President in abandoning it. And so, no, I don't think the Supreme Court has the final word on the meaning of the

constitution. I think it stands independent from what any president or any court says it means.

FOSTER: Right, Professor Corey Brettschneider, I really appreciate that, thank you. It's a complex issue, but it means so much, doesn't it? We're

going to go to some exclusive CNN reporting now on the Trump administration's secret efforts to get Iran back to the negotiating table.

Amongst them, an undisclosed meeting at the White House the day before the U.S. attacks.

The discussion of easing sanctions and the possibility of helping Iran access up to $30 billion for a civilian energy producing nuclear program

that does not involve uranium enrichment. This comes as the U.S. House gets a classified briefing on the U.S. strikes on Iran, a day after a classified

Senate briefing.

Meanwhile, Iran's President says Israeli strikes this month were a deliberate attempt to sabotage the diplomatic process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MASOUD PEZESHKIAN, PRESIDENT, IRAN (through translator): This attack took place amid indirect negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and

the United States regarding Iran's nuclear program.

The attacks by the United States and the Zionist regime on Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities, which were under the full supervision of the

International Atomic Energy Agency, are a gross violation of all international rules and an irreparable blow to the status of the nuclear

nonproliferation regime by a permanent member of the Security Council.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Let's get straight to our State Department reporter Jennifer Hansler in Washington. It's interesting, isn't it? To know that these

discussions were taking place, but a lot of people would have seen that as a positive thing as well, because the President has always talked about

trying to get to some sort of diplomatic solution.

JENNIFER HANSLER, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT PRODUCER: Yes, Max, it is interesting, and it's interesting to note as well that these discussions

were happening even during the military operations that were going on in Iran. Both Israel's military operations as well as in the lead-up to those

U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

We know that there was a secret meeting between special envoy Steve Witkoff and a number of gulf partners at the White House, just a day before those

U.S. strikes last Saturday on those three facilities. Now, there have been a number of proposals discussed and hashed out amongst all of these

meetings and conversations, back-channeling that include potentially investing up to $30 billion to build Iran's non-enrichment civil nuclear

facilities, which would allow them to have nuclear power in the country without enriching uranium.

They would then instead have to import that uranium. There was also discussion of potentially loosening restrictions to allow Iran to access

some $6 billion that are in a restricted account in another country. And there had been discussions as well of sanctions relief, though I should

note, Max, just a little while ago, the U.S. President lashed out on Truth Social, saying he had been considering that, but has now dropped it in

light of comments from the supreme leader.

[14:15:00]

Now, amongst all of this, however, there is still this really intensive effort to get Iran back to the negotiating table, and the President seemed

to suggest that he hopes because of the past two weeks, because of the military operations that were taking place there, that Iran is not going to

move towards a nuclear weapon and may instead be willing to engage in some diplomacy. Take a listen to what he said at the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I believe that -- and again, time will tell, but I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear any time soon. They spent over a

trillion dollars on nuclear and they never got it together. And nothing was moved from the site by the way. To do that is very dangerous. It's very

heavy material.

Those cars were most likely the cars of masons because they were pouring concrete at the top, at the hatch, as you know, the hatch going into the

nuclear site, they wanted to reinforce it, and they had some masons there pouring concrete -- by the way, that concrete was obliterated. It hit

exactly at the concrete.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANSLER: Now, Max, one interesting thing that we have been told was brought up, though we're not sure how seriously was considered, potentially even

having gulf partners help to rebuild Fordo, which is the very site that the President was talking about there, that the U.S. struck with those powerful

weapons on Saturday.

We don't know if that was seriously considered. A lot of these proposals were still in the works. But we do know that the President has sought to

restart those diplomatic conversations. The Iranians, however, have suggested there is nothing on the schedule right now. Max?

FOSTER: OK, Jennifer, thank you, in Washington. Israel's military said it bombed a Hezbollah target in southern Lebanon today. You can see huge

plumes of smoke from the blasts in this video. The IDF says it hit a site used to manage attacks on Israel. It says previous Israeli strikes had

damaged the site, but Hezbollah was trying to rebuild it, calling that a breach of last year's ceasefire.

Lebanon's president is accusing Israel of violating the truce by keeping up strikes on Lebanon. Doctors without Borders is calling for an end to a

U.S.-Israeli-backed aid distribution program in Gaza, calling it slaughter masquerading as humanitarian aid. It says more than 500 Palestinians have

been killed in recent weeks while seeking food.

The U.N. and major aid groups have refused to work with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, saying it forces civilians to access sites in

dangerous militarized zones. But the Trump administration says it's doing incredible work, and has distributed more than 46 million meals. The U.S.

just approved $30 million in new funding for the GHF.

Now, the limited aid isn't enough to meet the needs of Gaza's 2 million people. The Palestinian Health Ministry says two more children have now

died of malnutrition, including a three-month-old baby girl. Let's bring in Nic Robertson in Tel Aviv for more. What do we know, then, about these

awful deaths, Nic?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: As a result of a lack of food, very simply and not the first. I believe that the number now is

over 60 children who have died of malnutrition and the conditions inside of Gaza. And you only have to listen to the dire situation as described by

some of the U.N. agencies there, the World Food Program say that on Thursday, they had 60 trucks going in with food relief for people, 50 of

them, they say, were looted by gunmen and thieves in Khan Younis the day before, they had 70 trucks that were looted.

So desperate people for food in Gaza. And so chaotic is the situation, if you will, without adequate authorities, that food is quite simply being

looted and stolen from aid convoys. We also heard from the World Health Organization who have described the only very small limit in medical

supplies that they've been able to get in nine trucks, they say they got in yesterday.

That was the first convoy that they had in since the beginning of March. Again, that just underscores, if you will, the lack of even the medical

necessities to support people in the -- in these terribly -- in these situations where there is an acute lack of food, and that's how the World

Health Organization describes the situation in Gaza now.

The levels of food shortage there or of food insecurity are acute, they say across the whole of Gaza. But it's worse than that. They say that half a

million people there are in a -- are in a level of catastrophic food insecurity. So, to learn today that two more children had died really

speaks to that desperate humanitarian need that's evident in Gaza. Max?

[14:20:00]

FOSTER: And Nic, I also want to see -- ask you about this story I've seen in "Haaretz" today, horrifying reporting, really, saying the IDF soldiers

have been ordered to deliberately shoot unarmed Palestinians waiting for humanitarian aid. What do you make of that?

ROBERTSON: Yes, this is something that the "Haaretz" newspaper has reported, and they say that they've spoken to a number of officers and

soldiers in Gaza who were instructed by a commanding officer to fire at civilians, Palestinians on their way or waiting to get food aid. One

soldier described it as a killing zone.

Now, the IDF has absolutely rejected this. The Prime Minister and Defense Minister are calling it blood libels, and a story just to discredit the

IDF. But the IDF advocate general has tasked their internal affairs group that investigates breaches of the laws of war to investigate the

possibility, I hope you can hear me over that rather loud vehicle -- to investigate the possibility of war crimes being committed.

So, it is being roundly rejected by the IDF, by the Defense Minister, by the Prime Minister, but it does seem as if they are beginning a legal

investigation into what this soldier described as a killing field where Palestinians were shot dead and hit by mortar fire.

FOSTER: Yes, well, good there's an investigation at least. Nic, thank you so much. Still to come tonight, the feud over interest rates between

President Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell continues to heat up. We'll look at what could be in President Trump's unprecedented plans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Well, it could be a historic shakeup. President Trump considering naming a shadow effectively to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell,

that's despite Powell still having 11 months before his term ends. The announcement comes as Mr. Trump and Powell continue to feud over interest

rates, which the President has pushed to lower, and Powell has held steady.

If Trump makes good on his plan to announce a new Fed Chair nominee this far in advance, it would be a first in the Central Bank's 111-year history.

CNN's Matt Egan joins me now. And people are being very cynical as to why the President would want to do this, Matt. But what do you think?

[14:25:00]

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Max, the President is so frustrated with Jerome Powell that, yes, he could end up doing something extraordinary

here, right? The President has said that he could announce a replacement for Jerome Powell soon. The "Wall Street Journal" reports that, that

announcement could come as soon as this Summer.

But to your point, Powell's term, it's not up until next May, right? In this new cycle, that's like a decade away. Now, this would echo a plan that

Scott Bessent floated last year before he became the President's Treasury Secretary. Well, Bessent said you could name a Fed chair nominee so early

in the process that it ends up becoming a shadow Fed chair, and someone who can really counter the views of Fed Chair Powell.

Now, economists and former Fed officials, they tell CNN that this plan could really backfire because it would end up really just adding to all of

the uncertainty. And it would be an unprecedented move in the 111-year history of the Federal Reserve. I talked to Alan Blinder, who was the

number two official at the Fed back in the 1990s.

And Blinder, he told me, it would -- this is an absolutely horrible idea. He said if they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely,

this is going to cause confusion in markets. And of course, it's going to confuse markets, right? You would essentially have two Fed chairs at the

same time.

Both of them nominated by the President. One of them he loves, one of them he despises. I think investors would have a hard time trying to figure out

who exactly they should be listening to. And just to remind everyone why the President is so upset with the Fed chair, it's because of where

interest rates are, right?

Back in the President's first term, interest rates were very low. That's because inflation was very low. And I think, as you can see on that chart,

rates then had to skyrocket in 2022 as the Fed try to put out the inflation fire. They've come down a bit, but not dramatically so. And I think one

other point here that's worth mentioning is that some of the economists that I've been talking to, they've warned that if there's a shadow Fed

chair installed, it could end up being counterproductive, because it could make investors nervous.

And that would actually drive up long-term interest rates, which Max, is exactly the opposite of what the President wants.

FOSTER: Yes, he -- President Trump also made another interesting comment, that there was no inflation, which just isn't true, is it? I'm presuming he

meant low inflation, but he -- that's his reason for saying the Fed should cut rates. Can you just explain?

EGAN: Yes, the President has often said there's no inflation. And of course, that's not the case, right? There is inflation. But to his point,

there's been a lot of progress when it comes to the fight against inflation rate. Inflation in the United States was around 9 percent three years ago.

It's come way down.

And believe it or not, inflation is even lower today than it was when the President took office despite his sky-high tariffs, right? As of January,

the consumer price index was at 3 percent, as of May 2.4 percent, we got similar numbers from the Fed's go-to inflation metric, the PCE index today.

And so, that is why the President wants the Fed to cut interest rates. But economists are concerned that all of these tariffs are going to eventually

drive up the inflation rate. And it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the Fed to start cutting interest rates at a time when

inflation is heating up.

One last point here about this idea of a shadow Fed chair. I spoke to a former Fed official yesterday who told me that, you know, they wouldn't

even want to be named Fed Chair this early in the cycle. He said I wouldn't want to be named at this juncture because you'd be saying, I am Trump's

lackey. That would hurt my credibility on the street and in corporate America.

So, that is a good point here that if the President does try to name someone 11 months before Powell's term is even up, whoever he wants to name

is going to have to think twice about whether or not they actually want that job at this point, because it's going to undermine their credibility

potentially. And it could also make it harder, Max, for the new Fed Chair to really build consensus going forward.

FOSTER: I'm sure he'll find someone, Matt. But yes, it's like whether he can retain or she can retain the credibility in that situation --

EGAN: Yes --

FOSTER: Matt, thank you so much. Still to come tonight, the U.S. House finally gets its classified briefing on Iran a day after U.S. senators will

go live to Capitol Hill after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:33:03]

FOSTER: House lawmakers on Capitol Hill received a classified briefing on Iran earlier but it offered no new intelligence to support President

Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated. It comes a day after senators had their briefing but there was no clear consensus with

Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on how much the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): I believe that this mission was a tremendous success and that we have effectively destroyed Iran's nuclear program

today.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I think obliterated is much too strong word. There was serious and perhaps severe damage done, but as to how much

damage was done, we really need a final assessment.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I don't want people to think that the site wasn't severely damaged or obliterated. It was. But having said that, I

don't want people to think the problem is over because it's not.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I just do not think the President was selling the truth when he said this program was obliterated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: CNN's Annie Grayer joins us from Capitol Hill. It's pretty clear what's happening there. Isn't it the -- you know, the Republicans want to

move this forward and talk about diplomacy, whereas the Democrats really want to focus on what they see as a deception here.

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN REPORTER: That's right. I mean, there is this big question of how can Republicans and Democrats be in the same room, get the

same briefing from the same briefers and come out with such different opinions of what they heard. But the House lawmakers today heard from the

same briefers that senators heard from yesterday which is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John

Ratcliffe, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

And lawmakers in the House emerged from that briefing saying that Rubio really came out with a message of diplomacy, that he wants to meet with

Iranian leaders one-on-one, no more third-party negotiators, and really wants to emphasize diplomacy going forward. But -- that was a message from

House Speaker Mike Johnson. But lawmakers say the details of what that diplomacy looks like are pretty unclear.

And President Trump himself raised questions about how serious his diplomatic path is when he was speaking with reporters earlier today and

said that further attacks against Iran are not off the table.

Lawmakers also emerged from this briefing with more clarity and specifics around the intent of this mission which they say -- and this is coming from

Republicans where they say that the goal of the miss mission was to attack Iranians nuclear program and not necessarily the nuclear underlying

material. So. that is some more clarity there.

But more broadly we again saw the dynamics we s today playing out in the House as we did yesterday in the Senate where Republicans were lining up

behind Trump to say that the mission was a total success and Iran's nuclear capabilities were totally obliterated, while Democrats continue to raise

questions about those issues.

[14:35:51]

FOSTER: We won't really know, will we, until someone gets in there and actually can see within those bunkers to see how much of it was damaged?

But you know, Trump has raised this idea that he could attack again if it wasn't obliterated.

GRAYER: Well, yes. He raised again today that future strikes are not off the table which again draws more questions around how serious are these

diplomatic talks if the threat of further nuclear -- threat of further attacks from the U.S. is still on the table. So, that's just another

element here of the confusion around what comes next.

FOSTER: OK. Thank you so much, Annie Grayer.

Now, Iran's president says Israeli strikes on his country were a deliberate attempt to sabotage nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S. Masoud

Pezeshkian said if Iran hadn't responded, the situation could have escalated into a full-blown uncontrollable regional war. Israel's defense

minister today said he's ordered the IDF to prepare an enforcement plan to prevent Iranian nuclear and missile development. Israel's Katz said the IDF

strikes on Iran were only a preview of a new policy.

Let's get some perspective now from former State Department Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller. He's a senior fellow at the Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace. It is interesting, isn't it, this idea that Iran is putting out there that it's actually Israel that was scuffling

things and they were trying to get on with America to try to undermine Israel presumably?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: Yes. I mean, it's a nice talking point. I think the negotiations through five

rounds had not come to even what normal humans would regard as a breakthrough on the enrichment issue. So, I -- and frankly, I don't believe

in the -- in the story that a clever Israeli Prime Minister conned or maneuvered an American president into these strikes.

I think Donald Trump had agency here. I think included negotiations were not going well. I think he was impressed by Israel's strikes of June 12th

June 13, and I think he wanted -- he wanted some of that. As a consequence, we've got a new situation.

Look, I don't believe in the tooth fairy and I don't believe in transformations when it comes to the Middle East. I've been around and

worked in this region for the better part of 40 years. And it rarely offers up black and white solutions. It offers up gray. And I think even if you

concede and I'm quite prepared to that these strikes between Israel and particularly the U.S. have done grave damage to Iran's nuclear program by

no means it seems to me have they created the obliteration, the destruction of that program.

We bought ourselves time. The question becomes what do we do with it, what do the Israelis do with it, and perhaps most important, what do the

Iranians do with it.

FOSTER: Well the Iranians, you know, do you get the idea -- sense that they do want to have some discussions now. There apparently have been

discussions between the U.S. and Iran all along. I'm just wondering what the basis of those discussions would be because they're not talking about a

deal per se anymore, are they?

MILLER: No. And in fact, I think the former Iranian negotiate -- current Iranian negotiator, Araqchi, basically said it's too soon to talk about

things that are substantive. Look, frankly, I don't see how given the impasse right before the sixth round of negotiations two Sundays ago.

What's happened here is going to fundamentally alter or compel the Iranians to somehow reduce their position in negotiation on the right to enrich. I

don't see how right now you get around that.

FOSTER: And it is that key enrichment issue, isn't it, that you know, is the red line for both sides? Do you think Donald Trump could shift on that

or is there a way of him shifting on that to allow it in some way or perhaps in partnership with other countries? I mean what's the system he

could put in place there?

[14:40:03]

MILLER: Yes. I mean, look, Donald Trump has no core. He's very situational and transactional. Could I imagine coming up with a sort of consortium-plus

idea which somehow allows the Iranians to maintain the right of enrichment on Iranian soil? I think that's going to be very difficult even for this

president to sell. That essentially would validate the joint conference plan of action the president walked away from. It would also undermine the

notion that the strikes over the course of the last two weeks have fundamentally altered the trajectory of Iran's program.

I mean, look, they have -- the Israelis have killed 10 scientists, but the bench is deep when it comes to this issue in Iran. We don't know what

happened to the 800 pounds of highly-enriched uranium. We don't know whether the Iranians have advanced centrifuges in other undeclared

locations. I think there's no doubt that the program was set back, a year, two years. The question though again is how do you create a situation in

which you deter the Iranians over time their patient over time from developing -- continuing to develop the program. And right now, I don't

think anybody has a good answer for that.

FOSTER: OK. Aaron David Miller, thank you as ever.

MILLER: Thanks for having me.

FOSTER: Still to come, the defense makes closing arguments in the Sean Diddy Combs sex trafficking trial. A live report just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: The defense making its closing arguments in the Sean Diddy Combs sex trafficking trial. On Thursday, the prosecution told jurors Combs had

committed crime after crime and was able to keep on doing so because of his money, power, and influence. Combs is facing serious prison time if

convicted. He's pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

Areva Martin is an attorney and legal affairs commentator. She joins us from L.A. Thank you for joining us, Areva. I mean, it is interesting how

the defense is handling this. They're basically admitting that there were - - that Diddy had this swinger's lifestyle, he had a personal drug problem, but that doesn't put it into the category of a criminal enterprise which is

the bigger charge here, right?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Absolutely, Max. It's interesting what the defense is doing, using a lot of sarcasm, making a

mockery of the prosecution's case saying it's exaggerated narrative, calling Cassie Ventura at one point a gangster, saying that she's the

winner in all of this because she had settlements of civil lawsuits totaling about $30 million.

It's going to be interesting to see how this kind of argument lands with this jury. And in some ways I think making light of the seriousness of the

charges as well as so much of the horrific testimony that was provided during this trial.

[14:45:38]

FOSTER: They didn't have any witnesses, the defense, did they? And people are really, you know, confused about that. But is that a legitimate way of

handling a case like this?

MARTIN: Well, a couple of things that says. When we see defendants like Sean Combs who don't put on witnesses in a criminal defense case, sometimes

it's because their team feels so confident that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. Other times it's because they don't have any witnesses

that would have relevant testimony that would help advance their defense.

Hard to know in this case when you listen to the defense's argument what we've been able to glean from the reports coming out of that courtroom.

There's a lot of confidence by the defense team that they can sell this argument to the jury that Diddy was just a swinger, that he was in love

with Cassie, that she was in love with him, and that they had a lifestyle maybe foreign to some people but not criminal.

But that belies so much of the testimony that was put on by the prosecution. And again, interesting to see if jurors believe that this was

all just one big love story as the defendants would have you believe.

FOSTER: Yes, I see that the judge is talking about it going to the jury on Monday. Before that, we get a rebuttal, don't we, from the prosecution?

MARTIN: Yes. The defense said they had about three hours of closing argument. I think they have come near to that three-hour mark. The

prosecution gets the last word. They will have 90 minutes or so to re refute, to rebut what was said during the defense's closing. And I suspect

they will make a big deal out of how the defense tried to minimize the horrific and the graphic testimony that was presented during this trial.

Jury instructions will then be gone over by the judge. And Monday morning the jurors will probably begin deliberating what has been, you know, a

very, very riveting trial for six weeks or so.

FOSTER: It's tough for them though, isn't it? Because no doubt they would have been offended by a huge amount coming out in this trial as we all

were. But they were there, you know, seeing it in a lot more detail than we did. They got to separate that and the lifestyle that perhaps they might

not agree with to what the actual criminal offenses are here. How easy is that for them to do?

MARTIN: I think we underestimate jurors sometime. Although most of the jurors that are selected in trials in this country are not lawyers, they

don't have legal backgrounds, but they are able to use their common sense, and the prosecution reminded them that they can do so during deliberations.

And you don't have to have a legal background to know that there's been evidence in this case of coercion, that there's been times when the women

involved that testified did not want to participate in these sex acts, that prostitutes were brought in or male sex workers were brought in across

state lines, and that threats -- and threats of violence as well as threats of humiliation and ruining the reputation of these women were always

looming in this -- what the defense calls great love story.

FOSTER: OK. Areva Martin, we should start finding out. Just quickly, you -- how long do you think they'd sit? It could be weeks, right? But it could be

days as well.

MARTIN: Yes, I don't expect it to go weeks. The holiday is coming up next weekend. It's going to be a short court week. I'd be surprised if they went

longer than three or four days. So, we've may very well -- we'll have a jury verdict by next week.

FOSTER: We could find out next week. Areva, thank you.

Still to come, the parties continue in Italy. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos set to make it official with Lauren Sanchez. We're live in Venice with a look

at the celebrations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:51:56]

FOSTER: Finally, tonight, after the party, well, it's just time for another party to begin, I guess. The wedding celebrations continue in Venice for

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and fiancee Lauren Sanchez. The couple may be making it official tonight, but the schedule of events is being kept under

wraps.

Thursday night, a celebrity-packed celebration was held at the Madonna dell'Orto cloister. The three-day event is believed to include 200 guests.

The costs are estimated up to $55 million or 48 million euros.

Joining us from Venice from an apt location, the one and only Melissa Bell. I've seen you report from tanks before, driving them. Now, I'm seeing you

on a boat. Honestly.

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Max, this is -- this is much better. Let me take you on a little tour of Venice here. The Rialto

Bridge, for anyone who's ever been here before, like one of the most beautiful sites in Venice. And honestly, apart from the scorching heat, for

any of the guests that were part of the wedding -- and there only about 200 to 250 of them, the many tourists that have continued to mill around Venice

unfettered actually by the celebrations. It's been a very, very hot couple of days.

The sun is just setting over Venice. And what we understand is that on San Giorgio Maggiore, that very small island with that very ancient church

where the celebration is happening tonight, that ceremony is now underway. We've been kept well away as you can imagine. In fact, Max, we've been kept

away from all of the events throughout. So, like the many paparazzi that are here in Venice over this course of this three-day extravaganza, we've

been doing what we can to dart around on our very modest little boat here to try and see what we could.

Still, we understand that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are now man and wife since those were the timings. There's a gala celebration expected

afterwards on that very small island. And it is the events of tomorrow really that everyone is looking towards now, what we understand from our

affiliates is that Lady Gaga no less is going to be performing for the guests.

Now, originally it had been planned that these events would take place to the north of Venice in a very old ancient medieval cathedral, La

Misericordia. That had to be moved simply because of the protesters threatening to jump into the canal to prevent it from happening.

But let me just allow you to enjoy the sights and sounds of Venice at this hour as the sun sets, the sweltering heat dies down. It's been an

absolutely extraordinary couple of days. This city always is. So far, the protesters have not managed to get in the way of the celebrations. The only

thing that dampened proceedings was a huge thunderstorm late last night on the first day of the celebrations when the guests were gathered at the

Madonna dell'Orto, when the heavens opened and it was a wash out.

What appears to have happened is that 250 or so guests, these A-list celebrities invited at the wedding who by the way were made to sign non-

disclosure agreements, apparently abided by the signal not to use their Instagrams. So, all we saw of the celebrations were them trying to get onto

boats, the water filling their boats as they left last night, and not a great deal else. So, they respected the agreements with the happy couple

married as I say tonight.

[14:55:13]

There was a lot of speculation as well, Max, about whether Lauren Sanchez and Jeff Bezos had actually gotten married before they ever set foot in

Venice. That was some of the reports in the American Press. Certainly, we spent some time speaking to Italian officials. There you have Venice Town

Hall. We met yesterday with the deputy mayor and the mayor. They told us that in fact unlike George Clooney here a few years ago, there would be no

civil ceremony here in Venice. Instead, we believe that these ceremonies have been entirely just that ceremonial.

Still, Lauren Sanchez will walk away from this officially Mrs. Jeff Bezos. And that continues to attract not just the paparazzi but the protesters. We

expect that there will be more tomorrow. We understand that there'll be a major protest tomorrow evening from the main train station at the center of

Venice to try and attract attention to what they say are the main problems, ecological concerns. The fact that the cost of living here has soared and

that it's very difficult for ordinary Venetians to actually live in Venice anymore. Max?

FOSTER: I literally feel like I was on the boat punting for you as that piece went on. Enjoy the evening. I mean, you can't actually get into the

event, so you might as well be out on the water. Thank you so much.

Thank you, everyone, for watching tonight. Stay with CNN. I'll have more with "WHAT WE KNOW" coming up next.

END