Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Says Gabbard Is "Wrong" On Iran Nuclear Intelligence; Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil Released From ICE Detention; Vance Attacks Sen. Alex Padilla, Incorrectly Calls Him "Jose." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 20, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Israeli Military says it operates to minimize harm to those seeking aid, while maintaining the safety of its troops.
The United Nations warns, the entire population of Gaza, more than 2 million people, face impending famine without a drastic increase in aid.
Paula Hancocks. CNN. Abu Dhabi.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Well, that's it for us.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight, President Trump undermines his handpicked spy chief, and dismisses a European effort to broker peace, as missiles are fired from Iran at Tel Aviv, once again.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Right now, as we come on the air tonight, there are new waves of attacks happening between Israel and Iran. I want to get straight to the ground in Israel tonight, where CNN's Jerusalem Correspondent, Jeremy Diamond, is reporting for CNN.
And Jeremy, tell us what you've been seeing tonight, in terms of interceptions and what exactly has been fired Israel's way.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, about an hour and a half ago, we saw the latest barrage of ballistic missiles coming from Iran. It appears that there were no direct impacts from a barrage of about five missiles, according to an Israeli military official.
But earlier in the day, or I should say, the previous day, we saw in the afternoon, quite a significant barrage that showed, once again, the destructive power of these ballistic missiles.
In a barrage of 20-plus ballistic missiles, one of them making a pretty significant impact in the City of Haifa. Very near to Haifa's port, we saw a scene with heavy destruction, dozens of people who were injured, including one who is in serious condition tonight, two who were moderately injured.
And all of this is coming, as President Trump is now talking about this diplomatic window that he is trying to give Iran, to reach a deal, with zero enrichment of uranium, which has been a red line for the Iranians.
But here on the ground, in Israel, the question is really what happens as they wait for that potential diplomatic agreement, or for President Trump to greenlight a U.S. strike on that Fordow nuclear facility in Iran.
And what people are saying here is that what is continuing are those barrages of ballistic missiles.
And in Iran, of course, those Israeli strikes are continuing, which have also caused significant casualties.
And so, that's put the Israeli prime minister in a bit of a strategic bind here, as he needs to determine now, whether to go at it alone, in terms of trying to destroy that Fordow facility, or should he wait for President Trump to make a decision for the possibility of diplomacy to give a way, or for the President to decide to carry out those strikes.
Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes. Jeremy Diamond, we'll check in with you, on the ground, in Israel, as the news warrants tonight. Keep us updated.
And also tonight, as President Trump is facing that decision, that Jeremy mentioned there, it's a potentially legacy-defining decision on Israel and Iran, and it's one that is critically dependent on the best and most comprehensive intelligence.
But it comes as the President finds himself at odds with the nation's top spy chief, with zero hesitation, when it comes to contradicting Tulsi Gabbard. in increasingly public fashion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well then, my intelligence community is wrong.
Who in the intelligence community said that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
TRUMP: She's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Now, that is the second time, in as many days, that the President has undercut Tulsi Gabbard, and her sworn testimony, from just three months ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon?
TRUMP: I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That's what the President told me on Air Force One, on the way back from Canada.
And now, Tulsi Gabbard is defending herself by accusing the media of taking her out of context. She said, in order to create division, saying, now, and I'm quoting her, "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly."
Even that statement, saying that it depends on, If Iran decides to move forward, doesn't align with what we are hearing from the President, right now.
But given Gabbard asserts that she was taken out of context, when she is quoted by the reporter today, and by me the other day. Listen for yourself to what she has testified about Iran's nuclear capabilities, just back in March.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Nowhere in that testimony does Gabbard say what the President is saying today, that Iran is weeks away from having a nuclear weapon. However, it is certainly an assertion that we have heard from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now speaking on a near-daily basis with President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear. Was absolutely clear that they were working, in a secret plan, to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly. They would achieve a test device, and possibly an initial device within months, and certainly less than a year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Director Gabbard's efforts to align herself with the President aren't surprising. She was one of his most enthusiastic backers in the 2024 election. That's why -- part of why he picked her to become his top intelligence adviser, where she serves now.
But for years before that, she was a longtime critic of the foreign policy establishment. Even of President Trump, at times.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABBARD: President Trump, your Iran strategy has been ill-advised and very short-sighted. You need to change course now and get back into the Iran nuclear agreement before it's too late. Set aside your pride, set aside your political calculations, for the good of our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When President Trump nominated Gabbard, as his Director of National Intelligence, the thinking was, and inside -- his world, that she'd be different than the other intelligence officials that he clashed with in his first term, those who Trump derided as passive, naive, and once told them to go back to school.
But now, again, we're seeing the President at odds with his spy chief. And our sources tell us that he was also angered, when Director Gabbard posted this highly-produced video where she was warning about the threat of nuclear war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABBARD: As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: After that video was issued, the President told people that he thought it was alarmist, and he criticized his Intelligence chief over it. Of course, that happened in private. Though, as we are seeing play out on the tarmac today, he is now not hesitating to do so in public.
My lead source tonight is Beth Sanner, the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence.
And it's so great to have you here, because you know what this position holds, and what the job description entails. When you see the President and the nation's top intelligence official not being on the same page, what is the impact of that?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: It is not good, right?
Because we are, at a moment, not just related to Iran and Israel, but think about all the different conflicts that we have going on in this world, from military to economic and a lot in between, with cyber, and other kind of gray zone. And not to trust your deputy -- your Director of National Intelligence, and to actually be having this debate in public, is really worrisome.
Because the intelligence community that -- these are the only people, who are going to go into that room, and maybe say something that the President doesn't want to hear. So, I'm concerned about that.
But I also want to say that Director Ratcliffe, the CIA Director, does seem to be able to communicate, right now. So, we shouldn't believe that the President is getting no intelligence.
COLLINS: Well, and I think what stands out to me, in terms of Trump undercutting his spy chief. I mean, we've obviously seen this happen before. He did it when Dan Coats was the DNI, after he testified on Capitol Hill.
But we've also seen Trump overall, undercut the U.S. intelligence community, as he did, when he stood next to Vladimir Putin, in 2019, in Helsinki, and essentially sided with Russia, over U.S. intelligence assessments, about their interference in the election.
But I think what is striking is that they picked Tulsi Gabbard, he picked Tulsi Gabbard, thinking that she would be--
SANNER: Right.
COLLINS: --that she would be different, that they would be aligned in moments like this.
SANNER: Right. Yes. But she is showing -- I mean, I think that that video was not to -- cleared through the White House, to let them know, and have the President not be blindsided. I don't -- I really don't fault her for the testimony at all.
[21:10:00]
And in fact, what concerns me is that actually what both of them are saying can be true at the same time. We are missing the nuance here. And they're talking past each other. And unfortunately, they're doing that in public, which means that they don't have a good relationship privately. And at some point, for the good of the country, that needs to change.
COLLINS: Well, and in terms of that, I think it makes people wonder, well, is Iran on the verge of having a nuclear weapon? Should we be concerned? SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: The President is giving them two weeks.
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: But he's also saying they're weeks away from--
SANNER: Right.
COLLINS: --from being able to have one. I think that is the question here is, what does the intelligence actually show here?
SANNER: Right. Well, look, I think that what the intelligence shows is, number one, Iran has never been closer to having a nuclear weapon than now. Fact, right?
Number two, they -- the IAEA has said that they can no longer guarantee that Iran is pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. They don't know. That's the international community.
We know Iran is conducting research that will shorten the amount of time it takes for them to produce a nuclear weapon. They would be fools not to want a nuclear weapon. The only reason they have this fatwa against producing a nuclear weapon, taking that last step and actually saying, Go, is because once they say, Go, they know that we're going to bomb them, if we find out.
So, like, I think that there's a lot of clarity here about what Iran would like to do. There's a lot of clarity about what they're trying to do. The lack of clarity, I think, is about how quickly that could be done. And to me, the difference there is the intelligence community is saying, If you want that weapon that actually is going to be put on a missile, and delivered perfectly in a warhead and a reentry vehicle, that's going to take months to maybe a year.
COLLINS: Yes.
SANNER: That's what Netanyahu said.
But they could produce a crude weapon sooner than that, weeks.
COLLINS: Yes. Of course, key questions about what that looks like.
Beth Sanner, thank you for laying that out with your expertise.
And while Iran and Israel are still intercepting each other's drones, as we were seeing tonight, missiles as well, the talks that happened in Geneva today, they were highly anticipated between Iranian and European officials, did not yield any breakthroughs, as really, President Trump is just dismissing the efforts altogether.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the Europeans help at all in talking with the Iranians? TRUMP: No, they didn't help. No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President--
TRUMP: Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to -- they want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Whether it's the United States or Europe, Iran says they are not going to stop anything, until Israel -- they're not going to agree to anything, until Israel has stopped its military actions that we've seen playing out for well over a week now. Something that Iran's President told CNN Fred Pleitgen, President Trump can do something about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: President Trump says he wants to give diplomacy a chance. What diplomacy do you think can happen now?
MAJID FARAHANI, IRANIAN OFFICIAL: United States, President Trump can easily stop the war by only one telephone to Israel's. But I don't know why he didn't do that. We believe to all parts of diplomacy. So, I think if Mr. Trump ordered to Netanyahu, to stop the attack, the diplomacy can be started again easily.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Well, Trump was asked about that comment there, and whether he'd be willing to make that call, and here's what he told reporters, this afternoon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Iranian Foreign Minister, this afternoon, said, if the U.S. is serious about negotiations, that you would call up Israel and request that they stop their airstrikes. Will you make that request?
TRUMP: Well, I think it's very hard to make that request right now. If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing. But we're ready, willing, and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My bipartisan congressional sources tonight are two congressmen who just got back from a trip to the Middle East.
California Democrat, Jimmy Panetta.
And Iowa Republican, Zach Nunn.
And it's great to have you both here. Congressman Nunn, I'll start with you, just given the meetings that the both of you have had with representatives from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE. There are questions about who can step in here to help broker this. Congressman Nunn, do you believe it is really solely the United States here, playing that role?
REP. ZACH NUNN (R-IA): Kaitlan, Jimmy and I just came back. And you're absolutely correct. I believe the United States is the paramount lead in being able to help bring this to a de-escalation point, something most Americans want, something we heard from all of our Arab partners, and something I think Israel ultimately wants.
[21:15:00]
But I will note this. The President is absolutely correct, when he says Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. Iran has a history of attacking Americans, U.S. troops around the region. Three proxy groups, one of which took out a hit on the President, this summer, were they not stopped.
We have a real threat situation here. And I think for the Iranians to now, play the victim card here. We forget the last 46 years, when they took Americans hostage, killed 300 in Lebanon, 10 more American servicemen, like myself, as well as the just Shia militias that they've been funding throughout the world. They're taking potshots at carrier strike groups, and could be a direct threat to the United States tomorrow, if left unchallenged.
COLLINS: Well, Congressman Panetta, I mean, that has been kind of the context here of the President's decision-making process. I do think there's a real question of whether or not this two-week window is going to yield anything on the diplomatic front. How are you feeling about that, after just getting back from your visit?
REP. JIMMY PANETTA (D-CA): Yes, it seems that the President has a policy of strategic ambiguity when it comes to Iran. Unfortunately, I don't think it's as thought through as its strategic ambiguity we're showing towards Taiwan. And we're seeing that, based on the fact that the President seems to be leading from behind.
And we see that with the negotiations. The negotiations that were leading up to this conflict show that it was just about, like the JCPO -- JCPOA.
We see it with the intelligence and that the conflict between his DNI, as you so accurately portrayed in the beginning of your show.
We're seeing it in this military action, and that Israel is leading, and now the President has to make a decision as to whether or not the United States wants to go in.
Despite that, though, I do believe that it is diplomacy that can get us through this. Yes, Iran has to negotiate with the United States. And two, Iran has to give up its nuclear capability. It has to give up its nuclear enrichment capability. COLLINS: And I should note, the two of you, the rest of your colleagues in the House, are going to get a classified briefing on Iran, in the coming days.
Congressman Nunn, if that briefing reasserts this assessment that we heard from Director Gabbard, which is that Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon, would it change your mind about the President's path here, of what course he should -- of action he should take?
NUNN: Yes, look, Jimmy and I are both intelligence officers. We come at this from something that everybody in the public can see right now.
There is no reason for Iran to be enriching uranium at this level. There's no reason to build a bunker, 30 stories below ground. There's no reason to not allow the IAEA in here. There is no reason to continue to sponsor terrorism at $80 billion a year, to directly attack your enemies, unless you are aggressively moving in the direction of trying to create a nuclear weapon.
Now look, the head of U.S. CENTCOM, General Kurilla, has already made this very, very clear, that there is a direct threat here at Fordow. And candidly, Kaitlan, there's only one country in the world that has the ability to deliver and penetrate 300 feet into the ground, to destroy a nuclear reactor like this. No one wants to see a forever war. I'm a veteran of this. I do not want to see boots on the ground in Iran.
But I know that this classified briefing is going to tell us what we basically already realized. Iran is a bad actor. Iran has had the opportunity to come to the table. President Trump has offered the Ayatollah, the ability, time and time again.
You have a two-week window here, where the Ayatollah continues to fail to show up for meetings. The responsibility here is on the Ayatollah to help the Iranian people have a better future, and instead is trying to save his regime as it continues to threaten the entire world.
COLLINS: Congressman Panetta?
J. PANETTA: Yes, no, look, once again, I agree with my good friend and my travel buddy, Zach, on this. What we're seeing, right now, is regard -- it's basically, the President trying to figure out what he has to do. And ultimately, he'd like to rely on the intelligence of Israel. He's trying to.
But what we're seeing is that this type of diplomacy that the President is trying to do, obviously, is something that he's got to get to the table. He's got to go there and basically say, Look, we're willing to negotiate with you, but there's got to be zero percent enrichment capabilities.
We heard that over and over from the leadership in the three countries that we traveled to. Let me tell you. They made it resoundingly clear that they are absolutely fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran. And we are too. That is an existential threat, and something that we need to take seriously.
COLLINS: Yes. It's always good to agree with people that you are traveling with.
Congressman Jimmy Panetta, Zachary Nunn, it's great to have you both here tonight. Thank you.
NUNN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next here on THE SOURCE. Hear what the President had to say, when he was asked about what is different about the moment that the United States is in with Iran right now, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and why his version of what he said at the time is a little different than what the tapes reveal.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, as he weighs U.S. military intervention in Iran, the President is comparing what's happening now with what the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, there were no weapons of mass destruction. I never thought there were. And that was somewhat pre-nuclear, you know, it was, there was the nuclear age, but nothing like it is today.
And it looked like I'm right about the material that they've gathered already. It's a tremendous amount of material. And I think within a matter of weeks, or certainly within a matter of months, they were going to be able to have a nuclear weapon. We can't let that happen.
[21:25:00]
I was very much opposed to Iraq. I was, I said it loud and clear, but I was a civilian. But I guess I got a lot of publicity. But I was very much opposed to the Iraq war. And I actually did say, don't go in, don't go in, don't go in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That's not exactly what Trump is recorded saying in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq.
In his 2000 book, quote, "The America We Deserve," the President argued that a military strike in Iraq might be needed, writing, "I'm no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us."
And when Howard Stern asked Trump, in September 2002, if he was for invading Iraq, he responded, and I'm quoting him now, Yes, "I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly." And the day after the invasion began, Trump offered this assessment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I think Wall Street's waiting to see what happens but even before the fact they're obviously taking it a little bit for granted. And it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint, and I think this is really nothing compared to what you're going to see after the war is over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It was not until a year into the war that Trump came out against it. That's when he told Esquire magazine, that the situation was a quote, Mess, and that he would have never handled it that way.
My sources tonight are:
The former Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, who served under President Obama.
And David Sanger of The New York Times.
And Mr. Panetta, just looking at this and what you see the President saying now. Obviously, I think what happened in the Middle East previously has affected a lot of politicians talk about it these days, and a lot of lawmakers. I wonder what you make of what you heard from President Trump today.
LEON PANETTA, DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRES. OBAMA, CIA DIRECTOR UNDER PRES. OBAMA: Well, yes, he continues to kind of rewrite history with regards to what happened in the past.
The reality is that, that Iraq has always served as an example of how the United States can make a terrible mistake, by going in and trying to nation-build, as we tried to do in Iraq. That went on for years. I was Director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense, and Iraq was still going on then. So, it was a -- it was a mistake, a terrible mistake.
And it's a lesson that the President needs to learn. Because if he -- if he goes in and attacks Iran, then there's no question that the United States would be in a regional war, at that point. And the whole question of whether or not the United States ought to be in another Middle Eastern war will be something that everybody will pay attention to.
COLLINS: Well, Mr. Secretary, just to follow up on that. What do you say to people that I hear from, in Trump's orbit, who when we're having this discussion about what the President is considering, say, Well, this is a strike that we're talking about. This isn't boots on the ground, that is up for discussion right now.
L. PANETTA: Well, yes, it would be a strike. It would be a military strike. And it would -- it would involve, without question, retribution by Iran. Iran would be striking at our forces in the Middle East, and U.S. lives would be at stake. So make no mistake about it. It may be an airstrike, but it would definitely involve the United States in a war with Israel (ph). Period.
COLLINS: With Iran.
And David, when you are talking to your sources about this, as we're now in this period of within two weeks, the President says he will make a decision here. Doesn't mean he'll go two weeks before he makes that decision, as he clarified today. What is the latest you've been hearing internally?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think that the two weeks gives two opportunities, Kaitlan. One of them, of course, is for some diplomacy to happen.
I can't say that any of us emerged from the meetings that took place in Geneva today, convinced that the Iranians were really getting ready to change their tune, even after seven days of pretty overwhelmingly brutal bombardment that killed many of their officers, and took out many of their facilities, including some, but not all, nuclear facilities.
But I do think that the big question, going forward is, do these two weeks also allow the President some time, to prepare for a bigger and deeper military strike. It'll get the carrier group that's on its way right now into position, puts him in a better spot to deal with that inevitable Iranian retaliation that Secretary Panetta was referring to just now.
[21:30:00]
And it may give the Israelis, a moment, to try their own sabotage of the Fordow plant before the U.S. might have to go and use the bunker- buster.
COLLINS: Yes. But David, on that point--
SANGER: So, it gives the President, a lot of options.
COLLINS: Can I ask you, David, on that point? Because the President was asked today, if he thought Israel had the capabilities. He basically said, No, only the United States does. But then he also said, Maybe it's a point where the United States doesn't have to get involved.
Just -- how do you square those two statements?
SANGER: The only way I can square them, Kaitlan, and I'd be interested to see what Secretary Panetta thought, is that he believes that the Israelis have a covert or a commando raid concept in mind.
They've been studying Fordow, for years now. It was first made public, its existence, in 2009. And that they may have another way to go do it. They could put a pulse into the electrical system. They could cut off the electricity. They could get inside the mountain.
But the most efficient way, of course, would be to use the American bunker-buster. But I don't think this is going to be as clean and easy as the President would like to think that you go in, you drop your bunker-busters, and you leave.
COLLINS: Yes. Obviously, a lot of questions about what this decision actually looks like, and the outcomes here.
David Sanger. Secretary Panetta. It's great to have both of you and your expertise here tonight. Thank you so much for joining us.
And up next here tonight on THE SOURCE. A pro-Palestinian activist who was detained by ICE for three months was just released. What he had to say tonight. And we're going to be joined by members of Mahmoud Khalil's legal team.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We have some breaking news tonight, as Mahmoud Khalil has just made his first comment since being released tonight, after three months of being held inside an ICE detention facility, in Louisiana.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD KHALIL, PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST: Although justice prevailed, it's long, very long overdue. And this shouldn't have taken three months.
There's no right person that -- who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide, for protesting their University, Columbia University, that is investing in the genocide of the Palestinian people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Khalil has been freed on bail, after a federal judge ordered his release from immigration custody. It's a case that has been at the center of President Trump's effort to deport protesters on college campuses.
My sources tonight are members of Mahmoud Khalil's legal team. Marc Van Der Hout. And Esha Bhandari.
And it's great to have you both.
And Esha, I want to start with you, because you were part of the hearing that happened in New Jersey Federal Court today. And we heard from a spokesperson, for the Department of Homeland Security, who was saying that judge made the ruling -- that made the ruling didn't have the authority to do so. What's your reaction to that?
ESHA BHANDARI, ATTORNEY FOR MAHMOUD KHALIL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ACLU SPEECH, PRIVACY, AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT: The district court absolutely had the authority and the obligation to consider the constitutional claims that Mr. Khalil raised.
In our system of government, the judiciary plays an important independent role to make sure that fundamental rights, like freedom of speech and due process, are protected, and that's exactly what happened today.
COLLINS: And can you tell us, Esha, how he's feeling tonight.
BHANDARI: Thrilled to be returning home. But I think, as you heard from him, the process took a long time.
And the government never should have subjected him to detention for even a single day, simply for expressing his political beliefs. And that's a right that everyone living in America holds, the ability to express your political beliefs without worrying that government agents will show up some day, and lock you up far away from your family.
And that -- you know, that has happened. That will never be undone. But today's ruling is important and critical to show everyone else as well, that rights can and will still be--
COLLINS: Yes.
BHANDARI: --protected in the United States.
COLLINS: And Marc, you've been working on the case of his, in Louisiana, where that judge denied his asylum request and a bail hearing. How does that complicate the release today or conflict with that ruling? I think some people might look at this and say, Well, what do those two mean together?
MARC VAN DER HOUT, ATTORNEY FOR MAHMOUD KHALIL: Kaitlan, the immigration judge's decision today, which he issued right in the middle of our argument in the district court proceeding today, and I don't think that was coincidental, just shows that the immigration court system is controlled by the Justice Department, controlled by the Executive branch, and the immigration judge was, I believe, under marching orders from the Department of Justice.
They were a defendant in the criminal -- in the immigration case in the federal court, and they were ordered not to proceed on the Rubio determination, that the district court judge declared unconstitutional.
And yet, she ignored that order today, in denying a hearing on bail for him, and in denying a waiver which he was eligible for, because she still relied on that unconstitutional ground.
COLLINS: Yes.
VAN DER HOUT: And it just shows the fallacy in the system, there needs to be an independent immigration court system, and this showed it today.
COLLINS: Well, and Marc, can I ask you about what we're hearing from the White House, accusing him of lying on his residency application. They say he misrepresented his employment history on that form. How do you respond to that? Is that true?
VAN DER HOUT: It's completely bogus, completely not supported by the evidence.
[21:40:00]
When we had a cross-examination in court, in immigration court, after he explained everything, and he answered the questions correctly, the immigration attorney for the government did not even cross-examine him. In their closing statement, they didn't make any argument, whatsoever, that he should be deported under that. And yet, the immigration judge still sustained that charge.
And there's no basis for that whatsoever. He accurately stated when his employment, and there was no basis for the charge, whatsoever. And that's really important for people to know, because the administration is putting out really false statements about that.
COLLINS: Marc Van Der Hout. And Esha Bhandari. I have a feeling we'll be talking a lot, continuing, going forward. Thank you for joining us on this breaking news tonight.
VAN DER HOUT: Thank you, Kaitlan.
BHANDARI: Thank you.
COLLINS: Also here with me is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And Elie, when you look at this, the Trump administration doesn't agree with court rulings, half the time. And so, but my question is, if -- do they have a point to argue this? What does that look like from here?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, they don't have a point.
And it's really important to understand. What we call the Mahmoud Khalil case is really two separate cases playing out on parallel tracks. You just illustrated that for the audience.
On the one hand, there's an immigration case. Immigration judges, immigration courts, those are all over in the Executive branch.
But separately, what Khalil did here is he filed what's called the habeas petition in our regular courts, what we call are our Article III courts, federal district court judges. That was Ms. Bhandari's part of the case.
And if there's a conflict between the two, as we see now? District Court judge says he has to be released from custody? Immigration judge says, No? The district court absolutely has to trump, no pun intended, has to take precedence over the immigration court. As the District Judge recognized today, there is a long history, going back hundreds of years, that our regular courts take precedence. And if there's a conflict, that's how it has to be.
There was a moment today, when it looked like the administration was going to fight that.
COLLINS: Yes.
HONIG: And that could have led to a real standoff.
COLLINS: Can I get your take on something else tonight, just on the legal front while I have you? It's not related to this, but to Trump, and to a degree.
Today, he was calling for a special counsel to investigate former President Biden, on claims of fraud that obviously aren't true. He posted that a special prosecutor must be appointed. Our sources are telling CNN that the DOJ is not going to do that, but they will have a U.S. attorney overlook this instead.
What does that -- what would that look like?
HONIG: OK, couple things.
COLLINS: Is that possible?
HONIG: Couple things majorly wrong with this.
First of all, this is not what any kind of outside prosecutor should be appointed for. You don't appoint an outside prosecutor or a U.S. attorney to chase down wild political fantasies about 2020. In our history, going back to Watergate, we've only seen that kind of prosecutor when there's some actual nugget of potential criminality. That's number one.
Number two, if you are going to bring in an outsider? This is why we have special counsel, so at least the public has reason to think this person might be credible and independent. If Donald Trump appoints a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney to look into this? A, guess how it's going to come out? And B, why should anybody have faith in the credibility and independence of that investigation?
COLLINS: Elie Honig, as always--
HONIG: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: --two very different ranges there. But thank you for always being able to break it down for us.
Up next here. Vice President, JD Vance, you saw in Los Angeles today. He sent a message visiting an ICE Command Center, after protests that we saw there, and also slamming the Governor, over his immigration policies. Governor Newsom just responded. Here's what he said.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Vice President, JD Vance, is on his way back to Washington, from Los Angeles, right now, after he was there on the ground, defending President Trump's decision to take over the National Guard, and bypass Governor Gavin Newsom, by deploying them during those protests. And as he was speaking to reporters tonight, JD Vance took aim at California Democratic senator, Alex Padilla, after he was forcefully removed from that press conference that was being held by the Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question. But unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't the theater. And that's all it is, you know. I think everybody realizes that's what this is, it's pure political theater.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Of course, when the Vice President said Jose Padilla, it raised some questions there. We did just hear from a Vance spokesperson, a few moments ago, who said, quote, He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.
My political source tonight is former New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio.
And it's great to have you here.
Do you think the Vice President's comment there was an accident? Or, how do you read that?
BILL DE BLASIO, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: It's never an accident. It's never an accident. It's--
COLLINS: It's -- when politicians mostly speak, I don't know, sometimes it's an accident.
DE BLASIO: No, I'm saying when the -- when they're systematically trying to demonize immigrants, and paint Democrats as chaotic, it's not an accident. But they should be ashamed of themselves.
Senator Padilla was trying to ask a legitimate question about why people's basic rights were being taken away, including American citizens. And he had every right to try and get an answer from the Homeland Security Secretary. And the way they handled him? I mean, have you ever seen that in other administrations, a United States senator being roughed up like that? People should feel that's a very slippery slope.
COLLINS: Well, and I should note that Senator Padilla served with then-Senator Vance together. It's not like they don't -- they're not familiar with each other.
But also, when he was in L.A., obviously, this administration has been heavily critical of Governor Gavin Newsom. He's been critical right back. And while he was on the ground, after Vance accused Newsom of encouraging violence, Newsom said, Since you're so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face? Let's debate. Time and place?
Do you think that's like -- is that the way a Democratic governor should be handling the administration? What's your view of this?
DE BLASIO: I think that's smart of Gavin Newsom, certainly for his political future, but also to get Democrats back on the offensive. I think Democrats, at the grassroots, are saying, Fight more. They're saying to the leadership, like, Get a pulse, fight back. And Newsom has been doing a good job of that.
[21:50:00]
Now, I would also say, because I was in this situation, taking on Trump as a Mayor, and also dealing with unrest after the murder of George Floyd? In Democratic cities, mayors and governors better get ahead of disruption, get ahead of any violence and protest very quickly. Don't give any context or space for them to try and bring in the National Guard.
COLLINS: Well, and speaking of mayors, we are on the verge of a Democratic primary, here in New York for New York City Mayor.
DE BLASIO: Yes.
COLLINS: Today we saw Jim Clyburn, who has been a kingmaker in politics, at times, come out and endorse former Governor, Andrew Cuomo, as we are getting closer and closer to Tuesday. I wonder what you made of that, just given the role that Clyburn could have, the influence he could have on New Yorkers, what's your view -- your view of that?
DE BLASIO: I have the deepest respect for Jim Clyburn, but he does not move votes in New York City.
And in the end, what's happened in the last few weeks is an incredible, tightening up of this race. Now, I went through a race where I was -- I was in fourth place, about six weeks before the primary, in 2013. This has even been a--
COLLINS: Really?
DE BLASIO: Yes, absolutely.
This has even been a faster change. It looked like Andrew Cuomo was going to walk in. Now, Zohran Mamdani, in particular, has made this a real horserace. And don't count out Brad Lander, Adrienne Adams. There's a number of candidates who have been surging lately. So, I think we've got a fascinating contested primary, on Tuesday, and then we may see a contested general that we never saw coming.
COLLINS: And who do you plan to vote for on Tuesday?
DE BLASIO: Well, I'm not going to share that with you, Kaitlan. But I'm going to say, it won't be Andrew Cuomo.
I'm telling everyone, Don't rank Andrew Cuomo. Here's a guy who had to resign in disgrace as governor. He's unfortunately corrupt. He lies with great regularity. And he would set New York City back.
And we've got plenty of options who are clean as a whistle and have a progressive vision for this city. People have a lot to choose from.
COLLINS: He's doing quite well in the polls. We'll see what the voters decide.
Mr. Mayor, great to have you. Thanks for joining us.
DE BLASIO: My pleasure.
COLLINS: Even though you'd never tell us who you're voting for.
DE BLASIO: Nope.
COLLINS: Up next. From the G7 to the White House, we have a fascinating behind-the-scenes look for you tonight, at the moments that are leading up to what could be a legacy-defining decision for President Trump.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As the world watches to see what President Trump will decide on U.S. military involvement in Iran. Here's some behind-the-scenes look at a significant week that kicked off at the G7 Summit in Canada.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ON SCREEN TEXT: MONDAY, JUNE 16.
TRUMP: They have to make a deal. And it's painful for both parties, but I'd say Iran is not winning this war. And they should talk, and they should talk immediately, before it's too late.
COLLINS: I flew with President Trump, on Air Force One, yesterday. He arrived late last night in Calgary, to head to the summit with world leaders. He had an entire day of meetings scheduled for tomorrow, including a meeting, I should note, with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But the White House has decided to cut this trip short, so the President can return to Washington tonight, citing exactly what is happening inside the Middle East.
I'm told by a White House official that the President has directed his National Security team, that remains in Washington, to convene inside the Situation Room. And of course, this comes after the President posted earlier, on Truth Social, that the millions of people who live in Tehran should evacuate immediately. It's not clear exactly what prompted the President's warning to people who live there.
ON SCREEN TEXT: TUESDAY, JUNE 17.
COLLINS: You've always said you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon. But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one? Because Tulsi Gabbard--
TRUMP: Very close.
COLLINS: Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon.
TRUMP: I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.
COLLINS: Yes, our colleagues in Israel have confirmed that there was another conversation, between President Trump and the Israeli prime minister.
What's facing the President is a critical decision, and that is whether or not to get the United States more militarily involved, between what's happening between Israel and Iran.
So far, for months, the President has sworn off any kind of military action that the United States would take inside the Middle East. But now, after efforts to pursue a diplomatic deal didn't go anywhere, we are hearing from sources that the President is open to the idea of having the United States assist Israel, and using U.S. planes and bombs to take out Iran's nuclear program.
ON SCREEN TEXT: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18.
COLLINS: We just got called into the Oval Office. We had about a five- minute heads-up before we were ushered in, as the President was meeting with the FIFA president and the Juventus soccer team. But of course, a lot of the questions focused on what is unfolding with the situation between Israel and Iran.
Can you walk us through what contributed to that change, how you got to where you are, in making your decision now?
TRUMP: Well, I think it started the first night. I mean, the first night was devastating, and it really knocked the one side off, as you know. Devastating. Devastating evening, day, and it pretty much proceeded that way. I have a meeting in the War Room in a little while.
COLLINS: Does that mean you haven't made a decision yet on what to do?
TRUMP: I have--
COLLINS: Or haven't--
TRUMP: I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final -- I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, you know, because things change. I mean, especially with war. Things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other. War's -- war's very bad.
ON SCREEN TEXT: THURSDAY, JUNE 19.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.
That's a quote directly from the President for all of you today.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: At the end of this two weeks, though, there is going to be a concrete result here, Jake. Either the United States does strike Iran, or they do not. And the question is, how the Israelis take that, what that looks like. The Prime Minister said today that he does believe they are fully capable of achieving their goals in Iran, with or without the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Thank you so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" is up next.
