Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Fight Over Trump's $1.8 Billion Fund Forces Senate Marathon Session; Sources: John Bolton To Plead Guilty To Mishandling Sensitive Info; Trump: U.S. Will Win War With Iran "Militarily Or On Paper." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 04, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --tonight, in 15 minutes, I'm going to talk to her on my streaming show, my companion show to my podcast. All There Is Live is the streaming show. You can watch and join in the conversation, in just 15 minutes, at CNN.com/AllThereIs. Once again, that's 09:15 p.m., only watchable at CNN.com/AllThereIs. I hope you join me over there in 15 minutes.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, we're taking you inside the battle playing out right now on Capitol Hill to kill President Trump's $1.8 billion DOJ fund, and whether or not those efforts will succeed.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air tonight, we're watching a cliffhanger play out on Capitol Hill this evening. Sources say right now it's anyone's guess how this will end.
There was a lot of noise, a lot of drama throughout the day. It's not unusual here in Washington. But basically two major things are happening at once.
One is that Republicans are trying to muscle through what could be the last major legislative win that they get before the midterm elections, which is $70 billion to fund President Trump's immigration crackdown throughout the rest of his term.
At the same time, as you're watching those senators there on the floor, Democrats and a few Republicans are trying to do what the President would not do, when I asked him yesterday inside the Oval Office, which is, slam the door shut on his $1.8 billion Anti- Weaponization Fund.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead, or is it on hold?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's -- I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know.
The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. It was something I was -- I didn't make it, but I was -- I heard that, I thought that was the greatest thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He deferred to the lawyers. But tonight, lawmakers are trying to force amendments to that immigration bill that would block that fund from ever happening.
My colleague, Manu Raju, caught up with someone like Republican Senator Thom Tillis, one of the key senators, who is determined to kill this fund.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Why is this so important to get this, that get the -- to target the weaponization fund here? When the President--
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Well, you know, even the--
RAJU: Is it because the President has kept this option open?
TILLIS: Well, even the A.G. has said that it's done, so I don't know why we just don't codify it.
It takes that argument away from the D -- the Democrats. That's a win- win in my opinion.
(CROSSTALK)
REPORTER: --that the President didn't think that this weaponization fund had been put to bed. I mean, does Todd Blanche can continue this up again--
(CROSSTALK)
TILLIS: Well then -- you know what? And the right hand and the left hand need to figure out what the hell they're doing. Because I heard a guy who just got put forth as A.G. say it's dead. And if it's dead, we should be able to codify that, and be done with it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, several other Republicans have echoed those sentiments there, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.
Even at this late hour, though, as we come on the air, right now, it's still unclear how all of this is going to play out. And with the fate of this fund hanging in the balance, and Republican anger at the acting Attorney General for greenlighting it in the first place playing out, President Trump has announced that he does intend to nominate Todd Blanche to lead the Justice Department on a permanent basis, setting up a potentially bruising confirmation battle ahead.
Tonight, we start with my congressional source, who is the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee. Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
I mean, as we're watching what's playing out in the Senate right now. If there's not enough Republican support there, to stop the President from potentially moving forward with this fund at a later date that could compensate his political allies, what do you think happens next?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, we've got strong bipartisan majorities, both in the Senate and the House, to reject this highway robbery from the federal taxpayers. People do not want to see a $1.8 billion slush fund for Donald Trump's private militia, and it was good to hear Thom Tillis hanging tough like that. And so, we hope whatever comes out of the Senate will include language that we can quickly adopt in the House to preclude it.
I have introduced legislation both to shut down this particular fund, which still exists. It's only been put on hold because of the federal district court in Florida, which has said, No way, come on back and explain why this is not a fraud on the court and a fraud on the country. We need to shut it down from Congress, which appropriates money, and we should make very clear not $1 can go in this direction.
[21:05:00]
And I introduced a bill today to say that the President should not be able to use any fund. They think it's just about this one checking account they've set up. It's about any fund -- that the President should not be able to use $1 of federal tax money to settle a lawsuit that he brings against himself because, this is basically Trump versus Trump. And what do you know? In Trump versus Trump, Trump wins and takes home a lot of money.
And so, we're saying that the President cannot take any money in his settlement with the federal government while he's president. And in terms of all of the other stuff that they're trying to deal themselves, this massive immunity for the President, and his family, and his businesses, that's got to go through a court. It can't just be the Department of Justice who says, You guys get a get-out-of-jail- free card--
COLLINS: Yes, but can I--
RASKIN: --for the rest of your life.
COLLINS: But to just -- you said that there's strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. Right now, every effort to block this in the Senate has failed. Do you think it's ultimately going to succeed over there before it comes to the House?
RASKIN: Well, I guess it depends on whether the senators, and specifically the Republicans, are willing to live up to their rhetoric because, they have spoken out very strongly about it, and we know that the acting Attorney General saw hell to pay when he went over to the Senate, and they just said, What are you doing? You're trying to destroy any Republican chances of holding on to the Senate, and they're doing incredible political damage.
The country is opposed to this. I mean, if they can deal themselves $1.8 billion, Kaitlan, why not $1.8 trillion? They're just making up the numbers as they go, but that goes back to the bypassing of Congress as the appropriator of federal money. We spend months and months, debating exactly where every dollar should go and how much all the agencies and departments are funded, and they can't just make up this fund for Donald Trump's political foot soldiers.
COLLINS: So, right now, you mentioned your fund, which I believe is called the BLANCHE Act, which stands for Block Lawless Agreements and Nullify Corrupt Handouts and Emoluments. Is that right?
RASKIN: You got it.
COLLINS: OK. So--
RASKIN: It took us a while to come up with it. But it is the BLANCHE Act.
COLLINS: I could see--
RASKIN: Because it all comes back to the Attorney General.
COLLINS: Yes, I could see why that did take you a minute.
But you have that. Republican Brian Fitzpatrick also has a bill to block this fund. He's vowing to do so. It's different from yours. Are the two of you going to work together potentially here? Have you talked to Republicans about this?
RASKIN: Oh, absolutely. I'm -- you know, I'm supporting that legislation. I'm supporting a lot of different efforts. Remember, this is a moving target because the Trump administration and Blanche and his team keep telling the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, and the insurrectionists, We're going to find a way to get you your money.
So, yes, we got shut down on the Anti-Weaponization Fund, at least so far, by two different federal judges, but they're saying, Well, we'll just go and use the Judgment Fund. Well, the Judgment Fund is for actual legal verdicts against the United States, or for the settlement of real litigation that's taken place.
Now, they've tried to use it in a political way, and that's what they did with Trump's disgraced former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, who lost in court. He lost his claims in court, and then they settled with him for $1.25 million. And it's the same situation with Carter Page.
And they gave $5 million to Ashli Babbitt's family. And her death was obviously a terrible tragedy, but two different federal investigations said that the police had acted reasonably and lawfully under the circumstances, as they were repelling an attack on -- an attack on Congress and on the Vice President. But they just wrote her a check for $5 million.
You know how much they've given the Capitol police officers, like Michael Fanone, or Sergeant Gonell, or Harry Dunn? Zero.
COLLINS: Yes.
RASKIN: They've given them nothing. There's nothing for the ones who have been wounded, injured, post-traumatic stress syndrome.
COLLINS: Yes.
RASKIN: You know, their families have been losing money, and so on. Nothing.
COLLINS: Can I ask you because you -- you know, I mentioned there that the President is now moving forward with nominating Todd Blanche as the actual Attorney General. Right now, he's Acting.
You told my colleague, Laura Coates, you thought that the compensation fund would improve his chances of being nominated. Do you think it could hurt his chances of being confirmed though by the Senate?
RASKIN: Oh, yes, well, it's dramatically improved his chances of being nominated. It obviously worked. He passed the test for Donald Trump in putting forward this outrageous ripoff of the taxpayers for convicted criminals. But it should completely destroy his chances in the Senate. For all of those senators who have been denouncing this scheme, there's your guy right there. Todd Blanche is the one who's been pushing this from the beginning.
[21:10:00]
And when are they going to talk about the 150 police officers who were wounded and injured, many of them driven out of police work, disabled, disfigured for life? They don't want to talk about it. They back the Coup, not the Blue. And so, they shouldn't be able to get away with any phony pro-police rhetoric because, they're not there for the police when the police are under attack. And I know, a lot of officers I've been hearing from, who are really furious about this. So, we have separate legislation to actually create a fund for the families and for the injured and wounded officers.
COLLINS: Congressman Jamie Raskin, we'll see what happens on the Hill. Thank you for joining us tonight.
RASKIN: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: I'm also joined by our CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elie Honig.
Elie, when you look at this. I mean, Todd Blanche got confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General, so White House officials have argued why should he not be confirmed as the Attorney General. How much do you expect his confirmation hearing, though, to focus on the issues that have happened since then, which is the Epstein files investigation, and this proposal, and then the rescinding, for now, of the Anti- Weaponization Fund.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well I think you just hit on what will be issues 1a and 1b in Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing.
It's hard to even imagine what Todd Blanche was thinking, just about two weeks ago, when he unveiled this Anti-Weaponization Fund. I don't know who he thought that might appeal to. I don't know who he thought might get behind that. And the proof of that is that Republicans in the Senate and the House immediately rejected this.
So, the larger relevance of these two incidents is not just that they were horrible ideas, politically. But I think what they do, Kaitlan, is they cast real doubt about Todd Blanche's judgment. Does he have the judgment to be Attorney General? Does he have the core competency? The mishandling the Epstein files, I think, goes to the question of competency. And the outrageous decision to unleash and then defend the slush fund, I think goes to his core issues of judgment.
COLLINS: One thing that stood out to me from Pam Bondi's deposition that she did, with the House Oversight Committee, the transcript of it was released today.
And everyone was saying, Well, she's blaming Blanche for the handling of the Epstein investigation.
I mean, it is true, though, that he was in charge of that, it was his office that was handling it. She was not really that involved in the day-to-day, from what we were told, long before she was fired as the Attorney General.
But she also said in there that she found out about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer from the media, from public reports.
HONIG: Yes, it was--
COLLINS: I mean, does that strike you as unusual?
HONIG: It was surprising, reading through that transcript, just how out of the loop Pam Bondi was, and just how in control of the Epstein files case Todd Blanche was.
We did see that during the actual events. You could see that Todd Blanche was the one sort of running the day-to-day. But for Pam Bondi to not even know why the Bureau of Prisons, which is within the Justice Department, why they transferred Ghislaine Maxwell, is really inexplicable.
And Kaitlan, that's another, by the way, tangential issue to the Epstein files that Todd Blanche is going to have to answer. Why did you spend two days, nine hours, face-to-face with Ghislaine Maxwell, questioning her, and then immediately after that, she gets this substantial benefit? That alienated, I think, a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, and he'll have to answer for that too.
COLLINS: I mean, what are -- what do you think are the key questions for senators to ask Todd Blanche? If you're a senator, and you're questioning him, and judging whether or not to confirm him, how would you view that?
HONIG: My first question for Todd Blanche would be, Should the Attorney General be independent of the President, yes or no?
Now, Todd Blanche has this thing that he likes to do when he's asked about this. He'll reach into his jacket pocket, take out his pocket constitution, and he'll say, Show me where it says in this Constitution that the Attorney General stands on an island, the Attorney General, separate and apart from the President.
And he's right, technically, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that. But that approach is completely contrary to generations of DOJ leaders of attorneys general, Republican or Democrat.
And if your view, as attorney general is, I am here to do the President's bidding? That is going to fundamentally change the core character of the Justice Department. And, to me, that's a major problem.
So, he needs to be asked straight up, should the A.G. be independent, yes or no?
COLLINS: Elie Honig, we'll see if any senators ask that, unless you're elected by the time this confirmation hearing happens.
Up next for us here on THE SOURCE.
HONIG: Not running.
COLLINS: Not running yet.
We have new details on some reporting that we first broke here on CNN. My legal sources will join me to talk about what it means, now that we have learned John Bolton is expected to plead guilty in his federal indictment.
Also, we're just getting response in tonight from Maine Democratic Senate candidate, Graham Platner, on a report about his dating history and what he has to say about that. We'll let you listen to it.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, in a CNN exclusive report, my colleagues, Katelyn Polantz, Hannah Rabinowitz, and I report that John Bolton, who served as President Trump's National Security Advisor in his first term, before becoming an outspoken critic of his, has reached a plea deal over mishandling sensitive national security information.
John Bolton is expected to plead guilty to one felony count of illegally retaining sensitive information, and has agreed to a fine of more than $2 million.
While the President has long called for Bolton to be prosecuted over his 2020 memoir, where he's highly critical of the President and his decision-making. This case was actually first opened under President Biden, after suspected Iranian hackers breached John Bolton's personal email. Someone representing Bolton reported that to the FBI, and federal investigators then discovered what were described as diary- like entries that contained top-secret information, they said, from Bolton's time serving under President Trump.
[21:20:00]
Bolton was then indicted with 18 charges brought by the Justice Department, the Trump Justice Department, last year. He pleaded not guilty to all of them and said that he was a victim of the weaponization of the Trump Justice Department. A conviction, I should note, on one count of illegal retention could come with a sentence between zero and 60 months in prison. He'll appear before a judge later this month on his guilty plea.
My legal and national security sources are here tonight. They are:
John Miller, CNN's Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst.
And Tom Dupree, who is the former U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
And Tom, when you look at this, obviously a judge still has to approve this. What's your read on this plea deal?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think it reflects a compromise and it reflects an acknowledgement by both sides that they face substantial risk if this case went to trial.
From the Justice Department's perspective, the risk was of an acquittal. President Trump obviously has been frustrated in his attempts to prosecute his enemies. This gives him a conviction. The Justice Department also knows that prosecuting classified -- mishandling of classified documents cases can be long and complicated. Just ask Jack Smith.
From Bolton's perspective, this avoids the risk of conviction on multiple counts. It limits, apparently, his possible monetary exposure. And the big question is whether it will limit his possible time served. That's the one question I have from all of this is, is the Justice Department going to recommend a particular sentence of incarceration? Are they going to recommend a range? Ultimately, it will fall to the district judge to make that call.
COLLINS: Yes.
I mean, John Miller, when you see this, obviously it would be him pleading guilty to a felony. What do you make -- and what do we know about the diary-like entries, and the information that they contained?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, the diary-like entries were being sent over a regular internet email service to family members, his wife and daughter, and they were kind of culling those together. It appears he already had a book in mind because, if you read the communications that go back and forth, they were assembling this storyline. The problem is twofold.
One is, at the time he was sending it, over an unclassified server, this is echoes of Hillary Clinton and the private servers and classified information, it could have been intercepted by any number of hostile foreign powers.
The other is when he was publishing the book, the pre-publication process was not fully completed, and there was disagreement within the administration as to whether it was a threat to national security to publish that at the time.
But either way you look at it, there's two other questions that come up, which is one, if he wasn't an ardent critic of President Trump, would this case have been brought? And two, if he wasn't guilty, would he have pled guilty? And the answer to both is, probably apparent.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, on that note, The Wall Street Journal had published an editorial tonight, and they talked about other cases that dealt with classified information in a realm like this.
When you look at it, Tom, it says, Sandy Berger, who was the National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton, hid documents from the National Archives in his socks, but paid only a $50,000 fine and received two years of probation. Director Petraeus, over at the CIA, who shared defense information with his biographer got two years' probation and a $100,000 fine.
I mean, obviously, when you look at that, those numbers are a lot different and the penalties, than what we know John Bolton is at least prepared to plead guilty to.
DUPREE: That's right. And look, that is something that will not escape the attention of the district judge.
When judges make these sort of sentences, they look at comparable cases. They try to see how has the Justice Department prosecuted similar cases in the past. And so, the fact that people who did, at least arguably, the same type of stuff got suspended sentences or probation, that sort of thing? That will be very significant to the judge.
At the same time, you can see the Trump Justice Department pushing hard for at least some sentence of incarceration on John Bolton. My suspicion is from the Justice Department's perspective, if all Bolton gets is probation, they will view that as a loss.
COLLINS: Yes.
Well, I mean, on that front, John Miller, when you look at this. I remember, obviously, covering when all this happened in the first term, as John Bolton was writing his book, and it was coming out, I believe, right around when Trump's impeachment was happening, when word of what was going to be in the book first came out in The New York Times. I mean, there were questions about the fight. Because John Bolton said he got it cleared with the people who need to clear these kinds of books, the pre-publication reviews, and that that happened.
When you look at it in hindsight, though. I mean, how do you define this when it's what someone was writing in their diary, basically?
MILLER: Well, first of all, when you get to pre-publication review, you know, I have seen battles where people showed the CIA that things that they were saying were classified also appeared on their website. A lot of these processes lack logic.
In this case, he went to the head of Records in the National Security Council, Ellen Knight. They worked together for a period of months, culling things out of the book that she thought could possibly damage national security.
[21:25:00]
And somewhere before the completion of that process -- and she submitted a letter to the court, at some point, saying that she did not believe there was anything there that would damage national security. But at the end of that process, it appears he walked away from it, it wasn't completed. At least that's the government's argument. So, some of that is up in the air.
COLLINS: Yes. And he obviously--
MILLER: But when they did the -- when they did the search warrant, and they went through -- this is a separate subject from what's in the book. When they did the search warrant about what they found in the house, according to the indictment, they found things that were secret, top secret, top secret SCI, and higher classifications that were not properly possessed, not properly stored. And when they looked at how they were sent, sent over unclassified channels to uncleared people, so this snowballed.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see, obviously, what the judge decides.
John Miller. Tom Dupree. Great to have both of you here with us tonight.
Up next. There is new reporting tonight from The New York Times that adds to those troubling allegations against Democrat Graham Platner in his Senate bid in Maine. But also his new response just in tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:30:00]
COLLINS: We're following breaking news tonight, after The New York Times published a report on troubling allegations that are centered around the Maine Democratic Senate candidate, Graham Platner, and his dating history.
Of the six women that The Times spoke with about their romantic involvement with Graham Platner, three of them described what The Times says is quote, Volatile and toxic relationships that were unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching. The women described Platner as charming and charismatic, but also demeaning to women, and quote, in at least one case, even physically threatening.
One of the women, Lyndsey Fifield, says that she dated Platner from roughly 2013 to 2015, and she told The Times that he quote, "Regularly grabbed her by the shoulders -- sometimes hard enough to leave marks," and that quote, "During one argument," Platner "twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn't get out, telling her to remain there until she was 'calm.'"
Now The Times article also includes allegations of heavy drinking, infidelity, other demeaning behavior toward women.
And in a statement, in response to that report to CNN, Platner says, and I'm quoting him now, "Throughout this campaign, I've been open about what was a very dark period of my life where I struggled with undiagnosed PTSD, too often self medicated with alcohol, and was a far from perfect boyfriend. I take responsibility for all of that, and wish I had been better. Any characterization beyond that is false, and I believe, politically motivated. I'm not proud of who I was then, but I am proud of the work I've done since, and the movement we are building in Maine."
A few moments ago, we heard from Graham Platner accusing that woman of lying about her allegations of violence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER, (D) MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: There are some allegations in this piece that I just want to be kind of unequivocal about, are simply not true. Anything alleging physicality, anything alleging that I knew what my tattoo was, these are the statements of someone who is politically motivated.
In this piece, there's a lot about my struggling, not being a good boyfriend, certainly self-medicating with alcohol, and I've been very upfront since the beginning of this campaign that, that was a pretty dark period of my life after I came back from my combat service, and that's what that combat service -- that's what that kind of life looks like. And so, there are things in this that I absolutely will take responsibility for, and have been speaking about openly for months now. But those serious allegations are just not true.
CHRIS HAYES, HOST, "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES," MSNBC: You did not grab her by the wrist, you did not put your hands on her shoulders, you did not push her into a room that you closed the door on? She's--
PLATNER: No.
HAYES: --she's lying about that, is what you're saying?
PLATNER: Yes, that is not true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: In response to all of this, my political sources are here tonight.
And Paul Begala, let me start with you. Just in terms of first, your reaction to this report from The New York Times, and what you thought about what Graham Platner had to say about it tonight.
PAUL BEGALA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, Kaitlan, Democrats take these kind of allegations very seriously. You know, a few weeks ago, Eric Swalwell was the leading candidate for governor of California. Much worse allegations came out about him. He dropped out of the race, he had to quit Congress. So, Democrats take this stuff very, very seriously.
I will say, as someone -- I've not been a Graham Platner supporter. I was for the Governor, Janet Mills, before that. I saw him on Chris Hayes' show, and I thought he did a very good job because, he was blunt. He struck me as candid. He seemed to be candid.
And I think a lot of Mainers are going to look at this and say, The one allegation that approaches physicality is from a Republican activist, a 151 days before the election. I just think a lot of people are going to -- are going to say, That just doesn't seem fair.
I could tell you, who this won't bother is Susan Collins because, she voted to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who was accused of far worse of assaulting the babysitter against her will. Or Donald Trump, who was adjudicated by a court in New York of sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, and Susan Collins votes with him all the time. So, I just don't think that's -- this is an area where Senator Collins really should want to take her campaign.
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: Kate Bedingfield, I mean, as you read through this report. The woman, I mean, she was asked about her work history and if people will see the allegations through that lens. She said she would be making -- that she would be saying all of this regardless, even if he was running as a Republican.
She also told The New York Times this about her time dating Graham Platner. She said, quote, that he told her that rape was about power. She said it was something that stuck with her throughout the years, and that he said this a lot. If anybody ever broke in here, I would rape them, she recalled him saying, saying that he added it would not be in a sexual way, not in a gay way, that he was like, I would rape them to show that I'm dominant.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, FORMER BIDEN WH COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think coming forward with these kinds of allegations is an incredibly hard thing to do, and I think dismissing her as a partisan is problematic, frankly.
I think what we've seen from Graham Platner is he hasn't been truthful throughout this campaign. He's been asked multiple times, point-blank, is there more coming? He said categorically, no. That didn't turn out to be true.
I think if you look at the reporting in The New York Times story, you know, he was -- he was categorically denying tonight that he knew that it was a Nazi tattoo, which, of course, he has said in the past. There was reporting on The New York Times story, the woman has contemporaneous texts amongst her friends where she says he has a Nazi tattoo before he got into the race.
So, look, obviously this is a -- this is a race that Democrats need to win in order to flip the Senate. As a Democrat, I am dismayed that this is the candidate that we are putting forward here. There's obviously an enormous amount of baggage.
The primary, by the way, isn't actually until Tuesday. So, voters have other options. They actually could still support Janet Mills, if they wanted to.
But look, I think we have to, as Democrats, call out behavior that we find unacceptable in people in our party, just as we do people in the Republican Party.
The only other thing I will say quickly, though, is, you know, I hear Republicans sort of, you know, almost gleefully jumping up and down about how Democrats need to be aggressive about calling this out. And I would like to see all of them turn that same energy on Ken Paxton. So, the hypocrisy coming from Republicans on this, I think is, is very hard to stomach.
COLLINS: Doug, how do you see it?
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, Kate, you'll be glad to know, I've called out Ken Paxton, and Donald Trump, and other Republicans, for years and months, and I'll be consistent with that.
But the rape comments are really what strike me here, and I say that because after -- I think Paul's right, some Democrats have, you know, have been forthright on this.
But a lot of them, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, have basically used the same rhetoric that Ken Paxton supporters do, or people who defended Donald Trump the day after the Access Hollywood tape came out. I was at a political event in North Carolina that day, and I heard a lot of the same rhetoric: We need to focus on what's important, and these rape comments and these other allegations -- they're not important.
They are important. And after the interview, I watched former Senator Claire McCaskill on MSNBC, and she defended Platner. I think if there's anybody who understands the political damage that these kinds of comments can do, it's Claire McCaskill. She won her last re- election because she was running against a guy named Todd Akin, who made terrible comments about legitimate rape, whatever the heck that means.
We had other candidates, like Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, we can go down a list, of terrible Republican candidates who -- Alabama Senate candidate, Roy Moore, that have cost Republicans so many seats, the State of Georgia.
If I were a Democrat, I'd want to learn from that and say, We have to avoid this disaster, if winning the Senate and holding Donald Trump as a check and balance is as critical as they say they are. This is one hell of a roll of the dice.
COLLINS: Yes.
Bernie Sanders is someone who has been a big supporter of Graham Platner's. And when he was on, the other night, we asked him if they were worried about anything else coming out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Are you worried about anything else coming out about him?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): I don't know. All that I can say is, look, I'm sure he's not a saint.
And by the way, let's not forget, he has acknowledged -- this guy served four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. He went through some very bloody and horrible situations. He has acknowledged that he came back with PTSD. He's had -- he had his share of problems. You know, I just think -- and by the way, I've met his wife, Amy, who is a very lovely young woman. She is standing by her husband.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, Paul, when you hear that answer from Bernie Sanders, what do you make of it?
BEGALA: Yes, well, Bernie is clearly in Platner's camp. Again, I said, I haven't been a supporter of his. He's not my wing of the party. He's much more Bernie's wing of the party.
I'm just saying, as an honest analyst, when the accusation is coming from Republican activists, a lot of voters are going to go, Come on. They just are, they're going to be skeptical. Kate doesn't like that, but that's how voters, I think, are going to process this. It is important. It really is.
But the goal here, if you ask me, for both parties ought to be to make it about the voters' lives, not the politicians', right? You got rural hospitals closing all across Maine. You got premiums shooting up there. You got 57,000 Mainers who lost their health care. That's really going to affect folks' lives.
[21:40:00]
It's not that we should ignore this, and I -- I was very strongly supportive of Eric Swalwell getting out of the governor's race and getting out of the Congress. I mean, these kinds of things are absolutely serious. They really are. Let's see how he handles them. I'm just saying tonight, I thought his interview went well for him. COLLINS: Yes, I do think it's a good point in terms of, Let's see what voters in Maine think. I mean, they're obviously the ones who are making the decisions here. A lot of senators keep deferring to them when being asked about this new report, and everything else.
AOC, I thought, had a really interesting response when she was asked by Manu Raju about this yet, and her language seemed to be very careful.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Should Democrats abandon Graham Platner after these messages came out, these sexually explicit messages that he sent to women?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): You know, I haven't waded into that primary. I don't believe the primary has occurred yet. So, I would kind of, you know, again, I don't wade in on that. I haven't waded into that race. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, Kate, when you hear that, I thought that was notable.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, look, it -- I obviously don't speak for AOC, but she clearly is uncomfortable with what she's heard.
And I think that it is -- again, now, look, I am -- I am more than sympathetic to the fact that we are living in Donald Trump's America. We are living in a Republican Party -- living with a Republican Party that for the last decade has rolled over and let Donald Trump, and the way he talks to women, the way he conducts himself with women, be the dominant force in their party.
So, I understand when Democrats say, What the heck, like we got to -- we have to allow Republicans to roll on with this behavior, and we have to police ourselves in a way that's going to put a Senate seat that we desperately, maybe, put a Senate seat that we desperately need to win in jeopardy.
But I just -- I think that when you are asking some -- when you're asking somebody to vote, for someone who's going to represent them, if you cannot trust what is coming from that person, and I -- my personal view is that Platner has not been forthcoming about all of this, and when these kinds of allegations are being made in a credible way, I don't think that's something that Democrats should embrace.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, we'll see obviously what happens there. The President, I mean, he's even brought up -- in the Oval Office today.
Doug, on another note, as our Republican who is here with us tonight.
HEYE: Yes.
COLLINS: The President posted about this America250 event. There have been so many events leading up to it. We saw basically every artist drop out of it after saying they realized it was going to be so politically divisive. Say Vanilla Ice, I believe.
He said he has now rescheduled it to what he is calling, A Rally to end all Rallies. He said today, We don't want singers with no talent, but big fees to put you to sleep, we've told them all to stay home. And he says the rally is now going to feature the U.S. Army Band, and the Armed Forces Choir, the Marine Band... PLUS a fine and highly dignified gentleman known as, President DONALD J. TRUMP.
HEYE: Donald Trump's making this all about him? Who would have thought?
This is the least surprising thing that we could have imagined, especially when, I don't know, why we wanted to hire Milli Vanilli, when it's only one half of them and they were lip-syncers. That aside, what did we expect was going to happen? This was always going to be about Donald Trump, just like reflecting pools are, and all the other capital-T Trumpy things are.
But when you get out of the country, they're not talking about reflecting pools. They're talking about what they just spent on tomatoes and on beef and everything else in their life that is more expensive. And Trump would help Republicans by talking about those things.
COLLINS: Doug Heye. Kate Bedingfield. Paul Begala. Great to have all of you here tonight. Thanks for joining us.
Coming up here on THE SOURCE. The President is also arguing that a deal with Iran might happen this weekend. Of course, we've heard that before. And it also comes as Tehran is saying no progress. We're going to speak to a key national intelligence source about not just that, but also the President's controversial pick to be the Director of National Intelligence on an acting basis.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the status of the ceasefire between the United States and Iran is up in the air, after both sides spent the day sending contradictory messages.
Iran says there's been no significant progress in the talks between the two of them.
But when the President was asked about this, inside the Oval Office, this afternoon, he said this about the negotiations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You're going to find out what the deal is, but the main parts of the deal is they can't have a nuclear weapon, the Strait will open immediately. You know, it's going to open immediately.
I think we're doing very well, but we're going to see if -- we're going to win one way or the other. We're going to win on paper or we're going to win militarily. One way or the other. It's going to be militarily or on paper.
REPORTER: I want to ask you about this report that you would only restart the conflict with Iran if they killed U.S. troops. Is that your redline for ending the ceasefire?
TRUMP: If they killed?
REPORTER: U.S. troops.
TRUMP: What does that mean?
REPORTER: That you would restart the war with Iran if they killed U.S. troops.
TRUMP: Well, it would be a good reason, I'll be honest with you. Yes, if they killed U.S. troops, I think I would do that very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
What does it mean when you hear win the -- win the war on paper or militarily. To you. Genuinely.
[21:50:00]
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Genuinely, what it means is he doesn't know. Number one. We don't really have a good way out. We're kind of nowhere in the negotiations right now. On paper means that there will be a negotiation.
But I think that some of the other comments that he's made, you know, maybe not going after the nuclear material, using special forces, making that decision indicates to me that he understands that this cannot be solved militarily.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, and when we hear that. You've also had the Secretary of State on the Hill this week, going back and forth with Democrats on the state of the war. He's been arguing the war is over.
The blockade is still in effect, which is classified as an act of war.
How do you see those two statements?
SANNER: I think a lot of what Rubio is saying about the war being over is about the -- is about the legislation in trying to declare the War Powers Act, and of course, if it's over, then that kind of legislation is moot. Marco Rubio is still a, you know, a creature of the Senate, he understands these rules, and I think that's part of it.
But the other part of it is I think that for the President it really is over, and what he wants to do now is be done with it, and he understands he has to do that through a negotiated settlement. But he can't do that without the leverage of military force. The only problem is, is that the Iranians keep upping the ante. And when we do something, it's not a tit for tat. In the past, Iran was always satisfied with, like, Yes, we'll just kind of do back what you did to us, maybe even a little bit less. But now, they're doing more, right? Taking out, you know, attacking us with multiple ballistic missiles in Bahrain and Kuwait. That is very serious. And killing somebody in the Kuwait International Airport. I mean, and then that'd be--
COLLINS: Right. If you're in the International Airport--
SANNER: They're like saying, No, you know what, we get to decide, and you can't intimidate us with military force without our retribution, and you're not up for that.
COLLINS: So, you are the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence. The person who is now serving in the role that would have been above you, if you were still in that role, the Director of National Intelligence, or who will be, the President has named as Bill Pulte, who may not be a household name to a lot of viewers. He previously served as the Federal Housing Finance Agency Director. At the end of the month, he is going to step into the role that Tulsi Gabbard is in right now.
And the President was asked about why he thinks he's qualified for this job today, why he named him to this role, and this is what he told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's an acting position, it's not a permanent -- he's not going to be permanent because, you know, I don't think he'd want to be permanent.
But he's a very smart guy, and he may find out some things about the rigged elections, et cetera, et cetera. I think he'd like to do it. I'd like to -- I think he wants to do it very much, got a lot of energy. But he'll be very good.
Again, it's not a permanent position. We're looking at -- we're interviewing people right now. But it's somebody just to take it over for a little while.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: There's a lot to unpack there.
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: Because it's a -- it's a huge role, obviously.
SANNER: And rigged elections, the last time I checked, is literally not allowed to be part of the role of the Director of National Intelligence because, you're not allowed to be -- when he says, rigged, he doesn't mean by, you know, China. He means, by Americans. And there is -- there are laws and statutes and reforms that were made that prevent the foreign intel from accessing Americans' data, about interfering in American politics.
COLLINS: Well, it's not a law enforcement position. And the President--
SANNER: It's not. And you--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: And obviously, if -- there's no basis for the allegations of election fraud. It's been investigated multiple times.
But I think the question is the President was also putting the emphasis on what he wants him doing, while he's in the acting position. I mean, he could be there for hundreds of days--
SANNER: 210.
COLLINS: --potentially.
SANNER: Exactly. So, by saying that he just wants him to be focused on -- you know, rigged elections means a couple of things. One is that's beyond the scope. It is questionable. It's against authorities. But it also means that nobody is actually in charge.
COLLINS: But what access does Bill Pulte -- what does he have access to in this position?
SANNER: In this position, he can have access to every -- anything he wants to have in terms of U.S. intelligence, the most sensitive U.S. intelligence known to man.
When I was there, I was making decisions about six people who might see one intelligence report, and the DNI would be one of those six people. That's how sensitive some of this information is. It is the stuff that people don't understand. If you've never been a part of this, if you don't -- haven't been doing this for decades, you don't have the judgment, knowledge, or wherewithal to do this.
COLLINS: So, it's safe to say this concerns you?
SANNER: Highly.
COLLINS: Beth Sanner, thank you for joining us tonight.
SANNER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time and your expertise.
Up next here on THE SOURCE. An update on a special and, actually, historic guest, who will be at Madison Square Garden for Game 3 of the NBA Finals on Monday night.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: The stage is set for the biggest home game for the New York Knicks in decades. That's because Game 3 of the NBA Finals against the San Antonio Spurs will take place on Monday, and President Trump says he'll be there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I've been a Knicks fan for a long time, and I'm also a Jim Dolan fan. He's a nice guy, OK. He's spent a long time wanting to win, and he's a competitive guy, and he's got a team that's amazing.
The answer is yes. He's invited me, I'm going.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If Trump goes, it would make him the first sitting U.S. President to attend an NBA Finals game.
Thanks for joining us here on THE SOURCE tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
