Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

President Trump Refuses To Sign Housing Bill Over Stalled Election Bill; Graham Platner Formally Withdraws From Maine Senate Race; ICE, Detained Witnesses Give Conflicting Accounts Of Fatal Shooting. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired July 10, 2026 - 21:00   ET

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

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: It comes as Harry and Meghan reportedly are working to repair a rift that began six years ago when they quit their royal duties.

That is it for us. Thanks so much for watching. Have a great weekend.

The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight. Republicans and Democrats will deliver the largest housing affordability bill, in a generation, to the American people. But the President wants no part of it.

I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.

In just about three hours from now, the most significant housing affordability bill, in a generation, is set to become law, but with zero fanfare and without the President's signature.

For a president who loves putting his famous signature on things and often makes quite a show of it, by inviting reporters inside the Oval Office, for signings on executive orders and proclamations that range from all sorts of subjects. It's notable that the President tonight is refusing to sign his own party's big legislative win over their failure to pass what he says is the only bill that actually matters. That's the so-called SAVE America Act. It's the act that would overhaul how elections, federal elections, are conducted in this country.

And to put a fine point on it, the President posted this on Truth Social today, calling it in all-caps, CRAZY, that his election bill hasn't passed, and said that if Republicans don't change the Senate rules to make that happen, a.k.a., making it to where they only need fewer votes to get it passed, he said, The title of DUMB will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our Party, and our Nation, itself.

Now, this is a major blow to Republicans on Capitol Hill who spent months negotiating with Democrats. This bill got overwhelming majorities in the House and the Senate in an incredibly rare moment, especially these days, of bipartisanship. Both parties have said it's going to help get more homes on the market, and in turn, make it cheaper for people to buy or to rent homes. But if you ask the President about this bill? It's a total snoozefest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Big deal, it's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.

The housing bill is fine. There's a lot of Democrat points in there.

I'd rather not sign anything until we sign the SAVE America Act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, the President's election fixation is not anything new. The lengths that he's now going to and that he's willing to go to, to try to reshape them, though, is pretty extraordinary.

Just this week, sources say that the President fired the leaders of a bipartisan federal agency that helps provide funding and election security to states across the nation. It's a move that is already raising alarm bells about potential federal interference ahead of the midterm elections this November.

And it comes at CNN here, as we reported on how the President's FBI is now pouring resources into investigating his false and already proven false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. The President publicly tasked his new intelligence chief, who's only there on an acting basis, with using that post to try to do the same. His last spy chief was caught, on camera, seen and overseeing that FBI search of a Georgia elections office.

And now, tonight, with the President refusing to sign a housing bill, not only takes the wind out of Republican sails ahead of the midterm elections. It could also halt all other business until Congress does what the President wants.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm a big fan of many bills. But I'm a much bigger fan of the most important bill, it's called the SAVE America Act. It's voter ID, it's proof of citizenship, and it's no mail-in ballots other than it would be very, you know, easy on this, frankly, with military, illness, disability, vacations -- you can't get there -- you're away, business. But other than that, you should go and vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Two of my top political sources are here to start us off tonight. Neera Tanden. And Scott Jennings.

[21:05:00]

And Scott, obviously, you're a Republican. A lot of Republicans voted for this, in addition to many Democrats, which, as you know, is really rare in Washington these days. Do you think it's a mistake for the President to leave his signature off of a bill that even the GOP says is the most significant housing bill in decades?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS RADIO SHOW" ON SRN: I don't think it's going to make a difference one way or the other because the bill is going to become law at midnight, as you pointed out.

A lot of Republicans voted for it, and I suspect, the ones that voted for it are excited about it, and if they're up for re-election this fall, they're going to run on it. I don't actually think the policy prescriptions in this bill are going to have any immediate impact on affordability. So, look, I think if you voted for it and you like it, you can tell your voters and your constituents that you did. And if you have other priorities, you can do that as well.

So, I actually think him leading his signature off doesn't really make that much of a difference at all, primarily because it's going to become law no matter what.

COLLINS: I mean, Scott, the White House said it was historic. Do you not -- do you not see it that way?

JENNINGS: Historic? No, I don't think it's historic. I think historic is a term that's overused. Unprecedented is a term that's overused. We tend to affix these labels to things.

It's a bill that a lot of people are excited about. There's a handful of conservatives that don't like it for one reason or the other. But look, if over the next several years it helps the housing market and maybe helps affordability around the edges, that'll be a good thing. But for immediate politics this year, I don't -- I truthfully don't think it's going to have that big of an impact.

COLLINS: I mean, if Scott doesn't think it's going to have a big political impact. Neera.

Senator Elizabeth Warren posted today, said Donald Trump cares so little about bringing down YOUR housing costs that he's refusing to sign the biggest housing bill in 30 years.

And Scott doesn't seem to think it's going to have an impact. But clearly, Democrats, like Elizabeth Warren, think this is going to write the political ads themselves. Do you?

NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER TO PRES. BIDEN: I mean, I think the real problem with the President's temper tantrum today and not signing a bill that the vast majority of people in his party voted for, is that it's another indication that when -- you know, if you're at home and you think your like housing is too expensive, or gas is too expensive, or life is too expensive, it's just another indication where the President thinks the pain you're experiencing, really, is trifling and compared to his ideological whims around elections -- around the elections, around SAVE Act, where his own party is stopping him.

I mean, I think the real message of today is the President is once again pooh-poohing the expenses that, the kind of costs, the kind of struggles, Americans are having. Calling legislation that would do anything to lower housing costs, a big yawn, strikes me as pretty dismissive of the burdens and struggles of working-class Americans, middle-class Americans, throughout this country.

COLLINS: Scott?

JENNINGS: Look, I think the President is part of the legislative process. He has opinions. He has the right to use the leverage of his office to try to get the Congress to do things. In this particular case, he's not stopping the bill from becoming law, but he is using it to make a point.

His top priority is the SAVE America Act. And by the way, he's not wrong about this. Vast majorities of Americans want voter ID. They think this is not an unreasonable thing. They think it's commonsense to try to secure our elections in that way. And so, he's making his political point about that. Now, whether the Congress and specifically the Senate follows him down this path, I don't know. I find it unlikely.

But I think he's right about it. I think the SAVE America Act would be good, and I think some of the stuff in there is very commonsense to -- I mean, you were talking about bipartisan ideas. There's no more bipartisan idea in America than voter ID in our elections. And so, the President, I think, he has a political point to make, and he's well within his bounds to make it.

By the way, this is part of the process. It doesn't happen often. But under Barack Obama, he allowed a bill to become law without his signature, and it was putting sanctions on Iran. It passed with huge bipartisan majorities, he wouldn't sign it, but they put sanctions on Iran.

So, I actually think he's well within his rights to exercise his authority and his opinion this way, and we'll see where the political chips fall in the November election.

COLLINS: Yes, but I think a lot of Americans think about buying a house, renting a house, even. I mean, Iran at the time, that maybe not be a day-to-day concern for many Americans.

But in terms of what this looks like in the elections bill. I mean, Scott, if there was as much fervor for that as you said. And it's not just voter ID. I mean, there's a lot of other parts of that bill that would change how elections are administered in this country. If that's so popular, then why can't they get enough Republicans in the Senate to vote for it?

JENNINGS: Well, the vast majority of Republicans in this country are for it. It's true, he does have a problem with a few Republicans in the Senate, and it's really up to him and the Senate leadership to try to find a way around it.

The problem is, of course, in the Senate, you need 60 votes to do anything, and I seriously doubt they're ever going to get to that threshold. That, of course, leads to this question about the filibuster. Seems unlikely to me they're going to be able to change the filibuster rules. You wonder whether they could negotiate it down, take out some of the things that the Democrats don't like, and get it down to something that maybe people could vote for, like specifically on the voter ID which, look, everybody wants voter ID.

[21:10:00]

President Trump, by the way, is hardly the first political leader in this country recently to care about election laws. In fact, when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, H.R.1, the number one bill in the House, under Pelosi, was an election bill that had to with federalizing our elections. So, both parties have had opinions about how to run elections in this country. It's not unique to Donald Trump, but he certainly feels strongly about it.

And I can tell you this: every single Republican I know, just about, thinks it's a good idea, and so I can see why the President's touting it because his base absolutely wants it.

COLLINS: I mean, Neera, right now the votes are not there for SAVE America. The President is saying get rid of the filibuster to pass it with fewer votes. Are Democrats prepared, if Republicans get to a point where the President strongarms them into doing that? I mean, right now they're not there, but who knows?

TANDEN: I mean, I just have to correct a few -- a few things here.

First of all, there's a significant difference between H.R.1, which Democrats were championing, and the SAVE Act.

The biggest difference is H.R.1 was actually about ensuring that everyone can vote.

The difference is fundamentally the SAVE Act, which is not just a voter ID bill, it's a citizenship bill. That means -- that means that people have to have proof of citizenship. They have to have a birth certificate or a passport. The challenge there is that it will mean that lots of Americans who should be voting, a lot of citizens, will not get to vote. It's a voter restriction bill, which is very different from H.R.1.

But rather than relitigating all this--

JENNINGS: Well--

TANDEN: --I would say the real problem is I think senators, Republican senators, recognize that a lot of their voters will actually lose the right to vote if the SAVE Act passes. That is why senators like Senator McConnell have raised concerns about the SAVE Act and what it would mean for rural voters. Senator Murkowski raised concerns about the SAVE Act and what it would mean for rural Alaskans and how they can vote.

So, I think what's fascinating about how this entire discourse is that you could really have concerns about the SAVE Act, and the President has obviously talked about that ad nauseam for months. But what he's doing today is kind of, basically having a kind of kindergarten temper tantrum, that he didn't get his way on one piece of legislation.

Scott is right; he's not hurting anyone. The only people he's hurting are Republicans who wanted to tell Americans that they got a really important piece of legislation done, and their own president said it's a yawn. So, I think that's going to take the air out, just that statement is going to take the air out, of Republicans' ability to champion legislation that reduce costs, at a time where they are facing the burden of a president--

COLLINS: Yes.

TANDEN: --who's raised costs, from tariffs, to the Iran war and gas, to just everyday costs for them.

COLLINS: Scott, when it comes to the votes in the Senate, and Neera just mentioned your old boss, Mitch McConnell.

We got exclusive video today at CNN, showing what we are told is Mitch McConnell being taken by emergency responders on a stretcher after they were called to his home. He's being put in an ambulance here. They were called for report of an unconscious person.

McConnell's team still hasn't disclosed why he is in the hospital or when he is expected to be released.

Did you know that he had been taken in an ambulance before this?

JENNINGS: Well, I had certainly heard he'd gone to the hospital. And traditionally, the way you go to the hospital is in an ambulance. So, it didn't surprise me to see this footage today. I also would just caution you that scanner traffic that's been reported may not be what was the reality when the paramedics arrived. But certainly he's been in the hospital. And my personal view is there needs to be a little more transparency here.

Now, the Senate has been in recess for the last two weeks, so nothing's been going on with them in Washington. But the Senate does come back into session on Monday. My counsel to them has been: you need to send a letter to the people of Kentucky explaining what's going on, what your intentions are, and if you plan to get back to work as soon as you can, and what are the issues that you're focused on.

I would be shocked if they don't communicate with the people of Kentucky by Monday. But my personal view is some transparency here would have saved them some grief, over the last couple of weeks. But I expect we're going to see that over the weekend.

Look, I've known Mitch McConnell since I was 16-years-old, and have been close to him for a very long time. Of course, when you see images like this, and someone that you know and that you love is hurting, it bothers you personally.

But as a professional and a political matter, you know he is a public figure. And they can handle it however they want. There's no real rules around the disclosure. But I think some transparency here would do them a world of good.

COLLINS: Well, and Scott, you said that you had spoken to him. What did he say to you exactly?

[21:15:00]

JENNINGS: Well, he called me a few days ago, and we had about a 17- minute conversation. I looked at my phone log, after we hung up, to see how long we've been on the phone. And he just said, Hey, just calling to check in. Sounded like he might have been aware that some people were questioning what he was doing, and so.

Honestly, Kaitlan, I've had an ongoing dialog with him for three decades, and most of our conversations revolve around politics, public affairs, policy issues, and so, we talked about some of those on that day.

And, frankly, he sounded like he was keeping up with the news and had a lot of opinions about what was going on with Iran, frankly. He was also tracking what was going on with Ukraine and Russia, in the context of the President being at the NATO summit. So, these foreign policy issues are on his mind a lot. They have been since he left the leadership role. I can tell, he was thinking about that.

I can also tell you that I've been in touch with the staff since that day, and I know he's been meeting with his senior staff, his legislative director, and others, and getting some briefings on a few issues.

COLLINS: Have you told--

JENNINGS: To me, that sounds like somebody who's, need to go back to work.

COLLINS: Have you told them, Scott, that they're -- I mean, in the absence of them saying anything, I mean, conspiracy theories are prolific, as you've seen on social media. Are they aware of that? Is he aware of that?

JENNINGS: I don't know how much of that he is personally aware of. He's never concerned himself much with internet chatter, or conspiracy theories, or frankly, what people think of him all that much.

But I have told the people in his office that I am in regular contact with, that I think some of the narrative around this is being driven by people who, frankly, are posting untrue, unhinged conspiracy theories, and that some transparency here would make a lot of it go away.

To be honest with you, I was surprised when he called me, and one of the reasons I put out my tweet when I did -- my post, sorry -- when I did, was that I just thought, hey, everybody sort of seems to think he's either dead or not capable of chatting, and since I had talked to him, I thought that was valuable information. Now, when he plans to go back to work? I have no idea. I don't know anything about his medical records. I'm not his doctor. I'm not in his family, and I'm not in a position to make any pronouncements about that.

My advice has been a statement to the people of Kentucky on the day of or before the Senate goes back into session would be highly appropriate.

COLLINS: Scott Jennings. Neera Tanden. Thank you both for being here tonight.

Coming up on CNN. We do have new exclusive reporting on possible evidence that Iran is rebuilding its nuclear facilities, as mediators are trying to get those peace talks back on track without much luck this evening.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Tonight, negotiators are racing to revive peace talks between the United States and Iran, hoping to take the advantage of what is a lull in the fighting, after several days of the two countries trading strikes the last couple of days.

Now, this is a big task for the mediators who are now in Tehran from -- the Qatari government, as President Trump again declared the ceasefire with Iran, OVER. Iran's top negotiator said that their country is ready to mount an all-out defense if necessary.

These recent attacks that we've seen going on have also led to a big decrease in traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and that means a rise in global fuel prices. A senior U.S. official says tonight that they are working on correcting that, telling CNN that they're hoping to get Iran to publicly say that yes, the Strait of Hormuz is open, and yes, all commercial vessels can go through it, and they won't be attacked.

Now, it remains to be seen if Iran actually does that. That's what the United States is hoping. But the message that came through from these U.S. officials tonight is that, right now, nuclear talks aren't really possible, if Iran is threatening this key waterway.

And when it comes to the President's red line in these talks, which is Iran's nuclear ambitions, there's other bad news. That's because exclusive satellite imagery, that was obtained by CNN, shows that Iran may be attempting to rebuild its nuclear facilities.

My source tonight is the former U.S. Ambassador to Qatar, Timmy Davis.

And thank you, sir, for being here.

I mean, just obviously, you have so much experience in this area. The Qatari government and the mediators are trying to put themselves in this and trying to get some agreement between the two sides here. Right now, a senior official, U.S. official, told reporters today, I would give them, meaning Iran, an F or at least a D minus on keeping their end of the bargain when it comes to this MOU.

Does that surprise you at all?

TIMMY DAVIS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO QATAR: It doesn't surprise me. Certainly doesn't surprise me that, from the administration standpoint, Iran isn't keeping up their end of the bargain.

But you have to understand that the Iranians are in a place where there's a deficit of trust for them in these negotiations. One side takes acts like the -- like the Iranians did against Qatari vessels, attacks them. And then the United States hits 80 targets and then 90 targets. This has been called a ceasefire since day one, but in fact, it's been violated pretty much every five days or so. And so, when you declare the MOU dead, and go right back into negotiations, when you declare the ceasefire over, and then want the Iranians to say, The Strait of Hormuz is open?

In reality, the only thing that needs to be paid attention to is dialog, is the conversation. That's the only thing that appears to really have any standing or foundation here.

COLLINS: I mean, some people might look at this and say, Can you really get these talks back on board if they've been bombing each other for the last, you know, 48, 72 hours? And even if the U.S. thinking is that Iran fired on these ships, it was hardliners trying to undermine the deal. I mean, those hardliners are still running Iran right now.

[21:25:00]

DAVIS: No, that's absolutely -- that's absolutely right. We're going to have to decide who it is we're negotiating with. The theocracy is seeming lying down, and the IRGC is rising up. And so, I think we would do well to decide that the people that we need to negotiate with are the people who are running Iran.

The truth is that, whatever Iran is doing, whatever hardliners are doing, to your point, those are the folks that are driving Iran forward today. And so, there's a lot of back and forth, a lot of rhetoric about who's doing what.

But the fact that immediately both sides went back into dialog, that the Qataris showed up in Tehran to make sure that the Iranians were keeping somewhat of a level-head, means that there's still a possibility to get to a deal here. Likely, that deal isn't going to be a good one for either side ultimately, but I think the region wants to get to work on whatever comes after this conflict.

COLLINS: What does that look like, do you think? Because I mean, in terms of the MOU, which the President says is dead, basically at this point, the ceasefire that came with it, I mean, that put the end date kind of at mid-August of getting to a deal. We're now three weeks past that MOU, almost a month. It would not seem like there is a deal anywhere close to materializing here.

DAVIS: Yes, look, I would not put a great deal of stock into any sort of set deadline. We've seen deadlines come and seen them go.

The MOU being dead, look, I think from the beginning the MOU was more a suggestion than it was a roadmap. What comes out of the end of this, at some point when this conflict is over, likely will have some of the elements of the MOU, but also likely will be the best deal that was available on the day they got through negotiations.

COLLINS: Well, and you know, I mean, looking at it. We had this background briefing with officials today. Looking at what they're saying, they did leave open the possibility that no deal is reached, and what that looks like if no deal is reached. We're seeing these satellite images that Iran's trying to rebuild--

DAVIS: Yes.

COLLINS: --its arsenal.

DAVIS: Yes. And so, I would say a couple of things about that.

First, it would be utter folly for Iran to believe that they could rebuild any nuclear capacity, and that the United States and Israel likely weren't going to retaliate. That's the first thing.

The second thing is one has to remember that inside Iran there is a struggle for power. The IRGC absolutely wants to have control of this country before it gets into any outside deal with the United States. And so, it's possible they will just keep this going and keep this going until they feel certain that what's going to happen inside Iran is exactly what they want to have happen.

In foreign policy, and particularly with Iran, understanding what's happening domestically is the only way you can understand how to get into some sort of deal internationally.

COLLINS: Yes.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for joining us tonight.

DAVIS: It's my pleasure.

COLLINS: Really appreciate with your expertise of the region.

DAVIS: Thanks, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: Great to have you.

And I should note, as the United States is delivering another deadline to Iran. One thing that's happening with the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, is he is cracking down on top military officers, we're told, after some service members are apparently in violation of his no- beards policy.

Sources say that Secretary Hegseth visited a Navy ship, last month, for what was supposed to be a routine visit with sailors, and noticed multiple of them sporting beards. That prompted Pentagon officials to hold a series of meetings, telling subordinates that he was -- he, being Hegseth, was closely monitoring progress on the beard policy and other workplace changes, and that there was pressure to move faster on those directives.

If you'll recall, back in September, Hegseth issued that memo that tightened restrictions on beards and the granting of medical and religious-based exemptions to grow them, reversing years of Pentagon policy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: No more beardos. The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done. Simply put, if you do not meet the male level physical standards for combat positions, cannot pass a PT test or don't want to shave and look professional, it's time for a new position or a new profession.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: My military source tonight is retired Air Force Colonel, Cedric Leighton.

And Cedric Leighton, I mean, when you look at this, Colonel, do you think a no-beards policy and apparently the way that the Pentagon is monitoring it, the way that they are, does that help military readiness in your view?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Well, Kaitlan, I really don't think it has anything to do with military readiness, to be quite frank.

When you look at the way in which the military conducted itself during the Civil War, there were a lot of people that had beards that served in -- on both sides, both the Union and the Confederate sides, and so you have that aspect of it.

So historically, there have been beards. And you have other services in other countries where there are service members who have beards, the Israeli military, some of the northern European militaries. So, it doesn't really impact the professionalism of the force per se.

[21:30:00]

There is a certain professional image that comes with a clean-shaven face, but there are also some medical issues that are involved with this. And when it comes to those medical issues, basically, we're talking about people who suffer from bumps, they are -- you know, they have a medical condition that makes it hard for them to shave or almost impossible. And until they get that treatment that will help them with that, and if that treatment is successful, they won't be able to shave in a medically-sound way.

So, there are certain issues with that, and then of course there are the religious accommodations for certain religions, like the Sikh religion, for example.

COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean, obviously that is something that clearly the military is telling people, they need to be abiding by that change.

The other thing that stood out to me today, coming out of the Pentagon, was something that happened that people might have seen from July 4th. There were these videos of several Apache helicopters. They did a very low-altitude flyover during the South Carolina event. You could see them here on the beach.

Now, these videos went viral. Obviously, you can see how low they are flying close to the water there and close to the beach. The South Carolina National Guard said that the eight pilots involved had been temporarily suspended. They said it was a routine safety measure. But it prompted a lot of backlash online.

And Secretary Hegseth responded late last night, and said, quote, "We'll fix this. Carry on, Patriots."

Couple hours later, this morning, the spokesperson for the Pentagon said that suspension had been lifted.

Do you think what happened on that beach was worthy of suspension in your experience?

LEIGHTON: Well, it looked like they were flying quite low, so there is a possibility that they violated certain air safety rules that are usually set by the FAA, in a civilian setting, like the beach of South Carolina. So, that's a possibility.

So normally, if you participate in something like this, that's going to be sanctioned by the unit that you're in. So, in this case, it's kind of interesting because these are South Carolina Army National Guard units, which, to my knowledge, have not been federalized for this particular purpose.

So, the authority of the Secretary of Defense in this case is questionable. This belongs, the authority, the Commander-in-Chief of the South Carolina Army National Guard, is actually the Governor of the state, not the Secretary of Defense, and certainly not the President of the United States.

COLLINS: Colonel Cedric Leighton, great to have you as always. Thank you for joining us tonight.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: Up next. We are following the latest developments as Graham Platner has now officially withdrawn his name from that Senate race in Maine. What he said in his letter that stood out to us, as one of the candidates who is hoping to replace him will join me right after this.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, Graham Platner has officially ended his embattled Senate campaign for one of the most crucial midterm elections in the nation coming up this fall.

In a letter that was posted two days after his stunning video message announcing yes, he was dropping out of the race amid pressure from national Democrats, four days after he was accused of rape, which he denies, Platner has now informed Maine's Secretary of State that he has formally withdrawn his candidacy for this Senate race. And he signed the document, he ended it with this: F ICE. Free Palestine. Up the Hearts. Solidarity Forever.

And with that letter, the clock is now ticking for Democrats to replace Graham Platner by a July 27th deadline.

Here's what sources are telling us about this process that we know so far tonight. There will be a nominating convention that features roughly 600 delegates. That includes around 500 elected from the state's 16 counties, about a 100 voting members of a state committee.

The growing list of candidates who are running to replace him now have until next Wednesday to file a formal declaration that yes, they are running with Maine's Democratic Party. They will then have until July 20th to submit at least 500 signatures from registered Maine Democrats. Right now, though, any details beyond that remain a mystery.

My source tonight is one of the people on the growing list of names officially running to replace Graham Platner. Maine's Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows.

And thank you for being here.

Because it was actually your office that got this letter from Graham Platner, formally withdrawing from this race. We weren't expecting him to do so until next Monday. What was your reaction, as you read what he had to say?

SHENNA BELLOWS, (D) U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE IN MAINE, (D) RUNNING TO REPLACE PLATNER ON BALLOT IN MAINE, (D) MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE: So, I really appreciate that he submitted his withdrawal today because that allows us to focus on what's really important, and that is bringing the movement that he ignited to November, to beat Susan Collins.

Because we do need to abolish ICE, we do need to stand up for Medicare for All and fight for the working class against the billionaires and massive corporations that are ruining this country and hold Donald Trump accountable. And while we're at it, we shouldn't have a Senate that's going to bow down and confirm folks like Todd Blanche to be the U.S. Attorney General after what he did to the Epstein survivors.

So, I appreciate the movement that Graham built, and I am ready to carry that forward in November and win.

COLLINS: OK. So, you mentioned a lot of places where you agree with him. He also said in that letter that he wants an end to taxpayer- funded genocide. He believes Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Do you?

[21:40:00]

BELLOWS: Yes, Israel -- the Israeli government is committing genocide in Gaza right now, and we should not be sending any taxpayer funds to be conducting that harm.

COLLINS: Do you want Graham Platner's endorsement? Do you think that would help whoever it is that is going to take his place on the ballot?

BELLOWS: I want the endorsement of Graham Platner's supporters as well as the people who are critics of Graham Platner. I am going to unite the party because we have one goal, and that is to carry this movement forward and to defeat Susan Collins.

Because people in Maine are really struggling right now; they're getting screwed over by Washington, that's handing out special favors to lobbied interests, that is stuck and that has not been a check and balance on Donald Trump. So, that's what I'm determined to do, that's where our energy needs to be right now. It's so important. The stakes could not be higher. The path to the U.S. Senate runs through Maine.

COLLINS: So, you want his supporters, but you don't want his endorsement. Is that right?

BELLOWS: That's correct.

COLLINS: Whoever wins, whoever takes this spot of his on the ballot will be running against Susan Collins. I mean, in Graham Platner's victory speech, when he got more votes, I believe, that night than any other Democratic Senate nominee in Maine history, or Senate candidate in Maine history, he mentioned Susan Collins repeatedly, going after her for her tenure in the Senate.

You ran against her in 2014 as the Democratic nominee. You lost that race by 37 points. How do you make the argument to voters that this time will be different if you're up against her?

BELLOWS: A lot has changed since 2014. I've learned a lot, but what I will say is this: I took on that race because I've never been afraid of a tough fight, and folks at that time, didn't want to challenge her. If we had challenged her more effectively, we might still have Roe v. Wade today. She was instrumental in overturning it.

And the other thing that's changed, over the last decade, in which I have served as a state senator, representing a district that voted for Trump and voted for me, and getting re-elected twice, while never giving up my progressive values, and serving as Secretary of State, where I've been fighting ICE and Donald Trump as a leader, what has changed is Susan Collins, most of all. Because she has been complicit in hurting working-class people.

In Maine, we're seeing thousands of Mainers thrown off their health care because of decisions in Washington to fund tax cuts for billionaires, and that is wrong. So, I think Mainers are hungry for this, and Platner tapped into that, and we need to take a beat and recognize that Mainers are ready for change.

The other thing that was significant in June is that turnout for Democrats, wiped the floor with the Republicans. It was over two to one. And so, I think that's really important too, and I think it shows the energy that's here on the ground. So this has been a tough week for everyone, and -- but I think we're going to get through it. We need to come together. We need to unite, and we need to win.

COLLINS: Secretary Shenna Bellows, we will see what happens over a very busy next few weeks for you and the other candidates who are running. Thank you for joining us tonight.

BELLOWS: Thank you so much.

COLLINS: Up next. Tonight, we are getting new details about the fatal shooting of a man in Houston during an immigration operation. We've learned that the federal officials' version of what happened is different from what witnesses who were on the ground have to say. We'll tell you what we know and the latest, right after this.

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: We're following breaking news tonight amid growing anger and unanswered questions in Houston, after an ICE agent shot and killed 52-year-old Mexican national, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, during an immigration operation on Tuesday, an operation that sources tell us Araujo was not even the target of.

Now, I want to warn you, as you're listening to this story, the video that you're about to see, showing the aftermath of that shooting, is disturbing.

CNN has learned tonight, though, that the version of events that have been provided by the federal officials doesn't match the accounts of the three witnesses who were detained after the shooting.

Now, ICE officials claimed that agents tried to conduct a traffic stop and to arrest Salgado Araujo, who had allegedly refused to follow their commands.

In a statement to CNN, ICE said that he, quote, "Weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer resulting in our officer firing his weapon in self-defense."

But the three witnesses who were also in that same white van that you just saw, have told an attorney that ICE's version of events is not true.

And it comes, as CNN has gotten new video showing the moment that Salgado Araujo's white van slowly came to a stop after ICE agents had fatally shot him. My source tonight is CNN's Priscilla Alvarez, who has new reporting on this shooting tonight.

And Priscilla, obviously, we're being told there are contradictions in this. What exactly do we know about what are the biggest contradictions and conflict, in what federal officials are saying, and what happened, and what these witnesses are saying happened?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the biggest question, Kaitlan, is what exactly happened at the moment of the shooting, and there isn't a whole lot of visibility on that because we have not yet seen the video evidence of what transpired there.

Now, as you just read there from that ICE statement, the agency is saying that Salgado had rammed his vehicle into another ICE vehicle, and that he was trying to run over an ICE agent, and the ICE agent was firing in self-defense.

But what passengers in the vehicle say, according to their attorney, is that no such thing ever happened, that he was never directing or driving the van toward an ICE agent, nor was there a ramming of a vehicle.

[21:50:00]

And the attorney emphasized that again, during a press conference, earlier today. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUGO BALDERAS-IBARRA, LAWYER FOR LORENZO SALGADO: My clients' versions of the events are extremely different from what ICE agents are saying or what the agency is saying.

All three of my clients reiterated that at no point was there ever an agent standing in front of the vehicle, nor was an agent ever placed in the line of danger. That is simply false. And I believe my clients are telling the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: I'll also tell you, Kaitlan, that earlier tonight, I connected with an attorney who's representing the brother of Salgado, who was also in the vehicle, and he is saying that he wants to remain in the United States and seek justice for his brother. Currently, he is in ICE detention.

Now, moving on here, in talking to sources, what I have been told about the moments leading up to that is that Salgado was not the target, at least the initial target, of this immigration operation.

In fact, what had happened here was that Texas authorities had tipped off ICE, about two men who they believed to be illegally in the country, traveling in a white van, at some other point before Tuesday, and that prompted ICE to start surveilling this white van and, in particular, a property. On the way to that property, on Tuesday, they saw another white van. It turns out, as they were in pursuit of that vehicle, that white van was registered to Salgado. They continued the pursuit of that van. You saw in that surveillance footage two ICE vehicles, both unmarked vehicles, following his van, and at some point the shooting transpired.

Now, I'm told by sources that these vehicles had blocked in Salgado's van, so it's unclear what happened in that moment. And unfortunately, we don't have that clarity because there isn't that video evidence. They did not -- they, the officers, did not have body cam, and the vehicles that ICE uses generally don't have dashcam either.

COLLINS: Do we know why they weren't wearing body cameras?

ALVAREZ: So, what we have been told by the Department of Homeland Security is that those in Houston had not yet been provided their body cams.

There's been some whiplash over body cam policy when it comes to ICE from the Biden administration and then to the Trump administration. But after what happened in Minneapolis, there was a push by the Department of Homeland Security to issue body cams. However, that distribution is still ongoing. So, not every field office in the country has body cams yet, and one of the ones that didn't was Houston. Therefore, they were not wearing them.

Now, the department is blaming the shutdown over this. They say that they will have those body cams, in the coming weeks, to everybody in the country -- or all the officers in the country. But certainly, there's also criticism on why they had not moved that more quickly, earlier on, so that in an instance like this there would be video to show what had happened.

COLLINS: Yes, it would be immensely helpful.

Priscilla Alvarez, thank you for that reporting tonight.

Up next. It is time for Source Code. Tonight's number has a special meaning. It is three. We'll be back in just a moment with what that number reveals tonight.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Tonight's the premiere of "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS." I'll certainly be watching. So, with the very best wishes from everyone at 360, here is "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS."

COLLINS: Tonight. Straight from THE SOURCE. Who Ron DeSantis is blaming for his sagging poll numbers? Can anyone take on Donald Trump? A potential rival will join me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Tonight's Source Code is incredibly special to us. It is the number three. That's because that's the number of years that THE SOURCE has been on air right here on CNN.

Starting that night that you just got a preview of there, we are ready to talk to our sources, get answers to tough questions, and bring you moments like this one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: You said a White nationalist is an American. But a White nationalist is someone, who believes horrific things. You don't -- do you really think that's someone who should be serving in the military?

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): Well, that's just a name that has been given.

COLLINS: It's not. It's a real--

TUBERVILLE: I mean, listen?

COLLINS: It's a real definition. There's real concerns about extremism.

TUBERVILLE: So, if you're going to do away with most White people, in this country, out of the military, we got huge problems.

COLLINS: It's not -- it's not--

TUBERVILLE: We got huge problems, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: --it's not people, who are White. It's White nationalists.

TUBERVILLE: That have a few probably different beliefs.

COLLINS: You see the distinction, right?

TUBERVILLE: That have -- that have different beliefs. Now, if racism is one of those beliefs? I'm totally against it. I am totally against racism.

COLLINS: But that is -- that is a White--

TUBERVILLE: But there's a lot of people that believe in different things.

COLLINS: A White nationalist is racist, Senator.

TUBERVILLE: Well, that's your opinion. That's your opinion. But if it's racism--

COLLINS: It's not an opinion.

TUBERVILLE: --if it's racism? I'm totally against it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: A lot has happened in the 09:00 p.m. Eastern hour since that first broadcast.

We've talked to lawmakers, candidates, international leaders, analysts, and experts, and some of the best-sourced reporters, to bring you the most important news of the day. Many of our sources have been either the people part of the very stories that we cover, or the people shaping the conversations around them.

We brought the White House to your house with behind-the-scenes moments not seen anywhere else, and also interviews with top administration officials, past and present.

We've also ventured outside the studio, including that one long, notable, and slightly cold stint at the Capitol, during the longest government shutdown ever.

We've also traveled far outside Washington, including to the Middle East and to Ukraine to cover conflicts there, and also to the United Kingdom and Switzerland with the President.

Three years goes by fast, and I could not have done any of this without my team at the White House and in the D.C. and New York newsrooms, control rooms, and studios, and of course without all of you who are watching at home.

So, let me say thank you to all of you tonight, and here's to many more years of THE SOURCE.

Thank you so much for joining us tonight.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.