Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

No War Ever Begins As A Forever War; 30,000 Pounds U.S. "Bunker" Design To Penetrate Earth Targets; Iran's Fordo Facility Buried Out Of Reach for Most Weapons. Should The L.A. Dodgers Deny Access To Federal Agents?. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired June 21, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:39]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Mr. President, show us the evidence. I'm Michael Smerconish.

Today in New York City, if Iran is truly on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon and refuses to negotiate the halt of that capability, then I support the United States taking preemptive action at the Fordo enrichment plan. But the public record, the public record is too muddled for any of us to reach that conclusion. Nothing about this inspires confidence, and with the stakes so high, I'm just not willing to take the word of any of the major players. Are you?

Let's step back and consider what we've been told. For literally three decades, Benjamin Netanyahu has told us that Iran was on the brink of a nuclear weapon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER: If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year, it could be within a few months.

Iran is so dangerous, weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.

Iran will be capable of producing alone, without importing anything nuclear bombs within three to five years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I get it. Never again. Never again. Netanyahu only needs to be right once. But last March, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified to Congress that the Intel community, quote, continues to assess that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. And Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. Gabbard's assessment was confirmed by Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intel Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA), VICE CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: There's been no change in the intelligence. That was Director Gabbard, the DNI put out in March that saying Iran had not made a move towards a nuclear weapon. I think Gabbard's comments in March were correct, and it's, to my mind, fairly dangerous that the president blows though -- blows that assessment off as cavalierly as he did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Warner's no friend of Gabbard, like all the Democrats, he voted against her confirmation. Now fast forward to June 8th, that's the Sunday before the Thursday night attack, on that day, Trump gathered his war cabinet at Camp David, Gabbard was not present. Reportedly, she herself had National Guard duty that weekend. But you'd think the DNI could get out of that responsibility in such a moment of importance. And there are reports suggesting that there's now a chasm between the commander in chief and his own DNI.

Two days later, on June 10, she posted a highly produced three minute video which she shared her reflections upon having recently visited Hiroshima, Japan, the first city to be targeted by a nuclear weapon during wartime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR: I recently visited Hiroshima in Japan and stood at the epicenter of a city that remains scarred by the unimaginable horror caused by a single nuclear bomb dropped in 1945, 80 years ago. What I saw, the stories that I heard, the haunting sadness that still remains, this is an experience that will stay with me forever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: According to Politico, Trump saw the unauthorized video and became incensed, complaining to associates at the White House that she had spoken out of turn. Trump himself has been publicly suspect. On Monday, three days before the attack, Trump told Netanyahu in a phone call that he hoped he could negotiate a deal with the Iranians and therefore for opposed military action at that time. Israel struck Iran on the night of Thursday, June 12, June 13, local time. And the very day of the attack, President Trump told Reuters that he'd been urging Israel not to do it, that's consistent with the first official word from the U.S. government after the attack.

It came from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was posted at whitehouse.gov and it said this, "Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self- defense. President Trump and the administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners.

Let me be clear, Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel." But by the next day, President Trump was singing a different tune. According to the "New York Times," he was influenced by what he'd watched that morning on Fox News, quote, "But as the night wore on and the Israelis landed a spectacular series of precision strikes against Iranian military leaders and strategic sites, Mr. Trump began to change his mind about his public posture. When he woke on Friday morning, his favorite T.V. channel, Fox News, was broadcasting wall to wall imagery of what it was portraying as Israel's military genius. And Mr. Trump could not resist claiming some credit for himself."

[09:05:30]

And soon the pronouns changed. The president was now using we to refer to the operation and asserted that where he'd given Iran 60 days to act, the Israeli action came on day 61, implying that his public admonitions of Netanyahu were a ruse. But there's reason to believe that the assertion of a ruse was itself a ruse.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page may call President Trump's intraparty opponents of MAGA's misguided isolationists, but the news reporting side of the Journal is telling a different story, one compatible with a legitimate split on the Intel between the United States and Israel. Quote, "Before launching its attack on Iran last week, Israel provided the U.S. intelligence it deemed alarming. Tehran was conducting renewed research useful for a nuclear weapon, including on an explosive triggering system. But U.S. officials briefed by the Israelis weren't convinced that the information pointed to a decision by Tehran to build a bomb, according to a senior intelligence official, another U.S. official and two congressional aides familiar with the discussions. The gap between Israel's assessment of Iran's nuclear program and that of the U.S. helps explain why the two allies haven't been aligned in recent days on dealing with Tehran."

In addition, some have claimed the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran last month gave rise to Israel's attack. Not so, says Rafael Grossi, head of the agency, Grossi states, in that report, we do not have any indication there is a systemic program in Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon. He added, the IAEA doesn't speculate and that any military action is a political decision not related to what they're saying.

For his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu still claiming last weekend that the evidence was rock solid. As he put it, quote, "The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear that they were working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly."

And if anything, President Trump has gotten more emphatic in his statements, here's what he said yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point. DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

TRUMP: She's wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: But in light of what we know or we've been allowed to know, the stakes are too high for us to trust mere assertions by Netanyahu and Trump. If it's so clear, show us the evidence, or at least show it to Congress and let them vote. After all, where Iran has not directly attacked the United States, President Trump arguably lacks the authority under the War Powers Act to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran.

The silence from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been deafening. Why aren't they demanding a congressional say? Kudos to Senator Tim Kaine, Congressman Ro Khanna, Republican House Member Thomas Massie for asserting this issue. And how disappointing that more members are apparently more intent on staying clear of the controversy than reasserting congressional control over when the United States goes to war.

As Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, "Congress should rush to rescue its rightful constitutional role and take a stand in the war drama, as it was elected to do."

None of us knows how this is going to end. Maybe it will be a successful instance of U.S. intervention. I pray that's the case. I share President Trump's desire to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Maybe we bomb Fordo and put this chapter in the history books alongside helping South Korea repel northern invasion, which prevented communist expansion, removing Manuel Noriega in Panama, driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the first Gulf War and ending a Civil War, which included ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and forcing the Serbian withdrawal from Kosovo.

But the record is also replete with instances of intervention that didn't end as intended. Vietnam, our efforts to stabilize Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, all of which candidate Trump seemed to recognize when he promised no more forever wars. Of course, no war ever begins as a forever war, they just take on unintended consequences when stuff happens.

[09:10:06]

Joining me now to discuss it all, Admiral James Stavridis, CNN Senior Military Analyst and a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. And David Sanger, CNN Political and National Security Analyst. He's also the White House and national security correspondent for the "New York Times." David, your lead story in the "New York Times," when I checked in very early this morning, begins this way, "Ask diplomats who have negotiated with Iran, and they usually describe it with some variant of, brace yourself, it takes a long time." So what then can reasonably be accomplished within President Trump's two week time period?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Probably not much, Michael, that the truth of the matter is that it took two years to get the Obama era agreement with Iran, which was the one agreement that was the most successful at restraining, not ending their nuclear program. The other efforts that we've had, sabotage cyber-attacks, have set things back months or years. The Stuxnet attack, the cyber- attack 15 years ago, probably took a year and a half off the program, but they've come back. And so the real question is, in two weeks, could you get Iran to agree to do what the president asked for, unconditional surrender, we're not sure what that means, but probably it means, OK, you can come in and destroy all of our facilities. Probably not.

They'd probably decide instead to take their chances. And we're not sure they have two weeks. The president has said up to two weeks. He's also called for a National Security Council meeting tonight, Saturday night, in Washington, for which he's flying back from his golf retreat, so it's very possible he's on a different schedule.

SMERCONISH: Admiral Stavridis, to this untrained eye, looking at the satellite images of Fordo, it looks like it's surrounded by miles of sand, making me wonder, could it be taken more easily from the ground?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: I think it could be taken from the ground, but you'd have to put a lot of boots on that ground and it would be orders of magnitude more risky, obviously. But I'm sure the Israelis have a contingency to do that.

I want to go back to the intelligence for just one moment and provide an image here. Think about a kitchen and there's a rogue cook in the kitchen. He's locked the door and he's got all the ingredients to make beef stew on the counter, he's got beef, he's got carrots, he's got potatoes, he's got onions, the, the pot is boiling, the door is locked, that's Fordo. You just don't know what's going on in there. That's why it's such a back and forth.

But if you're Israel and that beef stew is going to poison you and destroy your country, you're pretty motivated to break down the door and make sure the cook doesn't have the ingredients. So yes, the Israelis would love the United States to come in and blow up the kitchen and they will have a ground option. They could probably do some additional things with cyber. They could do things with lower threshold bombs. But they are truly hoping for the U.S. to come in and solve this problem.

I think that's the conversation that's going to occur in this sit room tonight.

SMERCONISH: David Sanger, there were thousands who turned out to protest yesterday in a variety of nations in the Middle East. Your newspaper had a lot of the coverage we'll put up on the screen. There it is. Huge crowds rally across Middle East, venting anger at Israel and I would say at the United States as well. Is this the answer to the question that I raised a week ago of whether the Iranians would rally around their own flag?

Many of us I know had hoped that this would be a moment where they would show displeasure with their supreme leader. What do we know about the pulse of the Iranian people themselves?

SANGER: Well, we don't know much because the Internet in Iran has been largely turned off by the Iranian authorities because they're afraid that it was being used to track and kill many of their scientists, many of their military leaders, including some who the Israelis have claimed to have killed overnight. So it's really hard to get the pulse of the conversation. And of course, Iranians who do not really care for their current leadership, particularly Ayatollah Khamenei, may not be willing to put their name to that on the Internet anyway.

But we do know from history that one thing happens, when countries get attacked, it creates a nationalistic response. We even saw this in Iraq. Remember that President Bush thought that we would be greeted as liberators and we were by some for a while. But then you saw what happened.

[09:15:06]

Now this is a very different kind of operation. President Trump is not talking about putting American troops on the ground. His hope is that this would be a very surgical operation if he needs to go do it. But we all know, as you said in your opening, things happen. And if the Iranians react by taking shots at American troops and there are more than 40,000 in the region, then all of a sudden we could be into something much bigger and deeper and it could deepen that nationalistic response that you read about in the "Times" and see on those clips.

SMERCONISH: Admiral Stavridis, you're the former supreme allied commander of NATO. NATO will gather next week. Take our final 60 seconds and tell me what you're looking toward with regard to that meeting.

STAVRIDIS: In terms of Iran, I think there'll be some discussion about it, but frankly, the real focus of that meeting is going to be NATO defense spending, getting it up to the levels it should be at. So 3.5 percent pure military spending, another 1.5 percent on ancillary infrastructure, R&D. I think NATO will pull the trigger on a new goal of a total of 5 percent. That'll make the Trump administration happy, and it should.

Bottom line, if you're Iran looking at that, you're thinking, OK, bad cop is Israel. The good cop, such as it is the United States. A better cop would be the European Union. But I don't see them having a serious role here. It's going to be about NATO spending, Ukraine, and how together the west can meet these challenges.

But the number one thing at the NATO meeting is going to be Ukraine, something that has kind of slipped from the headlines in the face of all we're seeing about Iran.

SMERCONISH: Sure. It has. It has.

Gentlemen, thank you, as always. We appreciate your expertise.

And everybody at home, what are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, what do we have? Trump is becoming Bush 2.0.

He promised to get rid of the warmongers. Instead, look at where we are, says Sage Lloyd. How about my point, Sage Lloyd, about wanting some accountability from members of Congress. Members of Congress. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but your sole mission seems to be self- preservation and ensuring you get to keep the gig. Moments like this, I think, demand accountability. I think we all have the right to know how every member of Congress and the Senate and feels before the United States takes an action like that which is being contemplated by President Trump.

So vote, vote. Exercise the franchise and let us know what you think about this momentous event.

Up ahead, it's called the MOP, a 30,000 pound bunker buster that could potentially shatter Iran's nuclear ambitions. And there's only one country that owns it. We break down the mission only the U.S. military can pull off. We'll do that next.

And the Los Angeles Dodgers have an unlikely opponent, the Trump administration. It comes after immigration agents were seen near the team's stadium. What both sides are claiming, we're going to get to that.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website, it's smerconish.com, and answer today's poll question, should the Los Angeles Dodgers have denied property access to immigration officials doing their jobs? Don't forget to sign up for the newsletter while you're there. You're going to get the work of Steve Breen, who is a great illustrator. Like this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:22:58]

SMERCONISH: Bunker busters. MOPS, B-2s, terms once reserved for military briefings are now becoming part of the global lexicon. And they're increasingly central to answering the question of how exactly the United States could tip the balance in the fight between Israel and Iran. So let's start with the potential target, Iran's Fordo Fuel enrichment plant, a facility thought to be key to Tehran's nuclear program and happens to be buried around 300ft beneath the ground.

Now enter the only weapon capable of destroying a site like this, the U.S. military's 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb. It's called the GBU- 57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which can strike a deeply buried target after multiple impacts with pin -- now enter the only plane that can carry the MOP, that would be a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. Israel doesn't have any of these planes or any of these bombs. So if the U.S. joined, what would this mission look like?

Let's bring in Lieutenant General David Deptula. He's the Air Force's first chief of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. He was the principal attack planner for Operation Desert Storms air campaign and is a fighter pilot with more than 3,000 flying hours. He's now the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

General Deptula, I have questions beneath your pay grade, beginning with this. Has the B2 crew that would presumably fly this mission already been chosen? Would they know today who they are?

LT. GENERAL DAVID DEPTULA, FMR. CHIEF OF AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILANCE & RECONNAISSANCE: Well, Michael, it's a great question, the short answer is not necessarily. All the B-2 crew members who are fully combat mission ready are competent and capable of executing the mission. And depending upon when that mission might occur, how many crews it might entail, the specific crews really wouldn't know well in advance. I mean, they might know 24, 48 hours in advance, but it's really not necessary to, you know, have lots of weeks of preparation. That's why they're called Combat Mission Ready.

[09:25:08]

SMERCONISH: How difficult a mission to presumably fly from Missouri around the globe and hit something that I guess is the size of a football field?

DEPTULA: Well, it's very, very challenging. Historically, we've made what quite frankly are very complex and delicate in the context of being accurate missions look easy when in fact a lot of planning goes into it. You're clearly flying into perhaps one of the most heavily defended areas in the world. And now the assistance with that Israel has provided is that they've achieved air superiority over Iran. But the fact of the matter is there's a lot of effort that goes into planning, force protection, figuring out the number of weapons that need to be employed, what the, you know, the last elements of the TAC profiles are.

So there's a lot that goes into this kind of a mission that generally the public doesn't have access to or see.

SMERCONISH: Naive question number three, I think at the height, the elevation that this plane flies, must you only fly over friendly nations or does it not matter in what airspace you're flying.

DEPTULA: First -- all your questions are spot on, Michael, and they're good ones, and that's a great one. If you are alluding to the fact of needing to get to the target and therefore what nations you might fly over. Is that the essence of your question?

SMERCONISH: Yes, yes.

DEPTULA: Generally it's another complicating factor. And if you don't have to do that, you don't need to. But because of the inherent stealth characteristics of the B2, that's certainly an option. SMERCONISH: OK. And thank you for being kind to me with my questioning. This ordinance is so massive, do you push it out the back or does it have a capability of being able to target on its own?

DEPTULA: No, you -- the -- you don't push these out the back. There are two bomb bays in the B-2 and you know, the information about target location is passed to the weapon. It is guided use. Well, I'll just -- I won't go into details there, but the fact of the matter is it's not pushed out like some of the 15,000 pound weapons that you saw employed over Afghanistan that come out the back of a C-130.

SMERCONISH: OK.

DEPTULA: These are carried in the bomb bays of the B-2.

SMERCONISH: And finally, can one get the job done or does it require a second bombing run so that the first has opened up Fordo, in this case, and now to really do the damage, you need something second dropped?

DEPTULA: Well, again, that's a great question. And the answer is it depends. It depends upon the geological analysis of, you know, what just does that mountain that's covering the bunkers consist of. Nominally, the GBU-57 has a penetration capability of around 200 feet. But you know, if it's really hard rock, it might take more than that.

The actual -- the area that you're trying to affect at Fordo is down between 250 and 300 feet. So it's going to take more than one weapon. It depends on the aim points. It depends on the desired objectives and outcomes that one wants to achieve. In all of these calculations go into determining the number of weapons that need to be dropped.

SMERCONISH: General Deptula, that was terrific. Thank you so much.

DEPTULA: You bet.

SMERCONISH: Social media reaction now to some of that which has transpired in the program so far, if there is a chance to destroy the Iranian nuclear program with a few well-placed bunkers busters, I say take it. Retired Florida truck driver says if there is a chance.

I'm looking for -- me, I'm looking for more than just a chance. And as I said at the outset, and I don't want to be repetitive, I also want some assurance as to the Intel because the public record is all over the place. You know, if everyone were saying the exact same thing, I'd have more confidence in where we stand now. But given all the contradiction and the lack of congressional oversight, I'm too concerned and I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that it's far more secure in terms of -- I mean, I recognize I'm on the outside looking in. I only know that, which is in the public domain.

Soon to come, more social media reaction to this day's program and federal agents. This is an amazing story. Federal agents near Dodger Stadium, immigration raids all sparking outrage in LA. What comes next? I've got a good poll question on this subject, should the LA Dodgers have denied property access to immigration officials who were doing their jobs?

Be sure to sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter at Smerconish.com when you're there. You'll get the work of Scott Stantis who's a great illustrator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. I encourage you to follow me on X.

Kudos for your opening today. It was well researched and objective. Is there a but coming? One minor point lacking, you didn't call out the House speaker and the Senate leader for lack of demanding a congressional vote.

That's true, Dan. I didn't only because they've been lockstep with the president, and I would expect that to be the case from Thune and from Johnson.

[09:35:09]

You're absolutely right. I should have put them into the mix as well. But I'm just surprised and disappointed that that Schumer and Jeffries haven't said anything. That just seems like a no brainer.

They are constantly complaining about everything Trump related. And yet in this instance, stone cold silence, which I just find to be very awkward, unusual and disappointing. But you're right. That's a good point. I should have.

More social media reaction. Go ahead. What else do we have?

Never figured you for such a warmonger.

Wait a minute. Never figured me for such a warmonger. Cheryl, did you listen to the commentary? I began by saying, if they're on the brink, if they're on the brink, and they won't negotiate, OK, let it happen.

But I'm not there, I said, because the public picture is just far too muddled. I'll tell you, Admiral Stavridis, for whom I have the utmost respect, he had an analogy which was, you know, the doors locked to the kitchen and there's like this real witch's brew that is being cooked up.

And I've been thinking, what was the response to that? And I think the response to that is to say, in this case, though, thinking of Tulsi Gabbard and others, it's as if we got a peek through the keyhole. It's like somebody looked through the keyhole and said, oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. The cook is not doing what others have worried the cook is doing, and the rest of us are just befuddled because we don't know what to make of it.

But no, quite contrary to that assertion, I'm not the warmonger. I'm the one who says, nobody -- nobody ever is intent on beginning a forever war. It's just that stuff always happens. It never seems to go according to plan.

One more social media. Let's take a look at it. That was funny.

David -- seems kind of strange that the prime minister of Israel would launch this attack knowing they don't have the capability to take out the main enrichment site. He must have been expecting Trump to get involved from the very beginning.

I think he's probably -- yes, I think he probably has anticipated that this is something that he's wanted to do for the entire time that he's been the Israeli prime minister and has never had such a supportive voice in the White House, as he sees in Donald Trump.

I don't -- I don't think Trump wants to do this, by the way. Let me also own that. I don't think this is something Trump wants to do. I think he wants a negotiated resolution, but it just seems as if Israel has put us in this position where now almost the U.S. is feeling backed into a corner.

Still to come, what to make of conflicting accounts of what caused a tense scene outside Dodger Stadium on Thursday, when federal agents were denied access to the stadium parking lots amid ongoing immigration raids and protests. This is the focus of today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Go to my Web site and answer this, should the L.A. Dodgers have denied property access to immigration officials doing their jobs?

A journalist who was writing about it for the "L.A. Times" is in my on-deck circle. We'll learn more together about that. While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. You'll get the work of Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:25]

SMERCONISH: A flash point in Los Angeles where immigration raids, federal agents, protests have landed quite literally on the doorstep of one of America's most iconic sport franchises.

Thursday this all happened as the Dodgers hosted the San Diego Padres. A few dozen protesters already mobilized to pressure the team to take a stand on immigration matters gathered outside the stadium, chanting, ICE out of L.A., and demanding answers after federal vehicles were spotted in or near the stadium's parking lot.

Some community activists tell CNN they followed immigration enforcement agents from a Home Depot in Hollywood, where two detentions were witnessed earlier that day directly to Dodger Stadium. Now, the official story depends on who you ask.

The Dodgers tweeted that ICE agents asked to access the parking lot and that they, the Dodgers, had said no. And then immigrations and customs enforcement, ICE, posted on X that the Dodgers claim is, quote, "false," writing, we were never there. And a DHS official insists the presence of CBP vehicles was brief, blaming a car malfunction and denying any enforcement activity connected to the team or to the game. That coming amid growing immigration crackdowns with the White House calling for 3,000 arrests a day and National Guard troops deployed to L.A. over the governor's objections.

The Dodgers just Friday night delivered an announcement supporting immigrants impacted by the raids, writing, quote, "In partnership with the City of Los Angeles, the Dodgers have committed $1 million toward direct financial assistance for families of immigrants impacted by recent events in the region. Additional community efforts to be announced in the coming days."

These events inspiring today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should the L.A. Dodgers have denied property access to immigration officials doing their jobs?

Joining me now to talk about it is "L.A. Times" writer Jack Harris, who covers the Dodgers for the paper. Jack, what's uncontested, I think, is that federal officials were denied access to Dodger property. What else can you tell us in terms of background?

JACK HARRIS, STAFF WRITER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES: Yes, I mean, the way you explained it is basically how it played out. There was a raid at a Home Depot in Hollywood, as you mentioned, close to Dodger Stadium. Vehicles that were involved in that operation were later seen at the ballpark.

It appears what happened is agents arrived at the ballpark requesting permission to go into the parking lot to use it as a processing center for some of the people that they had arrested at the morning raid. The team said no. The agents then went around to a different area of the ballpark, where there was a long driveway leading up to the parking lot.

[09:45:04]

They never actually went past the parking lot gates, but there were DHS vehicles parked there for at least some time on Thursday morning before they eventually left. Protesters showed up protesting, you know, their presence around the ballpark at all.

The one thing that you mentioned, you know, ICE said it was not their agents involved. DHS said it was CBP vehicles that were involved and what happened around the ballpark. So, there were some confusion as this played out. But it appears that there were -- there are CBP agents that tried to access the ballpark to use it as a processing center. The team said no. They went to another area close to the ballpark before eventually leaving.

SMERCONISH: When I first heard the story 3,000 miles away, a little whisper down the lane, I thought, maybe they're making a move on the grounds crew. I didn't know. It sounds like the intent from the feds, I'll just use that loosely, was to take advantage of that expansive parking lot, and that the Dodgers didn't want any part of it. Is that fair?

HARRIS: Yes, and that's about how it played out. One federal agent told a community member who later talked to our newspaper that, you know, they wanted to use the parking lots as a processing center because, you know, if they did it at the Home Depot, there could be public interference or people trying to, you know, obviously get involved in what they were doing there.

From the Dodgers side, you know, unless the agents presented, you know, a warrant or some other reason to access their private property, I don't think the team was ever just going to let, you know, law enforcement, especially with what's going on around the city of Los Angeles right now, to come onto their property to do anything that they hadn't previously approved or even knew about.

So, that's where some of the -- yes, the confusion about exactly why the agents were there. Obviously, when this first blew up on social media, there were a lot of questions about whether the Dodgers were assisting immigration agents. The team clarified that saying they didn't let them onto their actual property.

SMERCONISH: And so, Jack, it seems like the Dodgers have gone from a reluctance to be involved in this general issue at all, which was causing some folks to demand that they take a position. Now they're kind of on the front line of it, right? They sort of own this, that they repelled this attempt by the feds to use their property. How will that play in Dodger land?

HARRIS: Yes. I mean, even before Thursday there was mounting pressure on the team to make some sort of statement acknowledging what was happening in the city, offering support to the Latino parts of the city that, obviously, also make up a big part of their fan base.

The team was actually planning to announce that million dollars in financial assistance on Thursday night before their game that day. They pushed that announcement back a day to Friday after the situation with the federal agents at the ballpark happened.

But yes, now, after a couple of weeks of a lot of the portions of their fan base hoping that the team would say something, they have come out. They have started to lay out how they're going to help people who have been impacted by this. They're going to have more announcements coming.

So, yes, they tried to keep this at an arm's length. But between the mounting pressure from the fans then, obviously, what happened Thursday with agents actually showing up to the stadium, like you said, it showed up on their front door this week and now they've made a public comment about it.

SMERCONISH: And just a quick observation from yours truly. And this comes on the heel of a social influencer singing the national anthem in Spanish, which itself became a controversy. A 20-second response from you?

HARRIS: Yes, I mean, that was just another situation where the team, again, was trying to not get involved in this initially. They had, you know, the situation where the singer sang the national anthem in Spanish, even though the team asked her not to. They had to kind of backtrack saying, there were no hard feelings. She's not banned or anything like that.

So, just another example of kind of the complicated nature of this, especially for a baseball team, you know, trying to figure out where they fit in the situation.

SMERCONISH: I have a fire alarm going off. They say it's just a test. So, I'm sorry I was distracted, but thank you for being here. I appreciate it very much.

Checking in on social media. I'm not supposed to evacuate. It's just a test. It's just a test.

Doing their jobs is a pretty loaded fragment.

Oh, my goodness. We're doing it live. We're doing it live. What can I tell you? OK, back to the social media.

Doing their jobs is a pretty loaded fragment. But then you are always trying to use your thumb to manipulate the scale these days.

Oh, William, you called me out. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Were they not doing their jobs?

I -- by the way, I am the one who writes the poll questions. So, for better or worse, they are my handiwork. And I put a tremendous amount of time into them. And I could easily have stopped the sentence by saying, should the Dodgers have prevented the feds access?

[09:50:00]

But no I -- why did I write it that way? I wrote it that way because I anticipate that overwhelmingly people are going to approve of what the Dodgers did, and I wanted to make you think a little bit, because those individuals, whether they were ICE, whether they were DHS, whether they were CBP, they are there doing their job.

What if it had been the fire department? What if it had been the fire department wanting to stage up at Dodger Stadium? We wouldn't even be having this conversation. Why? Because they'd be doing their job.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should the L.A. Dodgers have denied property access to immigration officials doing their job?

Subscribe to the newsletter while you're there. You'll get exclusive cartoons from the likes of Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the poll result so far. Look at that.

[09:55:00] Eighty-one percent say, yes, the L.A. Dodgers should have denied property access to immigration officials doing their jobs. Imagine how high the 81 percent would have gone if I hadn't put in the language, officials doing their jobs. Thirty-six thousand have already voted. If you've not yet voted, hustle and do so.

More social media reaction that came in during the course of the program. What do we have?

Sell Israel a pair of B-2s and a 12-pack of bunker busters -- of bunker busters and then it's on them.

You know, there's a -- it's interesting that you would say that because I was wondering, why wouldn't we provide them what they need to do and stay at arm's length? But I don't think President Trump wants to stay at arm's length from the process now. I think that he wants to -- I think that he wants to own it, for better or worse.

So, fingers crossed that it peacefully resolves without Iran having a nuclear capability. OK? That's what I pray for.

If you missed any of today's program, know that you can always get it anywhere you get your podcasts. We thank you for watching and we will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)