Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Interview With Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA); Interview With Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA); Interview With Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired April 12, 2026 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:30]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN HOST (voice-over): No deal. Marathon talks between the U.S. and Iran to end the war break down.

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We leave here with our final and best offer. We'll see if the Iranians accept it.

BASH: If they don't, then what?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We win regardless. We've defeated them militarily.

BASH: President Trump's former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and top Senate Intelligence Democrat Mark Warner are my guests.

And making moves? As Vice President Vance takes a political gamble that could affect his presidential hopes, Democrats are making their intent clear.

REV. AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Are you going to run again?

PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: You save me a seat, I'll be there.

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Listen, I might. I might.

BASH: Is this the 2028 kickoff? Our panel is here to break it all down.

Plus: political shockwave, disturbing new claims by four women about a well-known congressman. Could he and another facing his own scandal be pushed out of office?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BASH: Hello. I'm Dana Bash in Washington, where the state of our union is once again stuck between Iran and a hard place.

After 21 hours of the highest-level direct talks between the U.S. and Iran in nearly half-a-century, the two sides left without a deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We were quite accommodating. The president told us, you need to come here in good faith and make your best effort to get a deal. We did that. And, unfortunately, we weren't able to make any headway.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And just moments ago, President Trump weighed in with an announcement.

Here's what he posted on social media -- quote -- "Effective immediately, the United States navy, the finest in the world, will begin the process of blockading any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz."

I want to bring in now the president's first-term U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who advised the president on Iran and many other things in that role. She's currently the Walter P. Stern chair at the Hudson Institute.

Ambassador, thank you so much for being here.

I, of course, want to start with what we just heard from the president, that he is going to start a blockade, that -- any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. What do you make of that? Is that the right move?

(CROSSTALK)

NIKKI HALEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Good morning, Dana.

Well, first, I think you look at where they were going into the negotiations. The U.S. had a 15-point plan. Iran had a 10-point plan. They really were miles apart. The Iranians were not willing to give up their nuclear production. They weren't willing to give up holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage.

And I think Vice President Vance did the right thing by walking away and saying, we're not going to continue talks, this isn't worth our time and we will finish the mission. And I think what you're seeing President Trump do is not pause at all and say, we're going to go after Iran where it hurts.

I think, if you look over the span of this war, CENTCOM has done a remarkable job by taking out the majority of their missile, drone, naval capabilities, which really was at the heart of the strategy of what Iran wanted to do.

But the part to really bring Iran to its knees is to go after it economically. And I think making sure that the strait is open is the first part of that. I think the second part of that is going to be really important. It's finally dealing with Russia and China.

You look at Russia, and it was their intelligence that was used to hit our bases in Turkey and Qatar, the oil fields in Saudi Arabia. They gave the intelligence to Iran. Iran shot those, and China. Hundreds of ballistic missiles have been made because China has supplied them.

And now we know that China is getting ready to give MANPADs, which is going to only give them more air defense systems to work with. So, look, I think Trump wasted no time. I think he's moving forward. And I think he's calling Iran's bluff.

BASH: Can I just ask you about that, calling Iran's bluff? Is it that, when what the president is trying to do is get out of a situation that didn't exist before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran?

The only reason the strait is a problem is because Iran is using the economic leverage it has with the strait to really throttle the global economy.

[09:05:00]

HALEY: Iran knows they're in trouble. Iran has lost everything from the leadership to their missile drone and naval capabilities. They're getting desperate. They think they have leverage with the strait. And they do.

If we did not do anything to stop them, not only would they have leverage. They would have even more money than they had before to funnel money to their proxies, even more money to buy supplies for ballistic missiles and continue their nuclear production.

I mean, this is something that not just the U.S. should do. The region needs to take part in making sure that the strait is open. When you think of 20 percent of oil, 20 percent of liquefied natural gas, and you have got all of that fertilizer, a third of the fertilizer going through the strait, what Iran hopes as a win -- and this is very important.

Iran sees winning as putting as much political and economic pressure on Trump and the Gulf allies as they can. This is a game of chicken. It's who caves first. And Iranian -- the Iranian regime is hoping that Trump will cave. Today, he showed he's not.

BASH: So does that mean that you believe that the U.S. military should be in the region, in and around the Strait of Hormuz, to make sure that these ships can go through indefinitely? I mean, where does this end?

HALEY: No, I think that this is just a matter of continuing to weaken the regime. No, we don't want an endless war.

This needs to be completed fast. And I think Trump's showing he's not going to wait around for talks anymore to do this. Keep in mind, we have got a lot of the naval military already there. So they're prepared to do this. If they can show that they can de-mine that strait, if they can show that it's safe to go through -- typically, 135 ships would go through the strait a day. Now we have got maybe a handful.

You have got a backlog of 400 ships. This is affecting the global economy. If the Trump administration can manage to get the strait open without Iran having any leverage to hold it hostage, that will be a huge feat, not just for the U.S., but for the region and the global economy.

BASH: So the Strait of Hormuz -- is and what's happening there is a consequence of a war that the U.S. and Israel launched in large part to try to extract uranium that is still there, enriched uranium, in Iran, and also to break down Iran's missile program, drone-enabled capabilities.

The drone-enabled capabilities, at least it seems, as though has been successful. They have certainly been depleted, not the enriched uranium. So is there a victory with an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium?

HALEY: No.

And I think President Trump has said that. He doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But, keep in mind, the Gulf allies have said, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They are pushing to continue this coalition with the United States to make sure that doesn't happen.

And I think they are going to have to extract that uranium to make sure that it doesn't happen. This is about, what do you do to make sure Iran is no longer a national security threat to Americans? The majority of the job has been done. This is the last bit.

Iran decided to talk. President Trump decided to give them a chance. They did what we have seen them do. I saw them do it when I was at the United Nations, delay, delay, delay. They think, the more they can delay, the stronger they get.

BASH: And...

HALEY: And they're just trying to weaken the coalition.

BASH: Yes, I mean, you have said delaying is winning, so are they winning?

HALEY: Well, they stopped the delay now, so we will see.

If -- when they went into negotiations, if Vance and his team had come back and said, we're going to talk again in a week, we're going to talk again in two weeks, Iranians would have been winning. The fact that he walked away because he saw there was no communication that could be had, there was no negotiation that could be had, it shows they're not letting them win.

BASH: But can I just go back to the enriched uranium, though? Because the whole notion of the Iranians backing down on that, I mean, it was pretty clear, at least in the first round of negotiations, they said it's a nonstarter.

So do you believe that the U.S. military Special Forces and those who support Special Forces just need to go in and extract the enriched uranium?

HALEY: I think that's probably what it's going to come down to. I mean, this is a special force mission. It would take about a week to 10 days to get done.

They know how to do it. It's dangerous. It's not something that we can just sit and think it's casual. I think they have to do it. But once they do that, they're taking away literally one arm of the Iranian regime, to where they no longer can threaten any of our allies or threaten us anymore.

BASH: So, boots on the ground?

HALEY: They -- I think they have already known. It's a small special operations force that they would have to do to be able to extract that uranium. Not just any military man or woman could do this. This is Special Forces, for sure.

[09:10:07]

BASH: Ambassador, you mentioned China.

And I do want to ask about CNN's reporting that indicates not only has China been helping before, but is preparing to deliver new air defense systems to Iran within the next several weeks.

Should President Trump raise this with President Xi during their summit next month, or do you even think that that summit should continue, should go on?

HALEY: I think that I question whether the summit should go on, and I will tell you even this. I question -- I don't think President Trump should have changed his national security strategy or his national defensive strategy to take China away as our number one national threat.

They moved it and said it was the Western Hemisphere. But if you look at what China's done, I mean, the fact that Trump changed the strategy, but then you also look at the fact that he opened up the Nvidia H200 chips to China, when they are a number one competitor on A.I., changed a policy that we had had in place for a long time not to give them powerful A.I. chips.

Then you go and you look at the universities. We knew the students were coming to our universities, working in research, sending information back. He doubled the number of Chinese students that can now be in the U.S. to 600,000.

You look at the labs that have been found in the United States, two biolabs by Chinese nationals... BASH: Yes.

HALEY: ... that had things like HIV and Ebola. All of these things, combined with the fact that China has now built up their nuclear warheads to almost 1,000 warheads that they will have in a few years, we can't take our eye off of China.

BASH: So...

HALEY: There's a reason they're helping Iran. Trump needs to go to China and say, we're not going to let you have any oil out of the strait. We're not going to allow any of this to happen if you don't go forward and stop what you're doing to help the Iranians.

And I don't think he should meet with them until they agree to do that.

BASH: So cancel the meeting?

HALEY: Until -- if China does not agree to stop helping the Iranians, and if China does not stop all of this proactive efforts, I think Trump needs to go at them much more aggressively than he has.

BASH: OK.

Ambassador, I covered your presidential campaign in 2024. And at the time, you said Donald Trump was unhinged and diminished. Do you still feel that way?

HALEY: I think that he has the ability to cause chaos and I think he has the ability to cause distractions.

But I think the way that he -- when I look at how he's managed the immigration effort, which was a catastrophe, I think he's handled that well. When I look at the fact that he's dealing with our adversaries in a way that's strong and not weak, I think that's incredibly important.

I think that a lot of the things that he has done, he's done well. It's just sometimes how he does it that causes chaos. But now the biggest issue is going to be the economy. We have got to look at our debt. We're at $39 trillion in debt. We will have $40 trillion in October.

Social Security is going to go bankrupt in six years. That's going to affect 75 million Americans. Republicans and Democrats need to focus on our debt, on the entitlements, on our economy. It's the biggest issue we're facing domestically right now.

BASH: Before I let you go real quick, the vice president took on a pretty high-profile role in these talks. Do you think that Vice President Vance should be your party's next presidential nominee?

HALEY: I think it's too soon to tell.

I think that primaries are healthy. I think a year is a lifetime in politics. I think we will be having a different conversation a year from now. Who's going to be in that, I have no idea.

BASH: Will you?

HALEY: I will not.

BASH: OK.

Ambassador Nikki Haley, thank you so much for being here this morning. I appreciate it.

HALEY: Thank you. It was great to be with you, Dana.

BASH: Thanks.

And what should the U.S. do now on Iran? The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, will weigh in next.

And, later, troubling new allegations against a prominent Democratic lawmaker and candidate for California governor, and the fallout is about to get worse.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:33]

BASH: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

President Trump announced just this morning that the U.S. will now impose a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.

Here with me now is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.

Senator, thank you for being here.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Thank you, Dana.

BASH: So, what the president said in a pretty lengthy social media post is that he's imposing a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. What do you think of that? Is that a good move?

WARNER: Well, Dana, I have great respect for Nikki Haley, but, boy, oh, boy, I see the circumstances so differently than what she laid out.

This administration literally days into this war of choice -- and we need to continue to remember that. This war, there was no imminent threat to America. Donald chose -- Trump chose this war. He said there were four goals. First was regime change.

And I think all of our intelligence shows the current leadership now is even more radical than the previous leadership. Getting rid of the enriched uranium. These are canisters, 1,000 pounds, very volatile, it would not be some simple operation. It would take 10,000 troops on the ground guarding a perimeter.

We'd have to send special operators in, and the Iranians could then bomb their own facility, potentially trapping our troops, and this volatile uranium would be very, very dangerous.

The idea that we have gotten rid of all the ballistic missiles, absolutely not. Thank God we saved those pilots, but they shot down our airplanes. And what is crazy, Dana, with the war of choice, we have now run up -- ran out of our interceptors.

[09:20:08]

We have been spending $2.4 million a crack to shoot down a $50,000 Iranian drone. The Israelis have run through theirs as well. We could have taken Ukrainian technology, where they figured out how to take down these drones much cheaper, but they didn't.

And then, down to the question of the Strait of Hormuz, I have no idea, other than the idea that he could interdict at both ends of the strait, how he's going to get it reopened, how we're going to get ships through.

Remember, you can sink all the Iranian navy. They have 300 to 500 little speedboats that you can put a bomb, a mine on. We have not taken out virtually any of those. So we're 40 days in. I wish the vice president -- I know he -- I'm sure he gave it his best.

I hope they would continue these negotiations, but I don't see how, 40-plus days into this war, that we are safer, that our allies are safer. I'm not even sure Israel is safer. And the idea that the president somehow acts like he was surprised that the Iranians closed the strait or attacked our Gulf allies shows that he's either not getting briefed or he's not reading the intelligence.

This has been absolutely one of the reasons why, for 47 years, no American president took this action, because the Iranian regime's bad, but we know they were going to take those -- close the strait and go after the Gulf allies.

BASH: So, and just to pick it up where you just left off, on the strait, it is where we are -- where the world is. And so, given that, whether it's a blockade or some other military operation, would you support that to reopen the strait?

WARNER: But I don't understand how blockading the strait is going to somehow push the Iranians into opening it. I don't get the connection there.

I agree -- I think actually Ambassador Haley underestimated the threat, the economic threat. We know we've got $4-a-gallon gasoline. We know that 25 percent of the world's natural gas goes through the strait. We know a lot of aluminum does.

We know that this has so devastated Asian countries right now, they're shutting down their economies one day a week, fertilizer costs up. And the thing I was hoping was we could come to some negotiated truce or end.

But, even with that, you're going to see these energy prices continue at record levels, not for weeks, but months and years. And how blockading the strait gets it open suddenly, I don't get that logic.

BASH: Yes, I mean, it sounds like -- and this is reading this lengthy post and not being able to ask the president at this moment, but it sounds like they're trying to extract economic pain on Iran, the way Iran is trying to do on the world.

I do want to ask you about what the president has said.

(CROSSTALK)

WARNER: But, Dana, just one...

BASH: Yes, please.

WARNER: One quick thing there, though.

BASH: Yes.

WARNER: Here is the irony of this.

When the president decided to release the sanctions on the Iranian oil that was already at sea, we literally gave Iran -- the Iranian regime $14 billion. We are paying, helping the Iranians fund their effort to attack us, to attack Israel, and to attack our allies.

That is the most crazy, upside-down kind of policy I can possibly imagine. So, if you want to strangle Iran, why relieve the sanctions on their oil? It's crazy.

BASH: Even before these talks concluded without a deal, the president said: "Regardless of what happens, we win. We totally defeated that country."

You have a lot of access to intelligence. You are one of the few people in this country who has -- or, at least presumably, you know what's going on, on the ground there. Given that, how do you think the U.S. gets out of this war?

WARNER: You know, it is an extraordinarily fair question.

I know people have said, even though you may not like how we got there, what do we do now? Because the president can declare victory. And I think -- I don't know -- I have not met an American yet who wants to send their son or daughter to another ground war in the Middle East, especially in Iran.

But if we declare victory today, look, we can maybe then reopen the straits and we can move forward. But Iran will claim, with some vindication, that they have taken on the two major military powers in the world, United States and Israel, and at least fought them to a draw. Our Gulf nation states who look to us for protection, we have seen that we have helped some, but take the UAE. The Emiratis actually has been bombed and missile-attacked many more times than Israel. Are they going to hedge their bets?

[09:25:09]

And because we did this with Israel alone and no other allies, this is where the kind of actions of President Trump threatening NATO or threatening Greenland hurts us when we look to those NATO allies for either assistance or support in this kind of action.

Again, I shed no tears for the Iranian leadership that's been killed. They are awful, but I don't know how, outside of the president's own bubble, he can somehow claim that Iran has been totally destroyed, when we see them continue to strike, when they have virtual control of the strait.

BASH: Right.

WARNER: And, unfortunately, the regime is, if anything, filled with more radicals than before.

BASH: Senator, you said the timing of this war was dictated by Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. Is that based on the intelligence briefings you received, or did you learn that elsewhere? Where did you learn that?

WARNER: Well, Dana, I'm a huge supporter of Israel, continue to be, right to defend itself.

I'm not so much a supporter of this Netanyahu government, who, again, I question when we -- Pakistan put out the terms of the truce, I'm sure the Americans signed off on that. That's the way things work. By having this ambiguity, I was hoping the truce would extend to Israeli actions in Lebanon.

But my statement how this was started wasn't based on anything that was said in a classified briefing. It was what Senator -- or what my old -- my friend Secretary Rubio said was -- and he said it publicly -- well, the Israelis were going to go, and we know then these -- if the Israelis were going to attack, the Iranians would then attack us, so we went ahead and went first as well. I take Secretary Rubio at his word.

BASH: Before I let you go, Senator, I do want to ask about allegations of one of your fellow -- against one of your fellow Democrats, Eric Swalwell, allegations of rape and sexual misconduct.

He denies these allegations as false, say they never happened. You are a leader in your party. Do you think he should resign from Congress or face expulsion?

WARNER: You know, Dana, I have seen the reports. I think I have met Mr. Swalwell once or twice. I want to hear his side of the story. But, obviously, if any of these allegations are true, he should no

longer be a candidate, at least candidate for governor. But, again, I don't know any of the facts. And I'm a little old-fashioned. I feel like I ought to hear the facts before I start weighing in.

BASH: Senator Mark Warner, thank you so much for being here this morning. I appreciate it.

WARNER: Thank you.

BASH: And Congress is coming back after a two-week break. Could the House spend the next week trying to expel some of their own members?

My panel is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:24]

BASH: A growing chorus of Democrats are denouncing Congressman Eric Swalwell this weekend after CNN reported that four women made accusations of sexual misconduct against him.

Those accusations range from inappropriate messages and pictures to unwanted kissing and touching, and, in one case, rape.

Here's Swalwell's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA), GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: These allegations of sexual assault are flat false. They're absolutely false. They did not happen. They have never happened. And I will fight them with everything that I have.

I have certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past. But those mistakes are between me and my wife. And, to her, I apologize deeply for putting her in this position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And my panel is here now, including a sitting Democratic Congressman, Eugene Vindman.

What do you think should happen this week? Should the congressman resign? And, if not, would you vote to expel him?

REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D-VA): Dana, We need to be crystal clear on this.

The accusations are absolutely heinous, and his admissions, betraying his family, are deplorable. So, Eric Swalwell needs to resign. He needs to drop out of the race. And we have grown far too accustomed to having our senior leaders, our elected officials fall far below what we expect their behavior to be morally, ethically. And so, whether you're the president of the United States, whether

you're a representative, we should not tolerate this behavior. And Representative Swalwell needs to go.

BASH: And just to be clear, because he's also running for California governor, you're saying that he should not only drop out of that race, but he should resign his seat in Congress?

VINDMAN: Yes.

BASH: OK.

Well, the leadership didn't quite go that far, of your party in the House. Here's what they said: "Following the incredibly disturbing sexual assault accusations against Congressman Eric Swalwell, we call for a swift investigation into these incidents and for the congressman to immediately end his campaign to be California's next governor. This is unacceptable of anyone, certainly not an elected official, and must be taken seriously."

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

The first thing, as the congressman said a minute ago, is, you think about the family, you think about the victims. You got to be responsible and respectable to them as a Democratic Caucus.

There are things you can do short of resignation, because the question is, should someone be punished, to get the punishment for something they haven't been convicted of? But you can take them off of committees. You can make sure he's not running. You can -- any funding that you were giving from any organizations, take that away. The people who are, I think, leading his campaign organization are all stepping down.

[09:35:01]

And then the congressman has to decide whether or not he needs to be focused on his family and his reputation and his legal case. And that probably means that he can't do that and represent the people of California very well.

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But a lot of this needle-threading that's going on around this, it's very bad, let's take him off committees, but maybe not resign, I mean, think about just not too long ago in our politics, this would have been instantaneous, career-ending, you're gone.

And it's precisely because we live in these, like, weirdly, very narrowly divided times that right now Democratic leadership, they don't want to lose a vote in a House that is as narrow as it is.

BASH: Yes.

SOLTIS ANDERSON: And I don't just want this to be like a partisan, I'm throwing a bomb, I'm going after Democrats, because, right now, Republicans are in that same situation too. They have Representative Tony Gonzales, who's also facing really horrible allegations. No

side wants to give an inch to decency when things feel so tight, so fraught and they feel like, well, the other side wouldn't do it. So why should I?

SIMMONS: Well, the Democrats have to be strong, though. They have to be strong and sort of let everybody know where they stand on this, that it's unacceptable.

SOLTIS ANDERSON: I hope they will.

SIMMONS: Yes. The question is, what is the punishment?

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Let me just say one thing. There's a move that we'll probably see this week to not only, if they don't -- if Swalwell doesn't quit, to remove both Swalwell and Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales.

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

So, Congresswoman Luna is going to have a motion, a privileged motion, going to get an up-down vote. So everyone's going to be on record whether you support it or not. I applaud the congressman's clarity on this issue. And they're going to get -- Republicans are going to be on record and Democrats are going to be on record.

Do you tolerate this kind of behavior? Should this be acceptable kind of behavior? And in both cases, the answer should be no. Both in Congressman Gonzales' case and in Congressman Swalwell's case, they should -- it should not be acceptable.

Congressman Swalwell is looking at being prosecuted. The Manhattan district attorney is investigating him. He's asked -- they're asking -- they're asking for people to come forward with information. He's going to face criminal charges most likely in that case.

And so to the congressman and Kristen' point, I hope that this vote occurs and that both Republicans and Democrats are on record and that they strongly denounce and speak forcefully against this kind of behavior.

VINDMAN: And what we need to have is actually some moral clarity on this point.

I think, for years now, we have grown far too accustomed to expecting our elected officials to fall far below where we expect them to be on moral and ethical grounds, whether you're trading stocks, insider trading, or whether, frankly, you're accused of and convicted of felonies, and you're still elected to the highest office in the land.

These behaviors are not acceptable. We have to establish a floor for what we expect of our...

URBAN: I mean, it's kind of a bare minimum, right? It shouldn't be the floor. But this should be a thing where it's like, you're disqualified if you do those things.

The fact that we're talking about insider trading...

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: Well, this is interesting coming from Republicans. I have to say, this is interesting.

URBAN: No, no, but I'm just saying...

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. This is interesting coming from Republicans, who have tolerated the most heinous crimes that have been accused of a president of the United States.

And you have let him get away with it.

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: Yes. I mean, like he has convictions in New York state for sexual assault in civil cases.

URBAN: Civil cases. Come on. Come on.

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: He has women who have come out publicly and said that he's done things to them that they don't particularly -- that they don't like.

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: Let's be a little clear, OK.

BASH: A civil case is not a conviction.

URBAN: Civil case, civil case in a jurisdiction where 90 percent of the jury...

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: He's found liable. He's found liable.

URBAN: Ninety percent of the jury pool -- if I took you to the most Republican district in America, I could find a Democrat liable.

Listen, I'm not saying that Donald Trump is a choirboy. I'm not making apologies.

(CROSSTALK)

VINDMAN: David, I'm sorry.

(CROSSTALK) SIMMONS: But you're not taking...

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: You're not holding him to the same standard as you're holding Democrats too.

BASH: Let's get Kristen in.

(CROSSTALK)

VINDMAN: ... Epstein Files here. Be serious.

URBAN: Yes, what about the Epstein Files? Let's pause for a second.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Well, you know what?

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: Because the president has made -- the president has dumped the Epstein files.

(CROSSTALK)

VINDMAN: He has not. There are millions of files that are still being withheld. The accusations are heinous.

URBAN: I am for complete transparency.

(CROSSTALK)

VINDMAN: We have to have one uniform standard for everybody.

URBAN: I am for complete transparency.

SIMMONS: Democrats should hold Swalwell to a very high standard and should basically send him out -- they should send him out on an island by himself, and so he doesn't have any more power in the United States Congress.

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: You didn't call for him to resign. You didn't call for him to be convicted.

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: He might have to resign. He might also need to be convicted in the Ethics process.

The question, though is, are the Republicans going to hold...

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: If you were a congressman, would you vote to bounce him?

SIMMONS: I probably would.

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: Yes or no. It's a yes or no. It's binary. It's binary.

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: He doesn't hold to my standards.

URBAN: It's a yes or no.

SIMMONS: Listen, he doesn't hold up to my standards.

(CROSSTALK)

URBAN: Answer the question. It's an easy one. Would you vote to bounce him?

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: You answer the answer about at what point are you going to say that Donald Trump needs himself and the Republicans to hold himself to the same standards?

URBAN: For what?

SIMMONS: For what?

URBAN: For what?

SIMMONS: The E. Jean Carroll case, for the fact that he looks like he's in the middle of -- in the Epstein imbroglio that he's in the middle of.

URBAN: Where? He's not involved in none of that, none of that.

I'm asking you again, just for clarity, because we know where the congressman stands, we know where she stands. We don't know where you stand.

(CROSSTALK)

[09:40:01]

SIMMONS: I just told you where I stand.

URBAN: Would you vote to expel him?

SIMMONS: I haven't seen all the evidence, but I would probably vote for him based on what it is.

URBAN: Oh, come on. That's a cop-out.

SIMMONS: No, based on where it is... (CROSSTALK)

URBAN: That's a cop-out.

(CROSSTALK)

SIMMONS: Based on what it is that I know, I would probably vote for it -- for him leaving.

The question, though, is, for the Democrats, in lieu of him leaving, until that process has run its course, they should put him on an island where he can't have any more power.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: All right, guys, I appreciate this very passionate, heated debate among the men, but we do have a woman at the table who probably has a very strong opinion about this.

SOLTIS ANDERSON: Disgusting men in politics are not a new thing, but I would love to think we could move to a future where they become a vanishingly rare thing.

It's unfortunate that it feels like we haven't moved in that direction very much.

BASH: Well said.

All right, everybody, stick around, because we're not done. Vice President J.D. Vance, he is walking a political tightrope. How is what happened in Pakistan, what didn't happen in Pakistan going to affect his presidential hopes?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:45:34]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: We have been at it now for 21 hours, and we've had a number of substantive discussions with the Iranians. That's the good news.

The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement. And I think that's bad news for Iran much more than it's bad news for the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: J.D. Vance is in a tricky spot politically, trying to negotiate an end to the war he reportedly did not support in the first place. And the question is, what does it mean for him in 2028?

My panel is still with me.

What do you think, David Urban?

URBAN: I think J.D. Vance is in a very difficult position.

To your point, he was not a proponent of doing this at all. And as Jamal and I talked about earlier, he's kind of in a position where Kamala Harris was on the border, when the Biden administration sent her to the border to fix an unfixable situation. J.D. Vance has now been sent to the Middle East to negotiate -- to Pakistan to negotiate with an Iranian regime that doesn't seem to want to negotiate.

And so I'm not sure what the outcome is here, but it's something that is -- it's going to be pulling not one rabbit, two, three rabbits out of a hat if you can get anything done; 21 hours in these negotiations is nothing. It's barely cracking the surface.

The Iranians are on a different time frame than the president is. And so we'll see. He's in a very, very tough spot.

BASH: What do Republican voters -- how much do you think at this point they're going to be looking at Vance and at the war and connecting the two?

SOLTIS ANDERSON: So I think 2028 is so far away that we really just have to see how this conflict ultimately resolves. I don't think this specific incident or negotiation is going to be definitive in any way.

But I do think, I mean, they're -- in all of the reporting around this, the vice president has tried to very much publicly stay as close to the president as possible, and for good reason. MAGA Republican voters in all of my data are very much behind Donald Trump when it comes to what he's doing in Iran, what he's doing in the Middle East.

At the same time, there is a piece of the Republican coalition. They're not MAGA Republicans, but they're the Democrats and independents, who voted for Trump largely on cost of living issues. They don't really like what's going on.

And so to the extent to which daylight does begin to emerge in the next couple of months, it's going to be a very, very interesting thing to watch.

BASH: Staying with 2028, looking at the Democratic side of the field -- you knew I was going to continue, Jamal.

(LAUGHTER)

SIMMONS: I knew you were saving me for this.

BASH: Yes, I was, your old boss, the former vice president, former Democratic candidate for president, Kamala Harris, listen to what she said on Friday.

Oh, sorry. We don't have it. So I'll just tell you. Al Sharpton at his event asked her, are you going to run again in 2028? And she said: "I might. I'm thinking about it."

SIMMONS: Yes, she is thinking about it. I've heard that from a lot of people who are still very close in touch with her.

The question for her is going to be, can she do the things that the American people are ready for and are looking for? And they're going to look for people who are ready to get out and not be cautious. They're going to look for people who are going to get out there and say what they believe and lean into it.

And that is going to mean that some of the caution that got her in trouble was she was vice president, she's going to have to let go of all of that and really lean into running hard in the way that American people want.

I'm not sure Gavin Newsom is what people are looking for, but Gavin Newsom's style of being in Trump's face, of being creative on social media, I think Democrats are really liking what they're seeing from him in terms of his attitude and his style.

BASH: I know you're focused on 2026. And that's understandable. You're going to be on the ballot, and it's going to determine whether or not you'll be in the majority or not.

But, as you look ahead just more broadly to sort of what kind of leader you want for your party, is Kamala Harris it?

VINDMAN: We -- I am looking for a leader of character, of integrity, of somebody who is not afraid to say what they think, what they feel, and somebody that has judgment.

And so I'm -- at this point, as you said, I'm much less focused on 2028. I'm much more focused on 2026. In Virginia, actually, we have a referendum right now. We have nine days for a referendum that will redraw maps.

We set records in Northern Virginia yesterday on folks coming out to vote in a special election. They're not coming out right now because they support the president. In fact, it's very clear, based on the results last November. So they're voting yes on the referendum because they want to gain some control over this president.

This president's policies have been reckless. And, to your point earlier, J.D. Vance and the president have put themselves into a bind, the American people into a bind. We are in a position where we are now 46 days into a war. We have spent over $50 billion for the war.

[09:50:07]

We've taken significant casualties. We've lost significant material, and there are no good prospects for ending it. And so the only thing worse than the cease-fire failing is the war continuing under the management of this president, of the vice president, and the secretary of defense, who has no concept on how to get us out of it.

SIMMONS: Don't forget about Elissa Slotkin. I think Elissa Slotkin, who's running from Michigan, is the kind of candidate that might pierce the veil.

URBAN: I'll just give a quick bounce past the pollster.

And yet Democratic numbers, congressional numbers are still well below Donald Trump's numbers. So what does that say going into the election?

VINDMAN: It's not relevant.

BASH: Go ahead.

SOLTIS ANDERSON: It says that a lot of voters don't like anything that's going on. Whether that motivates them to turn out to say they're mad or just keeps them home is an open question.

BASH: All right.

Thank you all very much.

The president took a big gamble this week in Europe, and, in just a few hours, we're going to see if it might backfire. I'll explain after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:39]

BASH: Over his 16 years in power, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has overseen Hungary's slide towards authoritarianism.

But now polls show Orban could lose today's election there, which is why he called in help from some very powerful friends.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I love Hungary. And I love that Viktor. I will tell you, he's a fantastic man. I'm a big fan of Viktor. I'm with him all the way. The United States is with him all the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The last-ditch pushed by the Trump administration to get Orban over the line, including promises by the president to use the full economic might of the U.S. to strengthen Hungary's economy if he wins, reflects concern on the right that a loss by the man Steve Bannon once called Trump before Trump could have ripple effects well beyond Europe's borders.

We will be watching the results closely.

Thanks so much for spending your Sunday morning with us. Fareed Zakaria picks it up next.