Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
U.S. And Iran Sign Agreement But Key Questions Remain; Trump At G7 After Iran Framework Deal Announced; Interview With Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA); Source: DOJ Investigating People Connected To Newsom, Including His Wife Over Possible Tax-Related Crimes; Axios: Top Trump Officials Doubt Iran's Intentions On Deal; Trump Marks 80th Birthday With UFC Fight On White House Lawn; WH Doesn't Condemn UFC Fighter Who Smeared Michelle Obama. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired June 15, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: But it is a horse, it can carry as much as 70,000 pounds of bombs and other munitions. It can also carry nuclear bombs, nuclear armed cruise missiles. Officials say there weren't any weapons on board the plane today. Before today's crash, the most recent deadly accident involving the B-52 was in 2008. Thank you for joining us. AC360 begins right now.
[20:00:29]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening, from the Newsroom, topping our CNN Global War coverage, just hours after the U.S. and Iran electronically signed the memorandum of understanding to move further negotiations forward, new reporting tonight, the top administration officials already have doubts about those next steps.
Now, the reporting comes from CNN analysts and AXIOS correspondent, Barak Ravid. The headline' CIA Director doubts Iran's intentions on deal, sources say. Ravid reports that CIA director John Ratcliffe told the President and other senior officials that Intelligence raised, "serious doubts" about Iran's willingness to make the nuclear concessions the U.S. is seeking in any final deal, according to three sources familiar with those discussions.
Ravid says that the Director Ratcliffe, is not the only senior skeptic, Sauer Secretary of State and Defense Secretary Hegseth. He reports that Vice-President Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner advocated for pursuing the deal. Remarkably, Ravid cites two sources detailing meetings in which the President and his team, "discussed intelligence gathered by several U.S. Intelligence agencies, which showed that the way Iranian officials were discussing the deal amongst themselves was inconsistent with what they were telling the mediators and the U.S."
One source telling Ravid, "The intelligence reflects that the Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal." All of this capping a day in which the two sides electronically signed an agreement to work toward precisely what this report says Iran may not be willing to do, an agreement, it's important to point out the public has not seen yet and does not know the details of. Late today, Vice-President Vance told CNN's Jake Tapper that it's only
about one and a half pages long as to what is on that page and a half, though, what the agreement actually spells out and what it leaves unsaid. Beyond opening the door to further talks, there's no way of knowing just yet. The Vice-President said we might see the document by tomorrow, but earlier today the President suggested it might not be until next weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, when will the text of the MOU be released?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think pretty soon. I would say, I mean, I want it to be released because it's a very powerful document, probably pretty soon, I would say sometime after Friday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Friday is when the deal will be formally signed in Geneva. The President, who is nearby in France for the G7 Summit, did not commit to being there, saying the Vice-President would attend. He did, however, paint a rosy picture of the Strait of Hormuz already returning to normal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The deal's all signed and the Strait is already partially opened. As you know, they're doing a little hunting for a couple of mines that they've already found, but it's essentially, ships are starting to go out now. On Friday it will be completely open.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, keeping them honest, the President offered no evidence, no specifics. Actually, to back that up and two sides have competing claims of how a reopened Strait would be run. The President today said it would be, "permanently toll free." Iran says there will be, "fees" and we do not know what, if anything, the Memorandum of Understanding says about any of that.
As for the other big money question, Iran says the 60-day nuclear negotiations, which again, this agreement sets the stage for, will begin only after the U.S. releases billions of dollars of frozen Iranian funds. The administration says otherwise, any or all of which might be possible to verify. If we could see the text of the MOU and it's not just us saying that today.
Conservative talk show host Mark Levin asked, why can't we the people see the damn MOU? If it is a great outcome for peace, then release it. And here's Trump supporter Lindsey Graham. He writes, "I'm somewhat concerned that Iran's view of the agreement seems different than what the than what the American negotiating team is claiming."
He's in the dark, too. So are some of his fellow Republican senators, Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma told CNN, "We all have questions. No one's seen it."
He added that he does not expect to be briefed on it until it's released, which isn't actually much of a briefing, come to think of it. But even if we do not know the specifics about what was signed electronically today, we do know the biggest broad stroke, namely that it sets the stage for 60 days of what looked to be difficult. Talks about Iran's nuclear program.
Now, also, if Barak Ravid new reporting is right that top administration officials are skeptical already of those talks ever bearing fruit. For more on all this, let's go to CNN's Kaitlan Collins in Geneva, Switzerland, just across the border from the G7 Summit in France. What more are you hearing from your sources about this agreement?
[20:05:10]
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN'S CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND THE ANCHOR OF "THE SOURCE": Anderson, we still have so many questions about it because it's been about 24 hours now since the President signed it. The Vice-President signed it. Iran's chief negotiator signed it and despite the fact that it is only a page-and-a-half, according to what the Vice President told Jake Tapper earlier.
Still, the text of this has not been made public, and so reporters have not been able to see what exactly is in this memorandum of understanding, as the administration is calling it, but also a lot of key Republican senators on Capitol Hill who have been asked today if they agree with where this agreement is so far, they don't even have a comment on it because they also have not seen it.
And so, what we heard from officials today, Anderson, who did brief reporters on what is in this deal, is that they do expect to make the full text of this public. They said they'd likely do so in the next 24 to 48 hours. It's not really clear, and no official has really explained why they are waiting to release this and whether or not they're not going to do so until Friday, as the President suggested earlier, when he was sitting next to the French Leader.
But also, there's key questions about how exactly this is going to work, because, yes, we know it sets up this 60-day period to get to the real talk of these details in terms of a nuclear program, enriched uranium, and where that's going to look. But there's also key questions about what happens in the interim period, including when they believe the Strait of Hormuz is going to be fully back to the same traffic levels that it was before this war, if that will even happen during the 60-day period.
And also, what Iran's expectations are here in terms of sanctions relief and unfreezing the Iranian assets because the President was just on Truth Social a couple of moments ago, before we came on air criticizing Democrats and saying that this notion that the United States is giving hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran is not true.
But earlier, when we were hearing from administration officials, they did say that there is a possibility, if Iran lives up to its part of this agreement, that there would be sanctions relief, that there would be the unfreezing of the assets, and that there could be the creation of this $300 billion fund for the reconstruction efforts in Iran.
Now, earlier, the Vice-President told CBS that that would be something that is done by Gulf allies. That funding in terms of that saying it's not coming directly from the United States. But again, these are key questions that we still have and that are still unanswered tonight, because we haven't actually seen the text of this deal ourselves yet.
COOPER: Yes, Kaitlan, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour for "The Source".
Joining me now is Brett McGurk, who has held National Security positions under the last four Presidents, including during President Trumps first term, and Allan Ayer, former senior U.S. Diplomat and a member of the team who negotiated the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. President Trump scuttled that, back in 2018.
Brett, you heard this new reporting from Barak Ravid, "the way Iranian officials were discussing the deal among themselves was inconsistent with what they were telling the mediators and the U.S., two sources said. What do you make of that? Because, I mean, that's a fascinating and concerning level of detail in his report.
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think, Anderson, one constant for me, being across four administrations, seeing all permutations of Iran policy is the constant of what you and I have discussed over many months of the ideology of the Iranian system of the Revolutionary Guard.
And so, long as that core is intact, which it very much is, it is not surprising at all that we might be picking up information that their intent here is actually to collect the benefits of this deal while continuing with their pursuit of a very advanced nuclear program with the optionality for nuclear weaponization. Expanding what they call the revolution through the Quds Force. Everything they have been doing for 47 years.
So, I think that is not surprising at all. I'm highly skeptical. I'm looking at Allen, who, you know, the JCPOA was 159 pages, the nuclear annex, that annex one, about 78 pages. The idea that we're going to enter this gateway of 60-days and come out with a very strong nuclear accord, I just think is highly unlikely. Even if we have an agreement, Anderson, on the Strait of Hormuz, what is so ironic her, we discussed before the war, if you start a military campaign without a clear sense of the objectives, the objectives will be defined for you.
That's exactly, this is a case in point. We just cut a deal which nobody's seen, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which was not an objective going in because it was not a problem. And even that, there's a question of whether it's really opening as a status quo ante or if Iran is now asserting it's basically control over it in the future.
So, I think the most telling thing about this MOU, Anderson, is you just put it, is that nobody has seen it. COOPER: Alan, I mean, the President has not been shy about comparing
this agreement to the 2015 JCPOA, which, as we said, you helped negotiate it. From what we know about this or this MOU, what do you make of that comparison? What do you see in this?
ALAN EYRE, DISTINGUISHED DIPLOMATIC FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: Well, Anderson, let's compare it. Let's take the JCPOA, which exists, and let's take President Trump's nuclear deal, which doesn't exist. That is the key difference. You can't compare it.
It is theoretically possible; President Trump could negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran that is substantially better than the Obama deal. I find it highly unlikely, and I think it's far more likely we will never get a nuclear deal, that this memorandum of understanding is as good as it's going to get. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because the most exigent problem that this MOU solves, at least for the time being, is reopening the Strait of Hormuz, albeit under Iranian control. Institutionalizing and codifying a new normal that nobody other than Iran wants.
[20:10:52]
COOPER: And it's important to emphasize that, Alan, because that is different than what existed before this conflict. So, if all that comes out of this is a Strait of Hormuz, which is open, that's not even returning it to the status quo, that is open under the control of Iran. They now know, and the world now knows, that Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz any time they want.
And they also know that this administration, the number one concern is the stock market and the economic impact and they know what that is now a very public weak point.
EYRE: Exactly right, and initial indications from the maritime industry, the Maritime Insurance Industry are that if the strait reopens under Iranian management, returning maritime traffic flows to pre-war levels is not going to happen anytime soon because that's the status quo. You're going to have a new traffic separation scheme, which is another way of saying new highway, new lanes for ships to go through that are untested.
So, you know, best case, we're not even going to get back to the way things were with the Strait before the war, likely.
COOPER: Brett, if that is the case, I mean, that just sounds incredible that the U.S. would have gone to war without a clear plan, without a clear objective, or they had an objective that wasn't what they achieved. And now we're in this situation.
MCGURK: Yes, Iran very effectively turned this whole thing into what I've called the ultimate hostage negotiation. I've done hostage negotiations; the difficulty of a hostage negotiation is the country holding the hostages. Often, Iran really holds all the leverage they have, the hostages, they set the price.
Iran here effectively, they didn't seize control of it. But by able they can target ships with drones and missiles. They basically shut it and they held it hostage. And they held the global economy hostage. And we appear now to have basically conceded to their demands, as often happens in a hostage negotiation. And they now know they have that card. They've always had that card, theoretically. Now they know they can use it and they can use it --
COOPER: Well, let me jump in. Someone who's watching who says, well, look, the Iranian regime has been decimated. The leadership is, you know, has been replaced. Maybe it's not regime change in the way the regime change. By the actual definition of regime change, but it's a different regime there, there, you know, maybe at odds with each other economically. They've been decimated, militarily, they've been decimated. What do you say?
MCGURK: Again, possibility. I think if you do scenario analysis, you try to put percentages on what's going to happen in the future. Nobody can predict the future. It is true, one key difference, actually with the JCPOA is that Iran right now is not spinning centrifuges. The centrifuges have basically been knocked out. The leadership appears to have consolidated behind the scenes. It could be highly fractured. They still are in an economic shambles, which led to the uprisings earlier this year.
That could happen again but I think we're judging this right now by where we are. Nobody going into this in the administration, the way they were talking about the objectives of the war, said we would be at the end of it we would be negotiating a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. I mean that clearly means that this did not go according to plan to the extent there was a plan and just to the point you asked in this first question, Anderson, that Strait of Hormuz has been this theoretical point.
We always knew Iran could do it because geography rules. You just look at a map and now they've done it. And that will, as Alan said, that will affect the future of traffic through the Strait. You're going to see a lot of diversifications away from the Strait. New pipelines, new ports. That's all already happening in the Gulf. Very fluid moment here and it's hard to say exactly where it's going to go, but right now, it doesn't look great.
COOPER: Brett McGurk, Alan Eyre, thank you.
Well, ahead tonight. Has the Justice Department targeted California's governor and his wife? What he is saying and what the DOJ is not saying.
Ahead on the program also, one no bid contract in acres of blue paint later. Why is the President's newly opened pet project, the reflecting pool green with algae again, details on that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:19:05]
COOPER: The President today at the G7 Summit, he arrived with a preliminary agreement with Iran in hand, but also a long negotiation ahead after a war that has hit our allies especially hard.
Now, there's that new AXIOS reporting tonight suggesting the administration is skeptical of Iran's willingness to actually make concessions. Joining us now, Washington Democratic Congressman Adam Smith. He's ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Congressman, sadly I am assuming you are also in the dark and have not seen what's in this Memorandum of Understanding. Does it make sense to you that the President says it won't be released until after it's officially signed on Friday?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, I think the thing that makes sense, he's trying to keep this vague because, as your previous guest pointed out, this war has proven unbelievably costly and a disaster in the sense that it's put Iran in a stronger position, even with all of those costs. So, the Presidents trying to do a little smoke and mirrors here so you don't see the very obvious reality that start we started this war, amazing costs that were attached to a global, the global economy really hit hard, gas prices, you know, a number of people obviously killed, the chaos throughout the region.
And now on the back end, basically, we're having to agree how much money to release to Iran to get them to open up the Strait of Hormuz. So, it doesn't surprise me that the President's trying to keep this fuzzy, so that he can put his own spin on it.
[20:20:31]
COOPER: You have no doubt that Iran will end up in a stronger position than they were before the war?
SMITH: Well, I mean, they're certainly in a stronger position when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz. And also, they're probably going to get quite a bit of money out of this. But we don't know. I mean, look, it's 60 days. They're going to try to negotiate the details of this. What is actually going to happen. it's not inconceivable that we refuse to release the money, that the conflict starts up again.
So, it's not clear yet where it's going to end. It is clear that no matter how it ends, yes, Iran will be in a stronger position, despite the fact that they've had some of their military capability reduced their asymmetric advantages remain. They can still support terrorist proxies in the region. They can still hold the region at risk, and they now have control of the Strait of Hormuz. They don't have to have that many missiles, that many drones, or that much capability to do any of those things, which gives them a substantial amount of leverage.
COOPER: We've mentioned that AXIOS is reporting, according to their sources, that the CIA director raised serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make nuclear concessions that the U.S. is seeking and that Secretary of State, Rubio and Hegseth, expressed concerns, raised questions about the deal. What's your reaction to that?
SMITH: Yes, I think that's probably true. I mean, Iran has said throughout this that, you know, we'll talk about our nuclear program. That's not really on the table. And I think they definitely want to make sure that they at least still have that as an option, as a card to play.
But look, I want to say one other thing. The war was really stupid. President Trump's stumbling into this with everything that went into it. But, you know, the past notwithstanding, what's our best play at this point? I mean, if we don't do this kind of deal, do we simply continue the conflict with all the costs and the chaos that comes with it? So, I'm not saying we should not do this, that we should just keep the war going. But it clearly points up how stupid it was to get into this war in the first place.
COOPER: Do you actually think a, you know, in a 60-day window which could be extended, but in a 60-day window, a nuclear deal can be negotiated.
SMITH: No, not in detail and your previous guest had a better perspective on that than I do. The one that was negotiated took a long time because, well, its nuclear weapons, it's really complicated. But also, what's the guarantee? What's the inspection regime that you put in place to make sure that it's going to be followed?
That was one of the great strengths of the JCPOA. International inspectors were in Iran watching their nuclear program, seeing what they were doing, and they were complying with it, working out those details, particularly if you have a situation where Iran is allowed to continue to have their energy nuclear program. How do you make sure, okay, you can enrich uranium for a reactor, but not for a bomb? Theres a lot of detail in that. So, no, I don't think in 60 days you're going to be able to get to that level of detail.
COOPER: Congressman Smith, thanks for your time tonight, appreciate it.
SMITH: Thank you.
COOPER: Coming up next, has the President taken his verbal vendetta against Gavin Newsom to an official level. New reporting tonight on the California governor's claim that he and his wife are being targeted by the Department of Justice.
And later, CNN's Donie O'Sullivan takes us inside fight night on the White House south lawn, including the slur one fighter launched at former First Lady Michelle Obama.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:28:05]
COOPER: Got more breaking news tonight, California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is claiming that he and his wife are under investigation by the Department of Justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family, friends and former employees. Not because they found a crime, because they're simply trying to find one.
They're demanding records. They're abusing the grand jury process, digging through years and years of random documents. Donald Trump isn't just coming after me because of my mean tweets. He's coming after me because I'm considering running for President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, CNN reached out to the FBI, and the Department of Justice both declined to comment. However, source does tell us there's no investigation directly into Governor Newsom. Instead, it's tied to those connected to him, including his wife.
CNN's Paula Reid joins us now with more. So, what more have you learned, Paula?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, the real challenge here when it comes to criminal cases, usually no one wants to admit that this is a real thing. But the challenge here is there's an incentive for everyone to make this happen. It benefits Newsom politically if he is being investigated. And of course, any Trump official who could bring a case against Newsom or his wife would get big brownie points from the boss.
So here is what we know. We know that Newsom's wife, she is being investigated for past possible tax related crimes. But as for the governor himself, he is not being directly investigated. But they are looking at other people associated with the couple. Now, further complicating this is that Newsom's former chief of staff was indicted last year in connection with a scheme to steal campaign money totally unrelated to Newsom. She pleaded guilty to three counts last month.
So, there have been these investigations sort of swirling around Newsom's associates, and were told by his office, they said that there has been a recent flurry of activity around his associates seeing outreach from investigators. So, this is active and it's ongoing. But, Anderson, it's not exactly clear where this is going to wind up.
COOPER: The acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, was asked if the Department of Justice was investigating the governor by Manu Raju. Blanche declined to comment. Would he likely have to sign off on an investigation into the Newsom family or family members?
REID: Look, Anderson, in any other administration, you would not want to catch an acting attorney general who is facing a contentious confirmation hearing in a few weeks, off guard with something like this.
[20:30:26]
But based on our reporting, it appears that these were active, ongoing investigations into a variety of matters, and they were taking routine steps.
There's no indication that they've sent a subpoena or a target letter or anything to the governor's wife, and certainly not to the governor. So it is possible that Newsom got out ahead of the Justice Department and sort of was able to get his narrative out there, frame himself and his family as victims of the Justice Department, even though these were mostly routine steps.
Now, I will also say, in reporting day in and day out on this Justice Department, there's a lot of jockeying going on, Anderson, behind the scenes. If Blanche becomes the Attorney General, there's a lot of open chairs, and it's not clear who is going to fill them. So it is absolutely possible that there are some ambitious officials out there who are being aggressive and not keeping Blanche in the loop. But that is absolutely something you would never do in any other Justice Department.
COOPER: So you're saying they're jockeying for -- to get in good graces with President Trump?
REID: Yes, so they could maybe get that number two slot that Blanche is vacating, maybe that number three slot, maybe another slot that's going to be vacated. I mean, they know what the President wants, right? We all know. He wants the Justice Department to aggressively pursue his political adversaries.
COOPER: Paul Reid, thank you.
Joining us now, former Trump White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin, former Trump Administration Official Matt Mowers, and CNN Political Commentator Bakari Sellers.
Alyssa, first of all, what's your reaction? I mean, it's fascinating her saying that there's all these people, you know, even if they don't inform Blanche, they know what the President wants, and they're all jockeying for these roles.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's the most fascinating part. Listen, we've seen that there's a history of targeting Trump's adversaries from James Comey to others. But the fact that there is this political incentive and that there are officials senior level at the Justice Department that may be pursuing investigations for the purposes of getting in the good graces of the President, I think tells you all you need to know about this Department of Justice.
That said, based on Paula's reporting, there's a lot we don't know. I'm watching that Newsom statement, it did feel like a politician trying to get ahead of something, trying to get ahead of a story that may come out. So we may learn something that was in fact untoward, that was in fact wrongdoing with the wife. But right now it looks very, very questionable.
COOPER: Bakari, the acting Attorney General declined to say that the DOJ is investigating. Where do you see this heading?
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, first of all, let me just disabuse anybody of the notion that, you know, it's a good thing for the FBI or DOJ to be investigating you. There's no such thing, even if you're running for the president of the United States, of anybody wanting them to go into every single thing that you've done.
We refer to it as a problem and a solution that doesn't have a fix. So, no, Gavin Newsom, even if he's running for president, doesn't want the DOJ investigating him. This is something that Donald Trump has done for a very long period of time. This is something that Donald Trump has done by attacking his adversaries.
And when you look at the other side of the coin, when you look at somebody who's made, let's just take, for example, trades on the stock market where he benefits from them, or his sons actually going into crypto or meme coins or joining boards, this is not something that Gavin Newsom is known for.
And I've come on this show and I've lambasted Gavin Newsom before. I think that when Gavin Newsom walks in a room, he will tell you that he's the smartest person and most handsome person in a room. We'll sort that out in a Democratic primary. But do I believe Gavin Newsom is a crook compared to Donald Trump? Definitely not.
And this is beyond the pale, particularly when you target someone's wife, as they're doing. This is just something that Donald Trump does. And this is why many Americans are souring towards Donald Trump.
COOPER: Matt, does is -- Matt, what's your perspective on this?
MATT MOWERS, FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, you know, look, I agree with Bakari. No one ever wants to be under federal investigation. Certainly not, you know, the spouse of the governor of California. But, you know, look, Governor Newsom's currently using this to raise money for his political apparatus.
I received an email at 3:23 p.m. saying Donald Trump's targeting me. Send me $20. I refrain from giving him $20, by the way, but I'm sure many others who are aligned with him are doing so. And so he's seeking to get ahead of it and turn it to a political advantage. But the fact is, there's some reporting out that this may have even started under the Biden administration.
So I think there's so much more we need to know before you can draw any conclusions about it related to the Justice Department. But I'll tell you, politically, Gavin Newsom's trying to turn lemons into lemonade right now, using it as a chance to try to play a victim and then try to ingratiate himself to the liberal base around the country in advance of a presidential run.
[20:35:05]
COOPER: Matt, do you think this Department of Justice does go after -- I mean, you know, Paula was talking about district attorneys or others, you know, aggressive prosecutors who know what the President wants and might be investigating folks in order to curry favor. Do you believe that that is potentially happening?
MOWERS: I mean, based on what has come out so far, it doesn't seem like that's happening here. And let's not forget, I mean, there was a lot of outrage when John Bolton had federal agents at his door one morning. Everyone assumed it was a political payback because he wrote some tough stuff about Donald Trump. And once again, turned out that it was an investigation under mishandling of classified documents that actually started under the Biden Justice Department.
He now has entered a plea deal on those charges. So, you know, I think it's still too soon to draw any conclusions on that. And I think as the facts have come out so far, it doesn't seem that way. You've got a former chief of staff who right now is probably talking to some federal agents.
And those folks know a lot of information about the first family of California. I'm sure they're happy to give that information off if it's going to actually benefit themselves.
COOPER: Bakari, we've certainly seen this Department of Justice go after people that the President would like to see targeted.
SELLERS: I mean, certainly. I mean, I think it's a sham. And I think that's what --
COOPER: I'm not saying that's happening in this case, obviously. We don't know.
SELLERS: No, no. I mean, from the 50,000 foot view, what once was a -- just a very standard approach to government whereby there was some level of just a distinctness between the White House and the Department of Justice is no more. That went away a long time ago.
I remind people, and rightfully so, there will be Republicans on this same panel right now that would say, well, you know, Joe Biden pardoned his son. Well, the fact is his Justice Department indicted him. And Joe Biden, rightfully or wrongfully, history will dictate that, actually pardoned his son, but the Department of Justice did what they needed to do.
I wish we could get back to a department or a situation where we had norms. Well, we're not there yet. And Donald Trump uses this Department of Justice to exact pain on his enemies. And that's just not what the American dream is about.
COOPER: Listen, just as a surprise, this Axios reporting on Iran from Barak Ravid, he's a great reporter, has great sources, clearly, the fact that this level of detail has leaked out at this stage from this White House about dissension, about concerns from the CIA director about this and even, you know, specific information about what the intelligence says about Iran, according to Ravid. Does that surprise you?
GRIFFIN: It is surprising. These are incredibly high level talks and you're seeing the sort of camps form. You've got Hegseth, Rubio and Ratcliffe reportedly on one side opposing this deal. And then you have others, JD Vance, Jared Kushner in support of it.
What I'm seeing emerge from Republicans and many on Capitol Hill is this fear that this deal has way too much good faith in the Iranian regime, that it's basically relying on their word and that they're going to move forward in the steps that they've committed to.
And I would just remind folks, this regime literally had a target on President Trump's back. There was a foiled assassination attempt by the Iranians on him. My former boss, Mark Esper, was targeted by the Iranian regime. These are not our friends. These are not to be trusted negotiating partners.
Now, we all want to see this war wound down. We want to see a peaceful solution. But there are a lot of questions and, frankly, a lot of outrage coming from the Republicans as well.
COOPER: Alyssa Farah Griffin, thank you very much. Matt Mowers, Bakari Sellers, thanks a lot, guys. Appreciate it.
Up next, a look at fight night at the White House and the reaction from the UFC chief on the slur from one of the fighters against former First Lady Michelle Obama.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:42:55]
COOPER: Well, it was delayed by the weather, surrounded by controversy, but UFC Fight Night at the White House did happen last night on the South Lawn. CNN's Donie O'Sullivan has more on how it all went, from the first blow to one fighter's low blow against former First Lady Michelle Obama.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Pomp, circumstance, and a lot of punches.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're a part of the greatest sporting event in history right now.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Thousands of fans took to the Ellipse to watch the fights on gigantic screens.
O'SULLIVAN: For the people who said there shouldn't be a cage fight at the White House, what do you say?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They might be right, but since it's here, we're going to be here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't agree with everything Donald Trump has been doing this term, but I'm here and I'm enjoying the moment.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): The crowd was overwhelmingly male.
O'SULLIVAN: Is this your first UFC event?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
O'SULLIVAN: What do you think?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's cool.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Entertaining for sure.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was entertaining, yes.
O'SULLIVAN: The beer is good.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): In the fan zone, there was little talk of politics, and MAGA hats were few and far between.
O'SULLIVAN: You're obviously a Trump fan. You're a UFC fan too?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I became a UFC fan because I saw Trump come into the events and I figured, this has got to be something that I'm missing out on. I thought it was too rough, too masculine, too mean, but these guys shake hands afterwards and they're friendly. I think it's the greatest thing to see.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): A few hundred yards away on the South Lawn, a few thousand VIPs gathered under the claw. U.S. military personnel who had been given tickets, alongside the entire Trump family, and a host of MAGA loyalists and billionaires.
Among the big names, Meta CEO and MMA enthusiast Mark Zuckerberg. And David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, whose company owns the broadcast rights to the UFC, and on Friday received clearance from the Trump Justice Department to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, owners of CNN.
MAGA talking heads gloated on social media that the event showed the country was once again winning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was display of America at its best. Folks, let me tell you something. America is back, baby. America is back.
[20:45:05]
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Josh Hokit, a fighter who regularly courts controversy, adopted a bizarre persona in the build-up to the fight, appearing to throw up at the weigh-in on Saturday.
JOSH HOKIT: I'm so lit. Maybe I was drinking last night.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): After he won his fight on Sunday, he said this to UFC commentator Joe Rogan.
HOKIT: And lastly, Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: So has the White House or the UFC commented on that?
O'SULLIVAN (on-camera): Our colleague Jake Tapper asked the White House Communications Director for comments. Essentially, they didn't criticize, they didn't condemn that slur there. The UFC, head of UFC Dana White, did come out and say that while he's in favor of free speech, he has no time -- he hates this kind of nonsense he said. He told Time magazine and he's against people saying nasty and false things about people's family.
I would just say if this happened in another league, right, I mean professional league like this, they would -- somebody would get fined, they'd get penalized in some way. But not in the UFC because they have to be seen to be pro-free speech, a bit like this White House.
COOPER: Donie O'Sullivan, thanks very much.
For more on this, I spoke earlier with CNN Contributor and Podcast Host Kara Swisher.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Ms. Kara, the White House had the opportunity to disown the comments. They essentially did not.
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, what a surprise.
COOPER: Yes.
SWISHER: Are you surprised by that?
COOPER: No, I'm not surprised by that at all.
SWISHER: No, not at all. I mean, everybody should have disowned those comments. And it's not, you know, some of it is rage bait, right, what's happening here. But it's also really bad --
COOPER: Rage bait to just provoke people.
SWISHER: Provoke people or whatever. That guy, I think, is, you know, there's issues --
COOPER: Well, he's weigh-in. I don't know if you saw the weigh-in --
SWISHER: Yes, he vomited --
COOPER: Yes.
SWISHER: -- yes, or something like that. I just think one of these things, like there's a lot -- all these brands there. And this happens in the middle of it. It's just not good for the brand. And if you're trying to create something, presumably that's what UFC was trying to do, it's not good. And that's where the story goes for whoever it happens to be.
Mark Zuckerberg got caught up in it because he's a fan of MMA. And that's one of the parts I kind of like about him because he's actually committed to it. But there you have this happening. And it takes over all these other storylines that are happening there.
And I don't have a problem -- I mean, I know a lot of people have a problem with MMA being there. My grandfather was a wrestling and boxing promoter.
COOPER: I mean, I find MMA really interesting, yes.
SWISHER: I kind of like it. Really interesting. But it doesn't have to be in this sort of crass, sell things, everything's marketed way. And, you know, there was a really interesting column in The Washington Post. Monica Hesse wrote about it. And I thought it was great.
She said, look, lots of presidents have had opera singers. They've had poets. You know, Obama brought the cast of Hamilton there. People can do what they want. And you don't have to be obnoxious about it. But it didn't quite have to turn into this sort of thing that it turned into. And I think that was the capper on it. And not to say that really was terrible, to me is --
COOPER: How much do you think it was about, you know, the crowd saying happy birthday to President Trump? Let's -- actually let's play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Happy birthday! Happy birthday! Happy birthday to you!
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Not the greatest rendition of that.
SWISHER: No, no, no.
COOPER: But --
SWISHER: I mean, people have done it.
COOPER: How much do you think this was about a celebration of President Trump?
SWISHER: Well, that's what it was. It was a celebration of President Trump. It was his taste and everything else. It's just there was a lot of money that went into it. The taxpayer probably paid for the flyover. I'm sure it was not paid for by Dana White.
COOPER: It was also the event, the weigh-in --
SWISHER: The weigh-in. And, you know, look, this is his taste. And this is his taste. And I think probably -- I think it was all overridden by this comment, which I think took over the entire thing, which unfortunately became the spirit of what was happening.
COOPER: It's also now July 4th. The President now, you know, a lot of artists were --
SWISHER: Right.
COOPER: -- bailing on that event. He -- it's now going to be --
SWISHER: A Trump rally.
COOPER: -- a Trump rally.
SWISHER: That's what he talked about. I mean, this is the problem --
COOPER: Which is probably what he wanted it to be initially anyway.
SWISHER: Right, right. The question is, is it for all of America or is it for him? And I think this is -- as I've said many times, this is a coin-operated presidency. Whatever you put in, you get out. But it always has to do with him.
COOPER: I want to talk about what's going on in the U.K. The government unveiled these sweeping regulations to ban social media, kids under 16 from TikTok, YouTube, Instagram. This starts next spring. How effective do you think this are?
SWISHER: Well, it's really interesting. We'll see when -- if it happens and when it goes in. It's obviously been in Australia, France, and Spain and other countries are thinking about it. All through Europe they're thinking about this. And what to me is sad is that this -- it's come to this, that this is what we have to do in order to control these social media companies, is do bans.
COOPER: You see there's a problem that the social media companies aren't doing enough.
SWISHER: They never have done enough. They don't care about it because they have no regulation in this country. And there's never been a stitch of regulation. And they haven't taken the proper safeguards around it. And there is this image growing of not just tech in general, AI with the data centers. They don't care.
The social media and kids, they don't care. Kids committing suicide. They don't care. School stuff. Social isolation.
[20:50:07]
And you're not going to blame them for all of it. But they certainly have played a part in it. And so now you have to resort to these measures like we do with cigarettes or drinking and everything else. So this is where we are.
COOPER: Do you think -- I mean, there's been some criticism in Australia that it doesn't really work, that kids can still get access through other ways.
SWISHER: No, Anderson, did you get liquor before you were 18?
COOPER: I did.
SWISHER: Or 21?
COOPER: Yes, I did.
SWISHER: Right? COOPER: Yes.
SWISHER: Did you smoke a cigarette?
COOPER: I grew up in New York City though in 80s, so.
SWISHER: OK. Fair point. But still, it's the same thing. Just because it doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It should -- the society should say, we do not want teens to be subject to pornography or subject to social isolation or self-esteem. It says something about a society.
This is the argument tech companies are going to make. Instead of making, hey, maybe we can do better, their argument is, it's not going to work.
COOPER: Yes. Kara Swisher, thanks very much.
SWISHER: Thanks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, coming up, it took a no-bid contract to do it. But the President has just managed to turn the reflecting pool from green to green.
Also, in Albania, the continuing protest over plants. His daughter and son-in-law have to turn an area of great natural beauty there into a resort.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:55:21]
COOPER: Well, just days after President Trump said there would be, quote, "clean, beautiful water" in the newly renovated Lincoln Monument Reflecting Pool, it has green algae, as you can see. This despite a multimillion-dollar renovation project awarded to a company through a no-bid contract.
Crews are working to remove the algae. Department of Interior spokesperson calls it residual algae left in the supply line during eight weeks of construction. And they say once it's removed, the new filtration system will keep it algae-free. The landmark also got a new American flag blue paint job. The total price tag for the project, $14.2 million, which was up from the $1.8 million the President had initially mentioned in early May.
Now to Albania, where protests have not let up over a proposed luxury resort from President Trump's daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. She talked about the project on a private island in the Mediterranean with podcaster David Senra earlier this month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IVANKA TRUMP, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DAUGHTER: I was just there walking the lands, really just trying to sort of be with it and experience it alongside some of the greatest living architects of our time, like true masters of their craft, people with integrity so absolute, like there will be no compromise. And that's something we want to create there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: For more on the project and reaction, here's CNN's Isa Soares.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tens of thousands of people on the streets of Tirana demanding a new Albania.
(CHANTING)
SOARES (voice-over): The largest anti-government protest the country has seen since the fall of communism in 1991.
GERALD XHARI, PROTESTER: So we don't have to sell our country, we don't have to sell our land to other investors.
SOARES (voice-over): The Flamingo revolution, as it's dubbed, started in response to a proposed luxury development, linked to President Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and his son-in-law and one of his chief negotiators, Jared Kushner. The real estate project includes two areas, Sazan Island on the country's Adriatic coast, and some of the beachfront near the Zvernec Wetlands and the Narta Lagoon.
TRUMP: We were on a friend's boat and we stopped for a swim. We swam to the islands, we went on a hike barefoot all the way up to the top and we were just captivated.
SOARES (voice-over): The coastline is a protected area home to several endangered species and a nesting site for thousands of flamingos. Protesters fear the project will destroy their habitat, despite what Ivanka Trump has said previously.
TRUMP: We developed the opportunity to help realize its potential and transform it, but with a lot of restraint and care because the land is so beautiful.
SOARES (voice-over): Preliminary project documents seen by CNN show the project is intended to be massive in scale, with luxury villas, hotels with hundreds of rooms, a marina and even a golf course, a casino and a water park. They also reveal one of Kushner's partners in the Sazan development is the Qatari-based assets group, owned by Moutaz and Ramez Al-Khayyat, Syrian-born Qatari-based billionaires with deep ties to the Qatari royal family. Both were at President Trump's inauguration.
Their other brother Mohamad, not a stranger to Washington either, he lobbied Congress to lift sanctions on Syria, proposing to build a golf course with President Trump's name in Syria. Sazan Real Estate Development LLC confirms Ramez and Moutaz are both involved, but said the project is still in its design phase and that they are prioritizing environmental stewardship. Their partnership very important for the Kushners, as was that of Albania's Prime Minister Edi Rama.
JARED KUSHNER, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON-IN-LAW: We were on our friend Nat Rothschild's boat. One of the nights there, Prime Minister Rama came to the boat. I had not met him when I was in government.
SOARES (voice-over): His and his government support key, according to Kushner.
KUSHNER: And we felt like the environment was perfect, but without the great work of the team on the ground, our partners on the ground and the government really creating a very pro-growth environment, we would not have engaged in the project.
SOARES (voice-over): It's that so-called pro-growth environment demonstrators are now questioning, with protests demanding more transparency in other areas, accusing those in power of corruption and calling on Prime Minister Rama to resign. The Albanian Prime Minister has denied the accusations, and in his weekly podcast rallied against protesters.
EDI RAMA, ALBANIAN PRIME MINISTER (through translation): The fascist spirit is the spirit that says Albania belongs to the Albanians, so all the others outside are not welcome, just as Germany was for the Germans and became the black sheep of Europe for years and years. Just as Germany was for the Germans and became the black sheep of Europe for years and years.
SOARES (voice-over): Rama has vowed to push past the concerns of the thousands of Albanians who have come out in protest, claiming the project will transform the country for the better.
But with demonstrations going into their third week, it's hard to see this flamingo revolution backing down.
Isa Soares, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: That's it for us. The news continues. "The Source with Kaitlan Collins" starts right now. See you tomorrow.
