Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
New York Primary Results Coming In, Testing Mayor Zohran Mamdani's (D-New York City, NY) Influence; All Mamdani-Backed Candidates Win New York Primaries in Clean Sweep; Trump Says He Asked U.S. Attorney For California Election Probe; House And Senate Passed War Powers Measure To Stop Iran War. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 23, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: The results are in, as Zohran Mamdani's influence is put to the test. Is socialism fever continuing to rise?
Plus, the president suggests he interfered in California's elections.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I said, do me a favor. Take a look. They're trying to steal that election, too.
PHILLIP: And Donald Trump and Iran contradict each other --
TRUMP: They're wrong. They know they're wrong.
PHILLIP: -- as the Senate votes to rebuke this war.
And more revelations from a new book on the Trump sequel, including how he brags that he's more powerful than some of history's worst.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Hearing him say it out loud was actually sort of jarring of Hitler, Mao, Stalin.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Leigh McGowan, Brad Todd, Neera Tanden, Jason Rantz, and Jemele Hill.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
The results are rolling in on a number of key primary races across the country, including right here in New York, where we're watching a slew of high-profile contests that are testing the power of Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of this city.
Now, the Democratic socialist-backed candidates in three House primaries, including two challengers taking on Democratic incumbents, and tonight's results could be a major indicator of where the party is headed this November.
So, let's get straight to CNN's Chief National Correspondent John King who's tracking the results live.
Now, John, we've projected here at CNN two of the candidate -- the races being run by Mamdani's chosen candidates. What can you tell us about what happened in those races?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Abby, in the two we've projected so far, it's the margins that tell you about the strength of the progressive movement right now, the strength of Mamdani, the strength of his organizations.
Let's start here. This is the first one we called. This is the Tenth District. Brad Lander was a mayoral rival back in the early days, then a Mamdani supporter. Had his endorsement in this race, and look at this, versus a Democratic incumbent member of Congress. Incumbents rarely lose primaries. When they do lose, it's not by margins like that. That tells you, wow.
Now, Brad Lander has been a statewide -- citywide official, excuse me. He has a big following in the area, so he has his own strengths in addition to the progressive strength of the moment and the mayor's endorsement. But that is a thumping of an incumbent.
Then you move over here to the Seventh District. The incumbent here is retiring. Nydia Velazquez, as you know, she's a powerful force in New York City politics. She had endorsed the Brooklyn Borough president over Mamdani's pick, the Democratic socialist, Claire Valdez. Again, look at the margin. Nydia Velazquez has a big organization in her district. She is a powerful force, will remain a powerful voice in city politics, but she was thumped tonight by the mayor's choice there.
And then now we're waiting here. This one is the closest one of them tonight. This is the third race where the mayor endorsed in the 13th District, again, taking a risk, going against not only the Democratic establishment but a Democratic incumbent and a senior member of the Democratic Party in Washington, in Congress. Right now, his candidate, though, has a narrow lead, about 86 percent of the vote in.
So, this is the only close one. This is the only close one against a very prominent, very powerful Democratic incumbent there. But so far, the mayor has two wins, and his candidate is leading in the third as he tries to make, not just in the city and not just in the state, but he's trying to make a national statement about Democratic socialists and about progressives and about fight.
PHILLIP: And, John, as we were just speaking, we've got some breaking news coming in to CNN. Let's go over to New York 12.
Let's go over to New York 12 because that's where CNN is now projecting that Micah Lasher will now win that pretty crowded Democratic primary. He defeats Alex Boris, who was just trailing him in that race. Now, John, this was one of those interesting races where you had a Kennedy, you had a strong Trump opponent you had in Alex Boris, someone who's running essentially against big tech, and now you have Micah Lasher winning this race. Talk to us about what we should know.
KING: Yes. For all the attention on this race, and a ton of money thrown into this primary, you mentioned a lot of it, by A.I. forces in this race. But, essentially, what you had here, and, Abby, you're in the city, I'm here in D.C. this was west side versus east side more than anything else, more than the celebrity candidates, more than the Kennedy grandson, more than George Conway.
This was west side versus east side both members of the state assembly there, and Micah Lasher winning this race 39 percent to 35 percent. You see, Jack Schlossberg, President Kennedy's grandson, getting only 11 percent, and you see you have to go all the way down, George Conway running last in this primary with just 6 percent.
So, a lot of understandable focus because that he switched parties, because he's the ex-husband of Kellyanne Conway, a fierce Trump critic.
[22:05:05]
Obviously, the Kennedy name on the ballot brought celebrity to this race, but this became about two very popular local politicians in this Central Manhattan district right there, and Lasher now projected to win that seat.
This is a very safe Democratic seat. It's the most wealthy Congressional district in New York City. Jerry Nadler, the longtime incumbent retiring. Certainly a blue Democratic seat come November.
PHILLIP: And we should note, this race was not one that Mamdani endorsed in.
KING: That's correct.
PHILLIP: So, we're still waiting for the one to see where this narrative goes, and we'll be watching that as the night goes on.
KING: Yes.
PHILLIP: John King, thank you very much. Thank you. We'll be back with you as the night progresses.
My panel is here with me. Let us -- let's start with the two candidates that Zohran Mamdani endorsed. We're still waiting again for the fate of New York 13, which, frankly, is perhaps one of the more controversial of his endorsements. But if he were to get a clean sweep tonight, that message, what is the message that is being sent to national Democrats as a result of it?
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Yes, I think it's a reckoning. I think it's a wake-up call. I think people are trying to say over and over again that we're tired of how the game has been played. We've tried it your way. We've tried it with your consultants. We've tried it with you reaching across the aisle, and we're tired, and we want people who are looking out for the people, and that's what Mamdani represents. I think we're not going back.
I think we have to really understand that this version of predatory capitalism has come to its fruition, and we're kind of all in this Monopoly game where that one person has all the money and all the property on the table, and we're like, this isn't fun anymore. We have to try new rules to this game, and this is what we're being offered with the Democratic Socialist Party.
PHILLIP: But, Neera, do you think that -- I mean, what then, right? Like, is Democratic socialism really something that is exportable outside of New York? Let me just read this quote from John Fetterman, who's no fan of the socialists. He says to Manu Raju, The dirtbag left is surging. That's what he says is happening tonight in some of these primaries.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, I think it's hard to take advice from John Fetterman these days about where the Democratic Party is. I will note he had a lot of left support when he was running, and then turned his back on the left pretty quickly when he came into power.
I think we should look across the board. There's also another important race in New York, New York 17. It'll be Mike Lawler's seat. That is the most -- that is the seat that is really up for grabs. It's contesting a Republican seat. They're -- you know, a woman won, Kate Conley has been declared in some places, and she is a former military leader and has served many, many times across the oceans to protect Americans. And I think, you know, she was facing a more progressive candidate, but people there were looking for a more moderate person to go up against a Republican.
I think this is a healthy Democratic Party. In urban cores, like in New York City, places where there are a lot of liberal voices, people are hungry for change, and I think they are angry at some establishment figures that have let them down. But also where you need to put up competitive races and competitive candidates, Democratic primary voters are still selecting candidates who can best beat the Republicans.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But they're pulling the brand leftward. I mean, the Democratic Party now is the Democratic Socialist Party of America. They're for anti-Semitism. They're for confiscation. They're against capitalism.
TANDEN: What? Bro, come on. This is what's happening. We're for anti- Semitism
TODD: This is what's happening.
TANDEN: That's obscene.
TODD: This is what's happening.
TANDEN: That's an obscene statement.
TODD: And, you know, you also can look tonight and see somebody else is a big loser. That's Hakeem Jeffries. Hakeem Jeffries is going to lose these races in New York where Zohran Mamdani is endorsed.
TANDEN: He didn't endorse in these races.
TODD: He did endorse. He endorsed Goldman. He endorsed his incumbent members of Congress. If he can't get the Hispanic caucus chairman across the line in a city where he's the leading figure of the political machine, then his stick is very short in the U.S. Capitol, and that's because Hakeem Jeffries himself, as liberal as he is, is not far left enough for today's Democratic primary voters.
MCGOWAN: It's not about being far left.
TANDEN: Also, he won in his race.
TODD: The Democratic Socialist Party of America's critique is that the Democratic Party is not left enough.
JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes, but the thing is --
MCGOWAN: But you just made a statement about --
HILL: You have to realize, those words don't scare people anymore. Is that the -- saying socialist and saying --
TODD: Well, it scares Jews. I'll say that, especially with the three that are moving forward tonight.
HILL: Look, I'm going to tell you my viewpoint as somebody who lives in Los Angeles, right? A lot of people -- and like you know this too.
MCGOWAN: Yes.
HILL: You live in L.A. The number one thing they're saying is, why can't we have a Mamdani?
MCGOWAN: That's what they're saying.
HILL: And it's about energy. It's not really about some of the things you guys have named. They look at him doing things. They look at him sort of breaking the mold about and imagining things in a different way. And that's what has been missing from the Democratic Party is imagination.
(CROSSTALKS)
TODD: You don't win Congress in New York or L.A.
PHILLIP: Guys, let me just hit pause for a second because CNN has a projection. I'm going to go straight to John King over at the Magic Wall.
[22:10:00]
KING: And that projection, Abby, means that the mayor, Mamdani, does get a sweep of the three races in which he endorsed the Democratic primaries tonight, the Democratic socialist candidate, Darializa Avila Chevalier, beating a powerful Democratic, longstanding Democratic incumbent, Adriano Espaillat.
A much more narrow race than the other two districts here, but this is again, this is a mayor making a statement. This is a candidate making a statement. You're having the conversation with your panel about we want new, we want different, and, yes, we want more liberal. In this particular case, Espaillat is certainly a Democrat and a progressive but this is part of the generational divide. We've also seen the Democratic Party. We want new, we want younger. But there's one for the mayor, there's two for the mayor, and there's three tonight.
So, the conversation is going to be, Abby, number one how much power does Zohran Mamdani have in New York City politics? Number two, he's also making some enemies tonight, let's be honest. He's been mayor six months, and he's gone against two Democratic incumbents and the wishes of the retiring Democratic incumbent in the third district there. But he's making a statement for the city, for the state, and he's also making a statement of where he thinks the Democratic Party should go nationally, both for the next five months and into 2028.
So, as you're discussing with your panel, can you export this? Can you sell what he wants to do in New York City, where his candidates clearly are winning tonight, where he won clearly, convincingly? Can you sell it? Well, he wants to be part of that debate, and tonight, he's proving he gets a big role in it.
PHILLIP: You know, this is a really important conversation because Zohran Mamdani -- thank you John King, Zohran Mamdani is -- he took a big swing, right, as we were just discussing. And you don't take those kinds of swings unless you think you can win, and he did.
And this last race that we just called -- just one second, because I think this is super important. Darializa Avila Chevalier is one of the more controversial candidates. CNN earlier in the year reported that she had deleted previous Twitter posts expressing views for abolishing police, prisons, borders, seizing private property, nationalizing major industries, calling into question Israel's right to exist. She spoke to a friend of the show, Astead Herndon, in a recent interview said that all deportations are immoral.
So, all of that being said, there she is defeating a Democratic incumbent, a powerful member of the Hispanic caucus who's been there, a chairman. He's been there for a really long time. I mean, you could say that all of this is just controversial, she's a bad candidate, but she's likely to just be the congressperson. And does it not suggest, though, that people, the voters looked at that and they were like, we don't really care about that. We care about all these other things?
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: I think that's the problem for the greater Democratic Party in this district or in these three districts. You have the ones who are the furthest to the left, who, under no uncertain terms, support open borders, do not support any deportation. And even in that podcast interview, I mean, she was given a follow-up of even if it's a murderer, even if it's a rapist? No, they shouldn't be deported.
Republicans are very obviously going to take advantage of this, and it's going to hurt the Democrats nationwide. You can win in New York, you can win in Seattle, you can win in Portland and Los Angeles, but that's where you're going to win. And if we're able to define the Democrats, who have tried to run away from this label of being socialists, being open borders, being, you know, pro-crime or anti- Israel, if that's the goal of the Democratic Party to run from that, you're not going to be able to do that anymore.
HILL: But you forget one important thing. People are broke. That's the other part you forget, is that the affordability crisis in this country, I think, is a major win for a lot of Democrats. It's like, again, all those little scary terms you all like to use to try to throw people off and --
RANTZ: But she's open borders, right?
(CROSSTALKS)
HILL: Yes, but there's extreme MAGA candidates too that run on way worse things than this.
RANTZ: Do you call them out as well?
HILL: Yes, we do. And guess what? They still get elected. You know why? Because there is core things that still resonate with people, and all the scary terms aren't going to get them off of that. And at the end of the day, if people are broke, they do not care.
RANTZ: In far left districts where Republicans aren't running, like Republicans don't lose anything tonight in these districts. But they are going to be dealing with some of these far left candidates in, say, Maine. I mean, to come up for Congressman Goldman's position, you guys put someone very far to the left, and that's now going to go into the Republican camp. We're going to pick that seat up.
When you go into moderate --
MCGOWAN: I don't think you will, my friend. I think that's the thing. You guys keep putting out all these scary terms. No, we've heard all this anti-Semitism and we are evil and we're open borders.
RANTZ: If you do not believe in Israel's right to exist, that means you're an anti-Semite
MCGOWAN: That's one candidate that you're talking about in the entire country.
RANTZ: There's three candidates.
MCGOWAN: No. Listen, you cannot make it about scary terms. There are people struggling in this country. And we need representatives that don't just represent the donors and the lobby groups and the billionaires. Mamdani is showing us that you can deliver. It is possible to run and keep your promises.
I would love to talk without you talking over me the entire time.
HILL: Yes.
[22:15:00]
And that's how --
(CROSSTALKS)
RATZ: So, he's also out there saying that he's going to align himself with the folks that do not believe in Israel's right to exist.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: But what about what Jemele is saying? I mean, isn't the story of the last 10 years of politics, especially in this Trump era, that there are, even in the Republican tent, plenty of people to the far right that have been welcomed into the tent, and they're -- maybe they're toxic, maybe they're controversial, but they still get elected in their ruby red districts? It just seems like a parallel thing is starting to happen on the Democratic side, and part of what's happening is that Democrats are actually learning from what Republicans did over the last ten years.
TODD: I don't really think they are learning. I mean, I think if you look back, this happened to us. In 2010 and 2012, you can look at candidates like Sharron Angle and Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, we left a lot of Senate seats and House seats on the table because we did things that made the most radical people in our party happy. And you guys are celebrating, oh, we're taking our party back. We're finally sending a message. It's a message that swing voters are going to be scared of.
Congresswoman-elect Chevalier, I'd like to invite her to come campaign in any of the districts where I'm working with candidates this year. She would be welcome. We might pay her travel expenses. I would like her to be an ambassador of the Democratic Party.
MCGOWAN: But she's not an ambassador of the Democratic Party.
TODD: Sure she is.
RANTZ: Of course she is.
TODD: She just won tonight.
MCGOWAN: No, she's not.
RANTZ: but aren't you celebrating the unity that she's bringing to the base of the Democratic Party? You're saying that she's energizing everyone. MCGOWAN: No, we're saying -- I think we started this by talking -- I think we started this by saying her race was the closest, that Mamdani was the thing that we were celebrating, and Mamdani is showing that politicians can --
RANTZ: You can't get a --
MCGOWAN: Again, I'm speaking and you keep talking over me.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
MCGOWAN: I would love to finish a point.
RANTZ: It's a debate show.
PHILLIP: Okay, hold on a second. Just finish your point and then you can respond.
MCGOWAN: My point is, we were talking about Mamdani. Mamdani, in six months, has shown what the Democrats have not been able to show in years, that you can say you're going to get something done, and then you can get it done, that you can look out for the people, and you can actually deliver for them, that if you don't answer to the billionaire class, and you don't answer to a lobby group, and you don't answer to your donors, then you can actually keep looking out for the people.
And that's why when we're talking about John saying, you know, is this Mamdani's idea? This is what a lot of us in the country want. We want politicians that answer to us, that look out for us, that represent us.
PHILLIP: All right. Hold on.
TODD: Mamdani's saying he wants to seize the means of production. He says he wants to fix the --
PHILLIP: Let me let Jason --
(CROSSTALKS)
TODD: No, he said that. That's a quote from him.
PHILLIP: As promised, Jason, respond to that and also square it with the fact that Trump said all those things about Mamdani, but, you know, he's cool with him now. He had him at the White House. They're working together on issues, on housing. I don't know. Trump doesn't seem to be sort of following through on his pledge to use Mamdani against the Democrats. He seems to be wanting to walk hand in hand with him.
RANTZ: But you don't think that Republicans are going to use this, including Donald Trump, once we get closer to the midterm?
PHILLIP: I'm just wondering how effective that's going to be if the president is effectively clasping hands with Mamdani and they're walking into the future of New York City together. RANTZ: Well, is Mamdani clasping hands with Donald Trump? I mean, I think it goes a little bit both ways.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: Where they're trying to say, we can work together, especially in New York, and New York is a special case, obviously, for the president. But the bigger picture issue for the party is more damaging. You can win these races in New York. You're not going to win them elsewhere.
MCGOWAN: I disagree.
(CROSSTALKS)
TODD: You can't say Mamdani is a beacon to show Democrats how to win and then say we can't take the socialism to other places.
PHILLIP: I think that actually is true, right? You can win them in New York, but this, these candidates may not be exportable to other parts of the country.
TODD: They will pull the brand left.
PHILLIP: So, you kind of -- well, I mean, I think those are two separate things.
TODD: They will pull it left.
PHILLIP: You're saying that everybody gets tainted by it. There is a scenario in which Democrats actually run the right candidates in the right places.
MCGOWAN: Yes, that's what democracy is supposed to be.
TANDEN: Can I just say, this whole issue, 2010 and 2012, you're absolutely right. Republicans took a very competitive races and they put very extreme candidates in, and I think that is not what's happening in the Democratic Party today.
What you saw today is in the most liberal parts of America, they found very liberal candidates. And you know what? Those people should represent. They should get the representatives they want. But as I pointed out, in competitive districts and states, they were nominating, Democrats were nominating sometimes more moderate candidates.
Josh Turek just won in Iowa against a more progressive candidate, a great candidate, more progressive candidate. But people believed he has a better chance of defeating Ashley Hinson, and I think that we also saw that today in New York 17. So -- and that's a healthy party.
[22:20:00]
TODD: Not in northern Maine, not Graham Platner, not in California against David Valadao. We are seeing -- how do we know? Because the House Democrats have been spending money to try to stop these people from winning.
PHILLIP: So, okay, this is the setup, right, for the fall in 2028. We'll see what happens in all of those races.
Next for us, the president admits that he meddled in California's elections, asking the U.S. attorney to do him a favor. We'll discuss.
Plus, more breaking news tonight, the Senate joins the House in voting to halt the Iran war and limit Trump's war powers. So, what happens now?
This is CNN's special live coverage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, as we continue to watch the primary elections across the country, President Trump is suggesting that he interfered in California's elections after falsely claiming that the state's voting was rigged against GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Hilton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I called up the very powerful, very good U.S. attorney in California, and I said, do me a favor. Take a look. They're trying to steal that election, too. About an hour after the call, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Hilton has won. So, had I not made that call, Steve Hilton would right now be looking -- watching the election from home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Hilton will face former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in November, and Trump has repeatedly accused California of election fraud despite having zero evidence for it.
But this is the first time that he's acknowledged directly asking for an investigation and an intervention in an ongoing election. I mean, there's the Georgia case when he calls up and asks for the missing votes, but what is he doing here? And I don't think anybody should feel comfortable about the president picking up the phone, asking the U.S. attorney to dig into an election that is currently underway with zero evidence of anything going wrong.
TODD: Well, Steve Hilton said that he didn't have any evidence of anything going wrong either. The president likes these narratives, but there is one part about his frustration that is legitimate. California takes too long to count the votes, and they do it deliberately.
First off, they let you mail your ballot on Election Day, so it can come in a week afterward. Then they let you have weeks to come in and cure your ballot if there's a problem with your signature. It doesn't -- no, it doesn't --
PHILLIP: Hold on. You're laying out a bunch of legal things in the state of California. TODD: That's why it takes so long.
PHILLIP: Hold on. You're laying out a bunch of things that are perfectly legal in the state of California. You might find them annoying, fine, but they are legal. Why is the president picking up the phone, calling the U.S. attorney, and basically asking him to make his preferred candidate win?
TODD: He's asking to investigate if there's any fraud, and it is not just a frustration --
PHILLIP: And why does he think --
TODD: It's not a normal thing.
PHILLIP: But why does he think, why does Trump think that the, as a result of that phone call, the magic result was that his candidate won?
TODD: I can't tell you how, why he thinks what he thinks. But I can tell you that most voters, regular Americans, think it's ridiculous that California takes so long to count votes and that it --
(CROSSTALKS)
HILL: They don't have to worry about it. They don't live there.
MCGOWAN: Do you want it fast, or do you want it accurate?
HILL: Well, exactly.
MCGOWAN: Do you want it fast --
TODD: You can have it fast and accurate.
MCGOWAN: -- or do you want it -- no, you can't.
TODD: Sure you can.
MCGOWAN: Not in a state with 40 million people.
TODD: No, you can.
MCGOWAN: No. We have a lot of people.
TODD: Texas counts their ballots much faster with a similar population.
MCGOWAN: Texas is a state that gets to decide how its election works.
HILL: Yes. Are we states' rights or are we not?
MCGOWAN: And California is a state that gets to allow how its elections work.
TANDEN: Well, for one, it's not illegal. It's not an illegal thing. It's just the rules in California.
TODD: But -- yes, and they're bad rules that engender a lack of confidence.
(CROSSTALKS)
HILL: And, again, you don't live there.
(CROSSTALKS)
HILL: We're fine with it.
MCGOWAN: We're fine. We're both from California. We're fine.
TANDEN: Can I just ask you why does it actually engender a lack of confidence? Like Steve Hilton, like every other candidate in California, Republican and Democrat, looks at the election ballots coming in. He won some late ballots too.
TODD: Sure.
TANDEN: It doesn't -- you know, he does not have a lack of confidence. I just think saying things like it engenders a lack of confidence creates a narrative around it.
TODD: No. Around the world, swift counting with certainty upon the receipt of ballots on Election Day is -- equates to confidence in the process.
TANDEN: No, it's not.
TODD: Yes, it does. It happens everywhere else in the world.
RANTZ: Well, that's also what the data suggests.
TODD: It is the data, yes.
RANTZ: The polling overwhelmingly suggests that the longer it takes for a result, the more questions people have.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: This is not a conversation about what engenders confidence. This is a conversation about whether or not there was actually any wrongdoing, any reason for you or the president to say that there was anything that went wrong in this election. Do you have evidence?
RANTZ: I'm not taking that position.
PHILLIP: Okay.
RANTZ: I haven't taken that position.
PHILLIP: Well then that's what we're talking about here.
RANTZ: I like mail-in voting. PHILLIP: We are not talking about vibes, okay? Like the point is --
TODD: Sure we are. The public has a right to be confident in --
PHILLIP: -- that President Trump has claimed election fraud in every election that he has lost, okay? Why? Not because there was anything wrong with those elections, but because he doesn't like losing.
So, when the President of the United States with the biggest bully pulpit in the world tells all of the people in this country to not trust elections, what do you think doesn't engender confidence? Is it that they're counting the ballots, or is it because the president, with his megaphone, is casting doubt because he doesn't like to lose?
HILL: But, Abby --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: No, but which one is it? Which one engenders less confidence?
[22:30:01]
RANTZ: I don't think it's like that.
[22:30:01]
PHILLIP: Is it the actual way that they count ballots, or is it the President slowing it down?
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST AND AUTHOR, "WHAT'S KILLING AMERICA": No, it's the way they count ballots.
PHILLIP: So you're suggesting that it's not the President repeatedly lying about Election Day.
JEMELE HILL, "THE ATLANTIC" CONTRIBUTING WRITER: If Steve Hilton was the runaway winner, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: First off, this is going to not happen anymore in about a week. The Supreme Court is considering Watson v. Republican National Committee, which is a lawsuit that will stop states from accepting ballots after Election Day.
Every state in the country will have to have ballots in the door by the time the polls close. That is the first step toward getting a system we can vote for.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Actually, that's ridiculous that Republicans are championing a state, basically a Supreme Court, throwing out state rules on voting.
PHILLIP: Here's the thing. Even if that, let's say that happens, that would be a change of the rules. Everyone gets to abide by the rules. Guess what? The rules are what they are today. But I do want to ask you again. Do you think that Trump's repeated lies about elections have eroded confidence in elections in this country? TODD: I think that Trump's suspicions about mail ballots reflect the
suspicions of the voters.
TANDEN: He's actually lying.
HILL: I don't think you're going to answer that question.
PHILLIP: I'm asking you a question because Trump is not talking about things that he just doesn't like. He is straight up lying about things that happened in elections. In the 2020 election, he lied repeatedly about pretty much everything that he claimed happened in that election. You don't think those lies had any impact?
TODD: I am talking about, this segment was here. We showed a bite of the President talking about the California election counting process.
TANDEN: And he said he called the U.S. Attorney.
PHILLIP: So hold on a second. So Trump, again.
TODD: I don't think he should call the U.S. Attorney.
PHILLIP: In this case, Brad, Trump is also lying about what's going on in California. And you don't think that that's a problem?
TODD: I didn't hear him cite any evidence of fraud in California.
HILL: But he lied by saying that his call changed the result.
TODD: His call didn't change the result.
HILL: It didn't.
TODD: You're losing the plot here.
HILL: No, you're losing the plot.
TANDEN: You're losing the plot.
HILL: I'm just trying to defend something that's indefensible. That's why you sound crazy right now. Actually, what affects the country in November is the fact that the President of the United States lies about elections.
TODD: I get it. Democrats think everything's about Donald Trump.
TANDEN: I don't think.
TODD: It's about the ban.
TANDEN: This segment was actually about Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: Let me try this one more time. In the Republican-controlled state of Georgia, Trump went searching for thousands of votes. Was he lying about what happened to those votes?
TODD: I think that ballot was counted by people who I trust to count.
PHILLIP: So, was he telling the truth or was he lying?
TODD: I'm not going to evaluate everything Donald Trump has ever said.
HILL: No, you just don't want to call him a liar. You just don't want to say what it is.
PHILLIP: We can play this game if you want, but the substantive question going forward is, what do we do about fixing confidence in elections?
PHILLIP: Here's the thing. It is actually not a game. It's not a game. It is actually about what is true and what is false. If the President has proof, he would have brought it forward by now. But the truth is that he has lied repeatedly. It has been proven. He has lost every single case when it comes to the election claims that he has made.
Those are lies, okay? That is not a game. It's not a game. We're not losing the plot. We are staying on the plot. Here's the plot. In America, people get to cast votes. Those votes get to be counted according to the jurisdictions where they live. If there is fraud, that fraud should be proven.
And anytime that somebody has a claim of fraud, bring the evidence. We'll take a look at it. The courts will take a look at it, but that has never happened.
TODD: We should have a mechanism that has as little subjectivity in it as possible.
PHILLIP: Hey, I'm still waiting for President Trump to bring the evidence of fraud that he claims is in California or anywhere else where he has lost an election. And let's see if it's actually real or if it changes the result. So far, it has not.
Next for us, breaking news. In a rare rebuke, the Senate has voted to limit Trump's power in this war against Iran, including removing military forces from Iran. So what happens now? We're going to debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Breaking tonight, both chambers of Congress want to rein in Donald Trump's war powers. In the Senate, four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to pass a war powers resolution that directs Trump to remove military forces from the war in Iran.
The vote is largely symbolic, and it's unclear exactly how it can be enforced. But it comes as Iran denies that the President claims that Tehran has agreed to, quote, "the highest level nuclear inspections until infinity." He was asked about their denial, and this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Iranians are saying there's no scheduled visit for the IAEA inspectors. Is that part of your agreement?
[22:40:02]
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They're wrong. They know they're wrong.
They told us inside, and we have it down, 100 percent inspections. And if they were right, I'd cancel the meetings right now.
REPORTER: When will those inspectors actually be on the ground?
TRUMP: At the appropriate time.
At the appropriate time. There's no rush, but they'll be on the ground at the appropriate time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean, you know, I'm not suggesting that we should take Iranian officials at their word, but I will ask this.
When J.D. Vance says, oh, everything's fine because we have a handshake deal with them behind the scenes, how are we supposed to know that anything has actually been accomplished when none of this is written down?
The Iranians are denying it. Nothing is actually happening. It seems like if there is a handshake deal, they can't trust that handshake.
RANTZ: Oh, I agree. So, there's two separate issues. Number one, anything Iran says should not be trusted. They are a terrorist state. They put out information because they're also talking to their own constituency and the hardliners in Iran. Pushing that aside, yes, we shouldn't just trust Iran.
And we'll know what is part of this deal in 55 days or whatever that number is, because that's when we'll actually get it. I think there's a lot of speculation. The President's clearly taking a stance saying we're not going to have a deal unless this is a part of it.
And is this perhaps part of the negotiating to let Iran know, yes, we're not going to have a deal unless this is agreed to? Maybe. I don't know. But I certainly believe that Iranian officials are talking behind the scenes in a way that's different than they're talking publicly.
TANDEN: I mean, can I just say, since this war started, I've been on the show a few times, and every single time it's like the President says he's not going to sign a deal or come to any agreement unless, you know, this has been achieved or that has been achieved or this has been achieved. I mean, obviously, you could have nuclear inspectors in today, and
they don't have them, and we ended military hostilities. But the truth is, let's just be honest and candid, we gave away all of our leverage with the seizing of the bombing.
Good to not, It's good to seize the bombing. Shouldn't have started the war in the first place. But we have very little leverage with them, and the President keeps talking about different things that he's going to accomplish, but we have no reason to believe will actually ever happen.
And I think all of this is honestly a P.R. strategy to manage his defeat -- our defeat in this war that he has started and is basically handing over power to the Iranians.
PHILLIP: So that's on the IAEA inspections. There's also the missiles.
Iran's President says "The discussion over our missiles does not exist in the MOU, and it never will. If we did not have the missiles we used for our defense, Israel and the United States would have devastated Iran."
He is right that there is no talk of missiles in the MOU. And I don't know, you say don't listen to Iran, but here is Trump back in March of this year, and then here's Trump on June 17th, just recently, as they're working through this MOU. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Our objectives are clear. First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities, and you see that happening on an hourly basis, and their capacity to produce brand new ones, and pretty good ones they make.
What am I going to do? They're going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can't have them?
Yes, Sir.
It doesn't work that way, you know. It doesn't work that way, and missiles aren't the problem. Missiles, they hurt a little location, but they don't blow up the planet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Maybe they are aligned. Maybe the United States and Iran are aligned that they ought to have missiles after all this.
TODD: The President was right on March 2nd. He's wrong now. And the U.S. Senate was wrong today to limit the ability to keep the American military there.
It's the one stick that's in the deal. And it's a very bad deal, in my opinion, right now, at least at the MOU stage. The one stick in the deal is that American forces don't have to leave the region until 30 days after the full agreement is completed. And so today, the U.S. Senate, and I think a few Republicans made very
bad votes here. They took advantage of the fact that Mitch McConnell was in the hospital, Dave McCormick was traveling with the President, that was a mistake on the Senate's part.
And the Republicans who voted for them, they were dead wrong today. They should have left the stick in that American forces stay in the region until 30 days after the conclusion of the successful deal.
HILL: I think a larger problem with this is that the entire Trump administration is trying to tell people they're tasting caviar when it's a doo-doo sandwich. And we know this about this deal.
And there's nothing about it that looks good, but at this point we've gone so far down the line of something we never should have been in in the first place that it's leaving us very few options in terms of how we extract ourselves in a peaceful way.
[22:45:00]
I've said it many times on this show since this has all started. Iran is fighting a different war. And it feels like the Trump administration does not understand this.
Americans don't want the war. They're not good with the gas prices, they're not good with casualties, they're not good with a lot of it.
Iran, when your enemy is able to take a punch and doesn't mind getting hit, that's a different kind of war. They don't mind suffering.
We mind the suffering. They know this, they know midterms are coming up. As you said, we've lost all the leverage.
RANTZ: What's the deal that you're upset about specifically?
HILL: It's not that I'm upset with the fact that we're even in this.
RANTZ: I agree. I'm concerned that this could lead to a bad deal.
HILL: I don't see how it doesn't.
RANTZ: You're saying that you disagree with the deal. The deal hasn't been set yet.
HILL: To your point, we don't know what the exact point is.
RANTZ: You and I might be on the same page at the end of it.
PHILLIP: Let her respond to you.
HILL: I think you're right. We don't know the exact term, but everything that we're hearing is disturbing. And that is the point. No, I don't trust Iran and the P.R. campaign they're running. I realize they're running it. The problem is we have a President that lies all the time.
So we don't really know who to believe and who to trust. And that's leaving everyone who's an American very unsettled.
PHILLIP: We're going to take a quick break and resume this conversation on the other side of this break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: The Trump administration has spent the last few days trying to defend the amount of sanctions relief in their memorandum of understanding with Iran. But we found this old 2023 J.D. Vance tweet where he's talking about the Iran nuclear deal. And he says, this is facetiously.
"We didn't give them money we just unfroze their money. They promised they'd only spend it on humanitarian supplies. I'm sure they're very trustworthy.
I'll ignore the $400 million pallet of cash delivered by the last Democratic administration. Complete idiocy."
He's trying to say that the Obama deal was that bad. Why does that sound like an exact description of the very deal that they have now said that they've signed with Iran?
Trump said yesterday that they're just going to spend the money on Iranians and they're going to spend it on American goods and farm products.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, "POLITICSGIRL": It's just lie after lie. Like, you know, he's telling people that the strait is open and it's record numbers going through. And I think on Saturday, 20 boats went through and a normal Saturday would be 130 boats going through.
Everything just kind of keeps changing. I think our best case scenario here, after the Obama deal being such a disaster, is getting back to status quo. But with the loss of $80 million, 14 American soldiers, 170 Iranian school children.
Our best case scenario is to get back to where we started, which we were told was such a terrible disaster. And it looks like we're going to end up paying money to this group of people that we have been told since this war started are the worst terrorists in the world.
TANDEN: I think it's even worse than before, honestly, because the whole thing that should stick in everyone's craw here is the sanctions relief money that they were getting. They had sanctions on them. They couldn't just sell oil on the open market. Now they have sanctions relief. That makes them much stronger in the longer term.
PHILLIP: And the sanctions relief is much more significant than any sanctions relief in the JCPOA.
TANDEN: What's fascinating is that by an order 10, 20, 30, this is the big difference. This is so much bigger sanctions relief, which is basically funding the Iranian National Guard.
I just think what's surprising to me is we all know that that is happening, and yet there's so little criticism. I mean, there's some Republicans criticizing, but I'm surprised others here aren't.
PHILLIP: This is the sanctions relief that's not dependent on there being a final deal. This is what happens today. And then at the same time, the President is asking the American people for $80 billion to fund the war thus far. And Senate Republicans, seeing how the war has impacted farmers, according to Politico, they want $17 billion to assist farmers.
The White House wants to negotiate them down to $10 billion. So this is massively expensive for the American people. And Iran is just getting rich right now, they don't even have to make a deal.
RANTZ: Well, they're not getting rich right now. I mean, to be clear, the economic problems that they've dealt with is very serious.
PHILLIP: And are we not helping them get over it? Even over the next 60 days. They are pocketing billions of dollars every day.
RANTZ: The Vice President has pointed out, and the President has as well, that this is going to be based on metrics and performance. I don't know what that looks like yet.
PHILLIP: Not the current sanctions. I don't know what that means. The reason I'm interrupting you is because what I'm talking about is right now. This is not metrics-based, okay?
They sign on the dotted line, and they get sanctions relief that pretty much exceeds anything the United States has ever granted Iran over the last 40 years. Right now.
RANTZ: One hundred percent. Which is why I'm saying, and Republicans have been pretty clear on this, that we're against that kind of sanctions relief. I'm also suggesting, however, that they're not getting rich off of this, I don't think that that's a fair assessment.
[22:55:07]
Because of all the economic damages that they've sustained during this war. Just shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, which is open, by the way, and lots of ships are going through. Not the case early on, but that has not been the case today.
TANDEN: Yes, 20 ships went through on Saturday.
RANTZ: Yes, Saturday. But many more have come through over the last couple days.
My point is that they're not just getting a check as if they're starting from zero. Three hundred million.
TODD: That's the other thing that's different.
RANTZ: Yes, 100 percent. You guys, we got rolled.
MCGOWAN: We got rolled in this war. Some people wanted us to get rolled. You sent the wrong people to new negotiations, and we lost.
PHILLIP: And we've got to go. Next for us, more on our breaking news. As all of Zohran Mamdani's candidates win their primaries in a clean sweep in New York, what is the signal about the Democratic Party's future? Is it taking a hard left turn? Our special coverage continues right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
