Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview with Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL): Trump Halts Talks with Iran, Signaling a New Approach in War; Judge Excuses Jury in Clancy Trial Until Tomorrow; Families Condemn Meta's Platforms as Tech Giant Goes on Trial; Flight to Antarctica Turns Back After Space Activity Warning. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired August 19, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL), ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE: ... because that's going to be blockaded. And then you'll have your oil prices come down somewhat, and energy prices will come down also. How long that's going to take, I don't know.

The other additional thing that I would do is that if we see through intelligence that they're regaining some production capability of missiles, drones, et cetera, I would strike those. Because those, again, pose a threat to the Straits. So we effectively take control of the Straits of Hormuz, even though Iran says, yes, we can still fire a shot or two.

OK. And then strangle them economically. And then finally, how about arming some of the resistance groups inside Iran and let Iran start thinking about internal conflict too?

It's pretty easy to kill 50,000 of your own people when the opponents don't have any weapons. But I think that we need to come at Iran from a number of different ways. But the main one is economically through the blockade.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: So let me ask you two questions on what you said there. Number one, you mentioned that they should arm the resistance, or that the U.S. should arm the resistance. Does the U.S. have the munitions to do that?

GIMENEZ: Yes, arms. I'm not talking about bombs and stuff. I'm not talking about airplanes.

I'm talking about simple, simple guns, OK.

HILL: Yes, I know.

GIMENEZ: In Iran, there's no guns, OK. And just like in Cuba, there's no guns, OK.

And that's why the Second Amendment is so important. The right to bear arms. The right to bear arms gives us the ability to fight tyranny.

Unfortunately, in Iran and in Cuba and other places, they don't have that ability. That's why the Iranian government was able to slaughter 50,000 of its own people. That's why the Cuban government is able to beat the heck out of any dissidence that it has on the island.

And so yes, we need to look at ways that we can start arming the resistance in Iran. Because polls say 70 percent, 80 percent of the people in Iran don't want this regime. And the only way you're going to get to lasting peace in Iran, to be honest with you, is with a new regime.

You're never going to get there with the regime that's in power right now.

HILL: Well, this regime, which is even more hardline than the one that was taken out. That is certainly part of the conversation. But I do also want to pick up on what you said about the Strait of Hormuz.

GIMENEZ: Well, that what I'd do. All right --

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: Let me ask you a question about the Strait of Hormuz.

GIMENEZ: That's really hard to do. OK, go ahead.

HILL: You said the U.S., clearly, we've seen that over the last six months. The U.S. needs to slowly take control of the Strait of Hormuz. I know you said you couldn't put a timeline on it.

But once, let's say this does happen, right? If the U.S. were to control the Strait of Hormuz, how long then does that control last? Is this something that then the U.S. would need to take over full time?

I mean, how do you envision that working? And where is the support for that, the actual physical support that would be needed on the ground?

GIMENEZ: We take control of the Straits of Hormuz to take away the card, the only bargaining chip that Iran has, and bring them back to the negotiating table, all right? And then reach our objective, which is that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Remember, that's the objective here.

And why can't Iran have a nuclear weapon? Because if they do have a nuclear weapon, then they will control the Straits of Hormuz and then basically have the world's economy in their fingertips. They also will threaten our closest ally, Israel, with destruction, threaten us with destruction, and also destabilize the rest of the world and continue to fund terrorism around the world.

That's why Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. We need to reach that objective, whatever it takes.

HILL: I also want to get your take on something that happened last night. Darline Graham, Senator Darline Graham, was on the debate stage in South Carolina. She, of course, is involved in a runoff there in the state.

She was asked specifically this question. So here's the question. I'm going to play her answer.

The question is, "Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States? If so, why?" Here's how she answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DARLINE GRAHAM (R-SC): I'm just going to be honest here. I'm not on national security. I'm not that informed on national security.

So, but I do support the military. I'm not a polished politician up here. National security is not my thing, not my area of expertise.

But I do support the military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: She wasn't asked about her support for the military. She was asked a specific national security question. Do you believe a sitting senator should be able to answer that question?

GIMENEZ: Well, I believe that a sitting senator who's been there long enough should be able to answer the question. She's only been there, what, two, three, four weeks. And so she needs to get educated on the national security issues affecting the United States.

I mean, I wasn't a national security expert the minute that I walked into Congress. But I sit now on armed services. I sit on Homeland Security and the Select Committee on China.

I'm a heck of a lot more informed now than I was when I started six years ago. I think she needs to get educated. And if she's not educated, she needs to bring it up to speed as fast as possible.

HILL: I fully understand your point on that. You certainly learn a lot once you're on the job. But the fact that was the question was simply, are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States?

[14:35:00]

That's a pretty broad question. Does it surprise you at all that she did not have an answer?

GIMENEZ: It did. I mean, look, she is -- she has been a senator. And hopefully, people would have brought her up to speed as to why the South China Sea and why Taiwan are in the best interest. I mean, it's in the interest of the United States to make sure that the South China Sea is open to traffic and that Taiwan remains quasi-independent of communist China. I know we have a one-China policy.

But really, Taiwan is independent of China and needs to be that way because Taiwan produces 80 percent of the world's chips. And the world runs on chips. That's why it's in the national security interest of the United States to protect Taiwan as much as we can.

HILL: Congressman Carlos Gimenez, appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you.

GIMENEZ: My pleasure.

HILL: Still ahead here, more explosive testimony in the Lindsay Clancy trial. Her psychologist talking. We'll tell you what the psychologist had to say to the jury and how prosecutors pushed back.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Just into CNN, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial has just been excused until tomorrow due to quote, unforeseen circumstances. The sudden decision comes after jurors heard testimony from just one defense witness, a forensic psychologist.

Let's get more from CNN's Brynn Gingras, who is tracking the latest court testimony. So Brynn, help us understand what just happened.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, so that jury sent home according to unforeseen circumstances, the judge telling them not to read into this, but they did go home about an hour and a half earlier than they typically do on any other given day. So we'll see them back again tomorrow. As far as this witness, as a key witness for the defense, this is a forensic psychologist, as you said, Boris, who basically was spelling out the crux of the defense's case, right?

That Lindsay Clancy committed this act during a psychotic postpartum break. And not only was he defining exactly what that is in a person but also explaining that he witnessed that same sort of characterization or clinical analysis of Lindsay in the dozens of times that he evaluated her, that he worked with her, that he sat and talked with her. Now, keep in mind before you listen to an exchange between the defense and this witness that this person admitted on the stand that he often met with Lindsay, was a longtime friend of the defense attorney.

So that is the characterization that the jury heard of this witness. But again, listen to this exchange and how he describes what Lindsay was feeling up until the times the killings happened.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. PAUL ZEIZEL, CLINICAL AND FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: Intrusive thoughts are unrelenting. They don't stop. They're what we call egos dystonic.

You don't want them. They keep interfering with your ability to get through the day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did she have, at this point, intrusive thoughts continuing regarding voices in her head that she heard constantly?

ZEIZEL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What were these voices saying to her? ZEIZEL: They were getting worse and they were telling her to kill herself.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GINGRAS: And he wrapped up his testimony essentially saying that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis when these killings happened. Then it was time for the cross-examination of this witness. And as always, the prosecution went really hard with this witness, essentially saying that Lindsay never reported hearing voices up until the point after the killings happened and also questioned his relationship with Lindsay, basically saying he was hired by the defense and, you know, that he can't be very impartial as he sits on the stand as a witness for the defense -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Brynn, also tell us about the social worker who took the stand without the jury present.

GINGRAS: Yes, so this is a social worker who went viral on TikTok recently, so much so that the defense used a private investigator to find her and see if she could be a witness for him in this case. Now, what happened today was a voir dire. That means the jury was not present and it gives the judge a chance to decide if she can be a witness in this case.

Can she go before the jury and have both sides ask questions? And essentially, the defense trying to prove here really go against something that the prosecution presented earlier in this case about Lindsay Clancy's time at a psychiatric hospital just weeks before the killings happened. She kind of put in her time with her witnesses that this was, you know, an OK stay, and Lindsay didn't really accept any care at that time.

And this witness, the defense was hoping, was going to sort of challenge that, but the judge ultimately deciding that he would not allow her to be a witness in this case.

SANCHEZ: Brynn Gingras, thank you so much for that update.

Still to come, the blockbuster social media trial happening right now. We have details from inside court as a group of states accused Meta of harming kids.

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Outside federal court in Oakland, California, families unveiling a giant scroll, as you see here, of hundreds of names. They say this represents lives, young lives lost due to social media. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, could pay more than a trillion dollars in damages over claims that its platforms harm children.

29 states are suing the company, alleging that it constructed its apps to be addictive, harming the mental health of young users. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LENNON TORRES, CHILD SAFETY ADVOCATE: The names on that banner whose lives were cut too short. There is an eight-year-old on that banner.

LORI SCHOTT, MOTHER OF ANNALEE SCHOTT: Advertisers were allegedly giving access to our children so beauty ads could be delivered at the very moments these girls were at their most vulnerable. Let that sink in. When my daughter was struggling, it became Meta's bottom line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN tech reporter Clare Duffy is following these developments for us in the case. So Clare, what has been happening so far in court today?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Well, this is only day two of the trial, and already the jury has a lot to process here. Arturo Bejar has been on the stand. He is a former Facebook engineering director turned whistleblower, and he was called by the states as their first witness.

He actually took the stand yesterday, and he talked about what he described as his experience seeing Meta prioritize speed and profit over safety. He also talked about how even as a Meta safety executive, he struggled to keep his own teen daughter from seeing inappropriate content and receiving sexual solicitations from strangers on Instagram.

[14:50:00]

He, just a short time ago, was being questioned by a lawyer for the company who was asking him about measures and meetings that Meta said it did take in the service of safety. And all of that came after opening statements yesterday, where we really got to hear the states lay out their case, their argument that Meta's core ad business model relies on hooking teens, hooking kids, getting them to spend a lot of time on the platform, and that Meta has known there are risks to young people on the platform, but publicly said that the platforms are safe for kids. They're also alleging that Meta has illegally gathered data on children under the age of 13.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, he is one of the four states that is involved in this case. He talked yesterday following opening statements about why this piece about Meta misleading the public, that part of their allegations is so central to this case. Take a listen to what he said there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB GONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We cannot adequately protect our children from the harms of Instagram and Facebook when the company, one of the largest, richest, most powerful companies on the face of the earth, lies to us and hides the truth and designs these platforms to drive compulsive use while lying to your face and telling you it's safe. Parents cannot do their job if they're being lied to. Teens, parents, the community, the public deserve the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: Now, we also heard Meta's response to these allegations, which it says are unsubstantiated. The company's lawyer in opening statements talking about the steps that Meta has taken, like parental controls and teen content restrictions, to keep kids safe on its platforms. They also accused the attorneys general of cherry picking internal documents that they say paint a misleading picture of the company.

So lots for the jury to digest on only day two of what is expected to be a week's long trial, Erica.

HILL: Yes, all right, Clare, really appreciate the update. Thank you.

A U.S. military aircraft forced to turn around just two hours into its flight to Antarctica, the potentially dangerous space activity prompting that change. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:55:00]

SANCHEZ: An aborted military mission is raising questions about what is happening in our skies. A U.S. Air Force flight bound for Antarctica was forced to turn back after a warning from New Zealand authorities about potentially hazardous space activity. CNN Aviation correspondent Pete Muntean is here now. Pete, you know what I'm going to ask you.

Was it the aliens? What is going on? What was this activity?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: We're introducing a new term into our aviation lexicon today, space junk. And this all fits into this larger story about fears that pieces of a rocket could actually fall on a plane. This U.S. Air Force C-17 left Christchurch, New Zealand bound for McMurdo Station in Antarctica where there's a major research base there.

And about two hours into the flight, you can see it turn around and head all the way back to New Zealand. Now, aviation authorities there say the crew had been warned that space junk was a concern on this route. This is the excerpt from the notice to pilots. It's known officially as a NOTAM, and I pulled this from open-source flight tracking site, AussieADSB.com.

And in it, it says, Russian aerospace activity, big air quotes around that, would be taking place and warned of possible debris in several areas over the Southern Indian Ocean. Exactly what Russia was doing has not been publicly identified, but this is a growing issue for air travel. The sky above airplanes is getting busier, more rocket launches, more satellites, more hardware eventually coming back through the atmosphere.

Most of the time, the risk to an individual airplane's pretty small. A lot of this stuff burns up in the Earth's atmosphere, but when authorities say they cannot exactly predict where debris can fall, then sometimes they must move airplanes out of the way. We saw that after a SpaceX Starship test broke apart over the Caribbean last year.

The FAA activated what's called a special debris response area. Airplanes were diverted. Some flights had to land elsewhere. In 2022, a controlled re-entry of a Chinese rocket stage prompted airspace closures over parts of Spain.

And that's really the bigger issue here, is the pace of these rocket launches and general launches, private space launches, increases. There's more of a concern that this could fall on an airplane. The risk, again, very, very minimal, but when you have a couple hundred people on an airplane, aviation authorities have no choice but to take something like this very seriously.

SANCHEZ: Yes, I also wonder, Pete, have any plans been put forward on how to deal with all this space junk? Because it's not just that incident. There are other instances of just lingering crap out there in space.

MUNTEAN: There's white paper after white paper on this that says this is a growing concern, and it's even a concern the other way. You know, we just saw this SpaceX booster that was essentially left to continue to float through space ultimately hit the moon, and that's a concern because there is a big push by the Trump administration to establish a base on the moon, ultimately as a leapfrog to Mars, and there's concern there that if there are astronauts there, a permanent base on the moon, then that space junk could pose a risk to crews there. So this is becoming a really, really big issue. It's not the last time you'll be hearing of space junk interfering with flights here or other things out in space.

SANCHEZ: Space junk. I know what's going on.

MUNTEAN: Big wink, right?

SANCHEZ: Always good to have you, Pete.

MUNTEAN: Anytime.

SANCHEZ: Pete Muntean, thanks so much. A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

END