Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

CENTCOM Says U.S. Forces Launching Strikes Against Iran; Iran: Four Projectiles Hit Port Cities, Explosions Near Strait Of Hormuz; Judge Tells Deadlocked Clancy Jurors To Keep Deliberating; Suspect In Charlie Kirk's Killing Back In Court For Key Hearing; DHS Launches Voter Fraud Investigation Surge. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 01, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Researchers say they found substantial disparities by race, education and insurance status.

And in Southern California, a mama bear and her three cubs were rescued after they fell into a large water storage tank. CNN affiliate KABC reports wildlife officials say the trio squeezed through a one foot wide opening and were trapped for more than 12 hours. They were in distress, as you can imagine, when one of the cubs managed to get out on its own. Firefighters dubbed the successful rescue Operation Care Bear. Love that. A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Fresh new strikes and a warning: After U.S. forces hit Iran with another round of attacks, President Trump tells leadership in Tehran, do not retaliate.

KEILAR: Deadlocked, but deliberating. The nine women and three men on the Lindsay Clancy jury told the judge they could not reach a verdict. He asked them to keep trying.

And a CNN exclusive, President Trump escalating his crusade against alleged voter fraud with a new push by the Department of Homeland Security ahead of the midterm elections. We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We start this hour with breaking news, the U.S. launching a new round of strikes against Iran, while Tehran is now vowing its own retaliation. U.S. Central Command says the attack started right at noon. Tehran says that four projectiles hit neighboring port cities in southeastern Iran, while Iranian state media says that multiple explosions were heard east of Bandar Abbas around Qeshm, the Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz.

President Trump says these latest U.S. strikes were in response for missiles fired at U.S. service members in Jordan yesterday. Let's go now live to the White House with CNN's Kristen Holmes.

Kristen, what more is the Trump administration saying about these operations?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, President Trump is saying that these attacks are very justified, using the fact that Iran had launched missiles towards this U.S. military base in Jordan. But he also noted that if Iran were to retaliate for these strikes, they would be facing more severe military operations.

Just a reminder, it did seem as though President Trump had kind of scaled back how the U.S. was going to be responding. At first, he said they were going to hit Iran very hard. Then he said it was going to be a limited response. You can tell they're trying to paint this as a direct response, not any kind of larger military action. This is just essentially a tit-for-tat, a defensive move.

Now, Iran, on their part, as you noted, is vowing retaliation. In fact, they said Iran's armed forces central headquarters said Iran would deliver a crushing and devastating blow against the American enemy. That was according to the state broadcaster in Iran.

So it's unclear still at this point whether or not this is going to be an escalation in military operations across the board. Are we going to see Iran retaliate and then the U.S. again? Or is this going to be just the end of this back and forth and then go back into the U.S.'s new strategy, which has been primarily to focus on the economic strangulation of Iran.

SANCHEZ: Kristen Holmes, live for us at the White House, thank you so much. Brianna.

KEILAR: After more than 300 exhibits, 80 some witnesses and more than a month of court, the possibility of a hung jury looms over the triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. Right now, the nine women and three men who are on the jury are struggling to find consensus. This morning, they told the judge they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Clancy's attorneys say the 36-year-old former nurse was in postpartum psychosis when she strangled her three children. The judge told jurors he understood how long the trial has been and then he directed them to go back to deliberating.

Joining us now, CNN's Jean Casarez, she is there in Plymouth, Massachusetts, where deliberations are underway.

And Jean, jurors have now been at it for about 22 hours. This is getting quite long. What more are you learning about how they're doing?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, here's what we know at this point. They are continuing to deliberate and we haven't heard anything from them. There is not another note, but saying that it is about three o'clock right now on the East Coast. And yesterday they asked to leave around four o'clock. So, this could be a very important hour right now.

But it was 10 o'clock sharp this morning on the East Coast when suddenly we hear that something is going on inside the courtroom. And it was a note from the jurors and the jurors did say we have an issue. We cannot reach unanimity on the many charges in this case.

[15:05:03]

I want to take you inside that courtroom when the judge spoke to the jury and when announced this to the court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial, all right? I know there were over 80 witnesses, there were over 300 exhibits, and -- but because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out keeping in mind all the instructions that I gave you to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time, all right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Now, we do know the defense attorney, Keith Reddington (sic), he has stayed close inside the courtroom today instead of leaving and coming and going. Could be because of all the rain today in Plymouth, Massachusetts, but this is a pivotal hour I think as this jury continues to deliberate. And on the record, they have only asked for pill bottles and the knife that was involved in this case, but there are over 300 exhibits, conceivably some of those notes and records and medical records and just so many different things that they have to look at are available to them at any time.

KEILAR: Yes. A very good note there. Jean Casarez, thank you. Boris?

SANCHEZ: For more perspective, let's turn now to jury consultant Alan Tuerkheimer.

Alan, thanks so much for being with us.

How far can this direction from the judge actually move a jury that says it's deadlocked?

ALAN TUERKHEIMER, JURY CONSULTANT, TRIAL METHODS INC: It can have an impact. The jurors now hearing this from the judge are probably thinking we got to get to a -- we have to be unanimous. And so, they take that very seriously. They're going to try maybe some other ways of getting there. It all depends on the breakdown and then who's on what side, what the alignment is. Is it 6-6 or is it 11-1?

So, those are all factors are going to affect how things unfold for the next hour or so and then possibly into tomorrow. But we'll take the judge's instruction very seriously. They'll try to be unanimous, but at some point if arguments get -- get rehashed, get recycled and nobody moves, and then you might have a juror or two jurors or maybe even more than that, a handful that just say, look, this is my view now and there is nothing that anybody can say that's going to change my mind, that can prompt and you have enough of those on both sides or it's just not going to be unanimous.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

TUERKHEIMER: They might go back to the judge and say, we tried again. We don't know what else to do. We're at a full impasse. What do you -- what else do you want from us at this time, because we're -- we're deadlocked.

SANCHEZ: Yes. So, deliberations have now gone on about 22 hours. Is it your experience that the longer that this goes, the more entrenched those disagreements get, the -- the more holdouts sort of cement their views?

TUERKHEIMER: Yes, I think with time and once you're saying this -- and when I say publicly, I mean within a jury deliberation, it's one thing to look at the evidence, hear the experts, and then in your mind think, okay, I think this probably comes out to be criminally not responsible. I think this comes out to be murder in the second degree, whatever it is, yes. You have this thought and you have this idea of where it should end up, but then you listen to fellow jurors, you hear them talk. And then when you're on record, it becomes a little untenable.

Now, jurors do it all the time, but once you start going down that path, you build momentum, you start believing in how you think the case should end up. It does become harder because you become more entrenched. And when you've stated over and over something, then it's less likely you're going to retreat from that because you've already spent a lot of time, a lot of psychological energy making arguments in favor of one side or the other.

So yes, I think the more this goes on -- look, it's -- it's possible to come back and say, okay, we took your instruction to heart, judge, and now we reach unanimity. But it's also quite likely that the sides are going to dig in since they've already dug in and say, look, we're stuck -- nobody's budging. These are two diametrically opposite views that one faction has versus the other.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

TUERKHEIMER: There's nowhere to go. We tried our best and this is where we stand.

SANCHEZ: And just seeing where public sentiment is on this case, you imagine there are a lot of different viewpoints in -- in that jury room. And it's also notable that they're deciding between five possible verdicts from first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, down to not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. In -- in your eyes, does that make it more likely that there are going to be disagreements about what she should -- what the verdict should be or -- or does that make it easier for a jury like this to compromise?

TUERKHEIMER: I think it's harder. They do have to look at the -- the overarching perspectives of the case and then plug it into the law and what the charges are.

[15:10:00]

And that's very difficult because some have a view of one -- one way how this went down, that she knew what she was doing. She knew that this was wrong versus others who say that no, she was under this postpartum psychosis and that -- had no idea that this was wrong, that this was what a voice told her to do. So, it's very difficult and it is different.

You mentioned the court of public opinion. Well, that's so different from what goes on in a jury deliberation because we have people that are weighing in with some strong beliefs, strong ideas about how it should turn out. But then only these 12 people saw all the evidence. They were in the courtroom.

Now, they're the ones that after not being able to talk about it, being able to unburden themselves with all the emotion, finally they go at it and they get to discuss it. So, it's a difficult thing for 12 jurors to arrive at -- at an ultimate conclusion where unanimous -- especially a case like this where the emotions are so high and some of the evidence was so graphic. So, it was a tough task and they're still at it. Got to give them credit, but they'll do the best they can and probably hear from them pretty soon.

SANCHEZ: Does it surprise you given the breadth of evidence and -- and as you put it -- graphic evidence that they were confronted with, that they only asked one question about evidence specifically to see the pill bottles and the knife that was used in her suicide attempt. Did you anticipate that there would perhaps be more questions or -- or more efforts to seek some form of clarity from the jury?

TUERKHEIMER: I think from all reports, this is a very diligent jury and they paid close attention. After those two questions, I thought they were probably going to -- or there was a good chance they would at least ask for something else. But I'm guessing that they rely on each other.

Again, they -- they're the ones that are in there and a lot of times in a -- in a mock jury deliberation or talking to jurors afterwards, they say that if they had some ambiguity, they resolved it by asking one member or talking to one member and usually one member will say, oh yes, I remember this. I remember when this witness said X, Y, Z. So, they usually resolve it internally.

Sometimes they do have to say, okay, we have to seek help, but, yes, there's just -- there's so much to consider in this case. Got to give them credit.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Alan Tuerkheimer, thanks so much for sharing your point of view.

TUERKHEIMER: Thank you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still to come, a CNN exclusive, how the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to investigate voter fraud just ahead of the midterm elections.

Plus, a Utah judge expected to decide if Charlie Kirk's accused killer will stand trial. Closing arguments in a preliminary hearing are about to get underway.

And later, as search and rescue operations continue in Nepal, experts are warning the risk of more flooding remains. That and much more coming your way next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:05]

SANCHEZ: We could soon learn if the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk will stand trial. A critical hearing is now underway in Utah. Tyler Robinson faces charges, including aggravated murder for allegedly shooting Kirk last September. Kirk's widow, Erika, and his parents are in the courtroom. CNN Correspondent Nick Watt is following this and joins us now.

So Nick, what is happening right now?

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, we have just seen the feed from the courtroom coming up. So, the day is about to begin in earnest when the prosecution and then the defense will argue before the judge. The issue, is there enough evidence? Is there probable cause? Is there a reason to put Tyler Robinson actually on trial for killing Charlie Kirk?

So, the prosecution basically says this is a slam dunk. You know, we've got surveillance video of Tyler Robinson on the campus four times. We've got his DNA all over the trigger of the rifle and elsewhere. We've got essentially confessions from him in Discord chats and also in text messages with his boyfriend, Lance Twiggs.

So, that is the sound. I'm just going to mute that so you can hear me. The defense, listen, Boris, they are basically trying to get the death penalty off the table here. Yes, they are questioning some of the policing of the event, introducing the possibility that somebody else shot Charlie Kirk that day in front of 3,000 people at an event at Utah Valley University. They are also questioning the -- the prosecution's assertion that Charlie Kirk was killed because of his political and religious views on gender reassignment and on gay relationships.

Now, the defense is saying you haven't managed to join those two dots. They are also saying that this idea that -- that Tyler Robinson was putting other people in danger is also nonsense. They say that that just is not the case. They are trying to get those aggravated charges taken away so that the death penalty is off the table.

As you mentioned, Erika Kirk, along with the parents of Charlie Kirk, are in the courtroom today as they were for the five days of this hearing. We spent most of the morning with the two sides and the judge discussing media access, which has been a constant issue throughout the buildup to what we expect will be a trial.

The prosecution does not want -- sorry, the prosecution does want cameras in there. The defense does not want cameras in there. The judge has ruled that there can be one still photography -- photographer and one video camera in the courtroom. So, it is just getting underway and we are told that by the end of the day, the judge will rule whether there is probable cause and whether this trial, Boris, will go ahead. Back to you.

[15:20:08]

SANCHEZ: And we are seeing a live feed from that camera in the courtroom right now. Nick Watt, thanks so much for bringing us the latest from Utah.

Still ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL, we have some new exclusive reporting on how the White House is enlisting the Department of Homeland Security in President Trump's crusade against alleged voter fraud. That story coming your way next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:25:06]

KEILAR: CNN has new exclusive reporting that the Department of Homeland Security is stepping up efforts to investigate alleged voter fraud. This surge begins today and involves at least nine states. It marks a major shift towards making DHS a central force in President Trump's voter fraud crusade. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is part of the story -- part of the team that broke this story. What are the details here?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is going to lean on Homeland Security investigations. That falls under Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Now, this is a branch of that agency that has generally been focused on investigations into drug trafficking, smuggling, among other crimes. Well, now they're putting a lot of resources and an unprecedented number of resources toward voter fraud. And this is the latest example of that.

What I've learned is that starting today, they are going to be launching a surge initiative. Let me read you part of the guidance that I reviewed that describes it. It is, quote, "A coordinated criminal voter fraud surge initiative to pursue investigative leads, conduct field interviews and support timely prosecutorial review."

Now, this surge is going to be happening in a select nine states where they will be tasked with pursuing these investigative leads. Of course, those leads would then be referred to the U.S. attorneys for any additional prosecution or prosecution period.

Now, of course, the timing here is interesting. It's just shy of the midterm elections, of course. And generally, the government has discouraged overt investigations when elections are on the horizon for fear of there being a chilling effect. Of course, there are exceptional circumstances. And in this case, too, the Department of Homeland Security is doing these investigations, so they would not be obligated to follow this policy.

But when I asked the Department of Homeland Security about it, they said this, quote, while ICE Homeland Security Investigations is not able to comment on any active investigations, HSI is actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found. They went on to say that under President Trump, HSI is committed to restoring integrity to our election systems and ensuring that American citizens and only American citizens are electing American leaders. Of course, Brianna, it's also worth noting that experts say there is no evidence that there has been widespread voter fraud in recent elections. But that has not stopped this administration from frequently talking about this issue and highlighting it, including the Justice Department late last week with the arrest of a Honduran national who they say falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen and registered to vote.

And this, again, is just the latest example of how the Department of Homeland Security is pushing forward with this. They have also, of course, recently pushed states to share their voter rolls for audits. So, all of this taken together shows how much of a priority this has become for the administration.

KEILAR: And DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin also just announced a major change that's coming for ICE agents in the field.

ALVAREZ: And that is going to be that they wear body cameras. Of course, this has been an issue that has come up time and time again, particularly because of these aggressive confrontations between agents and members of the public. And it is also one that has bipartisan agreement, even including within the White House. White House Border Czar, Tom Homan has also said he wants to see them wear body cameras.

There has been a lingering question as to why it's taken so long. And there's been a bit of a shifting timeline here as well, because ICE had previously said they'd have them by the end of August. Now, the secretary is saying it'll be by the end of September. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We're getting close. I don't know -- by the end of September, I'm pretty sure we will be there. And we're talking about how we can activate those faster, too. So -- but I feel like we're on track by the end of September to have everybody that's in the field. That doesn't mean every ICE agent, everybody that's in the field will have a body-worn camera. It's for our safety and the public safety, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: So, there you have it. By the end of this month, the Department says that ICE agents on the field will be wearing those body cameras.

KEILAR: All right. We'll be looking for that. Priscilla, thank you so much.

Still ahead, more than six months into the war with Iran, another major shakeup at the Pentagon. Why sources say tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fueled Army Secretary Dan Driscoll's resignation next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)