Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Canada Plans Retaliatory Tariffs After Talks Collapse; Pentagon Fires Stars And Stripes Leaders; Tearful Five-Year-Old Boy, Father Detained By ICE In Texas; Mother Speaks With Five-Year-Old Held In ICE Detention Center; Next Week: Closing Arguments On Lindsay Clancy Trial; Spectators Gather In D.C. For Trump-Backed Grand Pix Event. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired August 22, 2026 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:00]

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: That role of course was in the series "Suits." Now Netflix declined to comment on my reporting and I have reached out to multiple representatives for Meghan Markle and her production company.

Back to you.

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN HOST: Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you.

Well, that wasn't the only royal surprise this week. From a Belgian car salesman to a prince. After he took a DNA test a 26-year-old was legally recognized as the son of Prince Laurent, the brother of Belgium's King Philippe. He posted this photo of him and his biological dad on Father's Day. The new prince now has -- listen to this -- equal inheritance rights with his half siblings to Laurent's private estate. But he will not receive a royal allowance or be expected to take on any official duties, and he is not in line for the Belgian throne.

That sounds like a Hallmark movie. That's incredible.

Well, another hour of CNN NEWSROOM starts right now.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM, I'm Isabel Rosales in Atlanta.

New tonight Canada is hitting back at the United States after trade talks fell apart between the two nations in the 11th hour. Canada's prime minister says it will match U.S. tariffs, quote, "dollar for dollar" starting September 8th.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: In recent days, the United States proposed new terms that were uneconomic, unfair and undermine the net benefits for Canada and called into question the reliability of any deal. In short, they asked too much and they offered too little.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ROSALES: Yes, it's not looking good. This deal falling apart means that President Trump's tariffs are now in effect. That is 50 percent tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods.

CNN correspondent Julia Benbrook joins us now.

Julia, what is the Trump administration saying about all of this?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The big takeaway here is that there is no deal. President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, as well as other top trade officials from both countries, had been in direct contact this week after Trump had put a three-day pause on the tariffs. Both sides had expressed optimism that they could come to an agreement before the new deadline.

In fact, just hours before everything fell apart, Trump said that things were moving along and that the United States and Canada should be able to come to a deal. There is now, though, a 50 percent tariff on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods, and Canada has vowed to match those tariffs dollar for dollar starting on September 8th. So lots of escalation here.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer said that there were some new demands as well as some walk backs of certain commitments from the Canadians that he said unraveled some delicate work that had been done in the last few days. And earlier today, while speaking with FOX News, Greer said that as of right now there are no plans to restart these talks. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMISON GREER, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: It's hard to say. We don't have new talks planned with the Canadians. We're moving forward with measures that respond to Canadian retaliation. Remember, as President Trump has introduced a trade policy to reshore American production and protect American jobs, two countries have retaliated against the United States, the People's Republic of China and Canada.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BENBROOK: Carney, for his part, said that there was no agreement between the two countries because the United States failed to meet Canada's objectives. He also said that there were some last-minute changes that really brought into question the reliability of any sort of a deal here. Trump has not responded yet to Carney's promise that he would match those tariffs dollar for dollar. We have reached out to the White House for more details.

ROSALES: And, Julia, what does this mean for the overall relationship between the United States and Canada?

BENBROOK: It's another point of tension here. We know that Trump, throughout his second term, has used tariffs, turned them on and off to push for certain things that he wants. He has also repeatedly threatened, said that he wants to make Canada the 51st state. In those remarks earlier that Carney made that you referenced, he said

that this recent move was really a miscalculation and that it was used to divide. So this just interjects more questions when it comes to the relationship between these two countries. And as of right now, there is no sense of when they might come back to the table.

ROSALES: Hopefully they get it together. This is not looking pretty.

Julia Benbrook, thank you.

Well, let's bring in former U.S. Trade representative and Council on Foreign Relations president Michael Froman.

[19:05:00]

Mike, thank you so much for joining CNN NEWSROOM. Really appreciate your expertise. What does it tell you about the U.S.-Canadian relations that these talks have collapsed? Are we seriously beefing with Canada right now?

MICHAEL FROMAN, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, I think we have to keep this in perspective. This is one of the deepest trade relationships in the world. But we've had our trade tensions going back to the founding of the country. I think our first lumbar conflict with Canada goes back as far as 200 years or so.

I think it's also important to note this is $20 billion of Canadian exports. That's about 5 percent of Canada's exports. And when the tariffs are implemented it will raise their tariff level to about 6 percent which, you know, it was about 4.5 percent before and now it'll be about 6 percent on average on Canadian products. So it's important to keep it in perspective. But it does show just how far the bilateral relationship has declined and how difficult it is to get anything done.

And at a time when the USMCA is to be reviewed year by year, rather than extended for the next decade, the U.S. is proceeding with Mexico and talks is not proceeding yet with Canada for talks, and this makes that more difficult.

ROSALES: And you've been, Mike, in these high stakes, tense negotiating rooms before. How do these sorts of talks usually play out?

FROMAN: Well, hopefully, usually at the end of the day, you reach a deal that works for both parties. But, you know, issues like the Canadian dairy system has been a bone of contention between the U.S. and Canada for decades. And I imagine it continues to be one today.

I think the new issue is that the Trump administration is pressing Canada, as well as other countries, to adopt a common approach vis a vis China, whether it's a common external tariff or export controls, or ensuring that the Chinese products inputs don't get inserted into products in Canada that will then be imported into the United States. And that's a new set of trade issues. And Prime Minister Carney has noted that that goes against their sovereign right to establish relationships with other countries.

So that's going to be an issue of contention that the administration is going to continue to have to have dialogue with, with Canada and with other countries over time.

ROSALES: And earlier this week, the president suggested a deal was done. Now, Prime Minister Mark Carney is explicitly raising the prospect that Canada may not be able to trust the United States. Is this just all part of the process?

FROMAN: Well, it's gone further than it has before. The rhetoric is hotter on both sides than it's been before. And as the prime minister has noted that he believes Canada really needs to diversify its trading relationships beyond the United States. About 70 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. About over 70 percent of their exports come to the United States.

Their customers, their supply chains run much more north-south than they do east-west. And that's something that the prime minister has been taking on and trying to resolve barriers between provinces so there's more east-west trade across Canada, as well as look for other markets around the world.

My sense is, though, there are -- Canada is a victim of geography, and it will be limited in its capacity, in my view, to fully diversify away from the United States as its major trading partner.

ROSALES: Canada also said that the United States tried to restrict its ability to have other trade deals. What is your reaction to that? How common of a tactic is that in these negotiations?

FROMAN: This is something the Trump administration has introduced in prior agreements. Really fundamentally having to do with China and that it doesn't want countries that it reaches a trade agreement with to then go and reach a trade agreement with China, particularly if that could lead to Chinese inputs making their way into products that ultimately make their way into the United States.

It's illegal to transship products through a third country. China can't simply send products through Canada to the United States and label them as Canadian products. But the question is, if there's a Canadian piece of machinery and it's got 20 percent Chinese input, are we going to keep it out of our market?

And the Trump administration has been quite firm with other countries that it doesn't want products, pieces of machinery, for example, that would be subject to tariffs if they were exported directly from China to be exempt from tariffs if they come in through other countries like Canada.

ROSALES: And you mentioned that Canada is limited in its ability to punish back, hit back against the United States. But if truly we do see this dollar for dollar, tit-for-tat, is that something that would be noticeable to the U.S. consumer? What would that look like?

FROMAN: Very, very discreet products. It might be noticeable. Again, $20 billion is relatively small in terms of the U.S.-Canada trade relationship and certainly in terms of the size of the U.S. economy.

[19:10:03]

But the tariffs that are likely to be put on on hockey sticks and fishing equipment, cement, some furniture, some apparel, for consumers of those products, they may see it pass through at the register. And that could be felt as part of the cost of living.

The Trump administration has excluded products like potash, which is something we need from Canada. It's a fertilizer input and energy products, which we also are quite dependent on from Canada or benefit from Canada's exports. And those are not going to be subject to tariffs. But in discrete consumer products like the ones I mentioned, as well as a few others, the consumer could ultimately feel the impact.

ROSALES: OK. Carney also said that Canada will never give up, quote, "exclusive access" to its critical minerals. These are absolutely critical for technology. Does that seem like a fair ask for the United States to make?

FROMAN: Well, I think the U.S. has been working with other partners, including Canada, to ensure that countries are not overly dependent on China's processing of rare earths and critical minerals for its -- for inputs into their manufacturing. And so certainly Canada has been a partner in that regard. Whether it's exclusive or whether it's a partner in a part of a larger group of countries, I think that's the question that has to be worked out.

But it's in all of our country's interests, Canada, the U.S., the E.U., others, that we diversify our sources of critical minerals and rare earth and magnets that are made from those in order to ensure that we're not overly dependent.

ROSALES: So yes, a fair ask in your opinion.

FROMAN: I think it's a fair ask that they work with us on those issues. Again, the question of exclusivity is something else.

ROSALES: Mike Froman, thank you so much. Really appreciate your expertise on this.

All right. Still ahead, a shakeup at the "Stars and Stripes." The leaders are booted by the Pentagon raising fears of publication which has had a long track record of independence since the Civil War is being censored by the government. Plus, a crying 5-year-old and his dad detained by ICE and put in a south Texas detention center.

And later, there's a need for speed in D.C., where the streets of the capital have been turned into a racetrack, at least for the weekend.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:17:11] ROSALES: Welcome back. The Defense Department is challenging the editorial independence of "Stars and Stripes." On Friday, the Pentagon fired several top staffers at the military publication. Journalism advocacy groups have criticized the move, accusing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of trying to manipulate independent news coverage of the military.

We're joined now by former longtime CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Barbara, thank you so much for making time for us. You also served as a board member for the Pentagon Press Association. This is right up your alley.

Barbara, for those who may not be familiar, what is "Stars and Stripes" and why is its independence important?

BARBARA STARR, FORMER CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's great to see you, Isabel. "Stars and Stripes" has been around decades and decades. You know, people call it a military newspaper, and some of it is funded by taxpayers. But it has a very long, rich tradition of independent journalism with terrific reporters on staff covering the U.S. military. They're in every battle zone you can think of over the years.

I mean, I can recall being on operating bases in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and a bundle of "Stars and Stripes" newspapers would be thrown out the door of, you know, of a truck or a helicopter or something. And it was there for the troops to read the latest, essentially a hometown newspaper for them.

Now, does it need modernization? That's one of the charges that it's too reliant on print when today's troops, of course, are very much into streaming and reading online. So, sure, it needs to modernize even more than it has. But I think the real bottom line here is one of the credibility of the Pentagon leadership. They have given no indication at any time that they support a free and independent press.

They support reporters who think like they do. And these reporters were committed to independent journalism. So it's hard how one can see it any other way than another attack on the First Amendment by the Pentagon leadership.

ROSALES: And editor-in-chief, Erik Slavin, says he was told his dismissal was related to an interview that he gave "CBS Sunday Morning" back in July. Here's what he told CNN last night. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIK SLAVIN, STARS AND STRIPES EDITOR IN CHIEF FIRED FRIDAY: According to the memo, they cited the CBS interview and they said that I was insubordinate for responding to a hypothetical about censorship and saying that it was a red line. I didn't say that I would disobey any sort of directive in my mind. I reaffirmed what the law says, what the DOD regs say, which is that "Stars and Stripes" is meant to be free of news management and censorship. (END VIDEO CLIP)

[19:20:03]

ROSALES: The CBS segment was about efforts to continue reporting despite Pentagon pressure. So was this fair, Barbara, for him to speak on, or is this, as the government is saying, insubordination?

STARR: Well, I'm very puzzled by this insubordination charge. You know, these folks are technically government related employees. And if there was, quote, "insubordination," what is that really? How does the government define that? Was it a first offense?

Should they have been warned? Should they have been disciplined? Most workplaces, you know, barring something completely off the reservation of acceptability, insubordination might be disciplined. It is not at a first offense, a firing offense necessarily.

You know, one of the things to keep in mind is they have a bunch of new rules about what "Stars and Stripes" can and cannot do, and it cannot publish, according to the Pentagon, information that reflects poorly on the military. Well, guess what? They had been leading the way on reporting on that aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, and the troops that were not allegedly being properly looked after and the concerns of the military families of those service members.

That's the kind of information they were publishing. And it's hard to see how that did not catch the Pentagon's eye when they decided to take this decision.

ROSALES: Yes. And back in January, Hegseth's top spokesperson, Sean Parnell, foreshadowed these changes, writing that, "Stars and Stripes" would be returning to its original mission," and, quote, "Refocus its content away from woke distractions that siphon morale."

So looking at the big picture here, how are you thinking about the Pentagon's attitude toward the media in President Trump's second term and its impacts during a time where we are at war with Iran?

STARR: Well, I think it's very clear, the Pentagon is hostile to the news media. There's no way around it. They haven't done a press conference in months. They are not transparent. They do not allow give-and-take questioning for Secretary Hegseth. He does not regularly meet with the media. He might take a question at an event or some NATO press conference or something like that. But he is -- he's hostile.

And for me, I interpret that as him being afraid, afraid of the news media in this country, afraid of the free press, and afraid of the exercise of the First Amendment because he has not really ratcheted back his very emotional approach to dealing with the news media. You know, speaking at the top of his lungs, waving his hands around, being very stressed about the whole thing.

He doesn't ever really sit down and just have a conversation and learn what the news media is about, who the people are reporting on the Pentagon and deal with them on a give and take basis. He wants his views to be published and nothing else. And that is not what the First Amendment is about.

And you know, Isabel, always worth remembering the troops take an oath of office. They raised their hand and they swear to defend the Constitution with their lives. That includes the First Amendment and First Amendment includes freedom of the press. So if the troops are willing to take that oath and lay their lives down, heaven forbid, for a free press in this country, sure seems to me the secretary of defense ought to adjust some of his opinions about all this.

ROSALES: The one and only Barbara Starr, thank you so much. Really appreciate your time.

STARR: Thanks, Isabel.

ROSALES: Thanks.

Well, ahead, an emotional 5-year-old clings to his father as the two are taken away into ICE custody. How the Department of Homeland Security is responding to this now viral incident.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:28:37]

ROSALES: Welcome back. Some lawmakers are calling for the release of a 5-year-old boy who was detained along with his father by federal immigration agents in Texas.

This video shows the boy crying as he clings to his dad's handcuffed hand. That child and his father were then taken into ICE custody after a traffic stop in Austin last weekend.

CNN's Rafael Romo joins me now.

Rafael, walk us through what happened here.

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Isabel. Well, a spokesperson for the family told CNN the father and son, who are both undocumented, said they were on their way to a soccer match in Austin, Texas, when they were pulled over. In a video that has gone viral, the 5-year-old boy, identified by his family as Liam Tadeo, appears to be crying as he tried to hold the hand of his handcuffed father, being escorted to an unmarked vehicle.

According to family spokesperson Sara Garcia, Liam was getting ready to start kindergarten this week in Austin. She also said that both the father, Victor Martinez Nieto, and his son are undocumented immigrants from Mexico and remain in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention.

The case is drawing comparisons, Isabel, with another detention that also impacted a 5-year-old boy in suburban Minneapolis in January. Liam Conejo Ramos was wearing a blue knit bunny hat when a masked federal agent held the handle of the boy's Spider-man backpack before he and his father were transported into a plane to the Dilley Detention Center in Texas, the same facility by the way, where the other boy is now being held.

[19:30:09]

In an interview with CNN affiliate, Univision, the mother of the boy detained with his father Sunday in Austin and who asked not to be identified, said she remembered that Minneapolis case after her son was detained when he happened to be at her home.

When she spoke with her son on the phone, who remains at the Dilley Detention Center. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(LIAM TADEO speaking in foreign language.)

TRANSLATION: I love you so much and I miss you.

(MOTHER speaking in foreign language.)

TRANSLATION: I love you so much too and I miss you so much, my love.

Don't despair, my love, okay!

LIAM TADEO, FIVE YEARS OLD: Okay.

(MOTHER speaking in foreign language.)

TRANSLATION: I love you so much, my love.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: Texas Representative Greg Casar, a Democrat, spoke about Liam's case in a video posted on his Facebook account.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. GREG CASAR (D-TX): His name, just like the name of the little boy from Minnesota is Liam and Liam should be starting kindergarten this week, but instead he is sitting in a trailer prison right now in Dilley, Texas.

I am calling for the immediate release of Liam, the immediate release of all of these kids, and for the closure of the Dilley Trailer Prison.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said that Victor Martinez Nieto, whom it had called an illegal alien from Mexico, was arrested last Sunday during a vehicle stop in Austin, Texas and had illegally entered the country around March 2022 near Laredo, Texas.

The statement goes on to say that on November 15th, 2025, ICE arrested Martinez Nieto in Hutto, Texas. He accepted voluntary departure and was removed from the country on February 12th, 2026. Martinez Nieto illegally reentered the country at an unknown time and place after being removed. Martinez Nieto, it says, and his son will remain together in ICE custody pending removal.

Isabel, DHS also said that the Dilley Detention Center is retrofitted for families and that children held there have access to teachers, classrooms and books, answering some questions about whether it is equipped to handle families. Now back to you.

ROSALES: And certainly a case that's causing a lot of alarm and backlash, truly, on social media and it is incredible, both the same name, Liam at the same detention center.

Rafael Romo, thank you.

Well, still to come in the CNN NEWSROOM, Lindsay Clancy's trial has put postpartum mental health in the spotlight. A doctor joins us after the break to talk signs and treatment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:37:23]

ROSALES: Welcome back.

Closing arguments are set to begin next week in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. The 36-year-old mother doesn't deny killing her three children back in 2023. Her defense team is arguing that she had postpartum psychosis and therefore shouldn't be criminally held responsible for their deaths.

CNN's Brynn Gingras is following the trial closely and filed this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So before the defense rested, maybe their most important witness took the stand, Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist.

Now, he basically has made an entire career testifying in high profile murder cases. We are talking about the Unabomber. We are talking about Casey Anthony, Andrea Yates, of course, that name probably draws the most similarity to the Lindsay Clancy case.

In fact, the defense submitted his resume, 40 pages long to the jury, almost to say to them, listen, you need to listen to the testimony of this witness because he essentially testified that Lindsay was going through a psychotic break during the time that she killed her children back in January 2023 and that is the crux of the defense's case.

I want you to hear what he testified to jurors, what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP RESNICK, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST: She had, what is known as a delusion of influence. That is, not only did she hear a command, but she felt that her body was taken over by an external force where she was in a dream state and did not have control of her own body.

It was almost like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRAS: And when it was the prosecutions turn to cross-examine, Resnick, essentially they continued to try to poke holes into the defense's case, of course, but basically questioning why, if, you know, Lindsay was hearing voices or she was receiving these commands, how come there was no documents of that in any of her medical records? How come she didn't tell anybody that -- any doctors, therapists, any of the medical professionals that she got help from, how come they never wrote that down?

So that is a continuing theme that we have heard from the prosecution's case and certainly that was something that they tried to bring out of this witness as well.

Okay, here is where we stand on this trial. The prosecution ended Friday with a rebuttal witness. Defense was cross-examining by the time the day was over, but we are expecting the prosecution to call at least two more rebuttal witnesses before this entire trial wraps up.

And then, of course, we have closing arguments, and then the jury should get the case. So, we do expect all of that to happen at the start of next week and the jury might have this case in their hands as early as Tuesday, maybe even Wednesday.

Brynn Gingras, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[19:40:12]

ROSALES: Yes, and all eyes are on this case. Brynn Gingras, thank you.

Joining us now is Dr. Susan Friedman. She is a reproductive and forensic psychiatrist at Case Western Reserve University.

Dr. Friedman, thank you so much for your time. I know that you have not treated or evaluated Lindsay Clancy, so we will not ask you about her case specifically, but we do want to talk about postpartum psychosis.

What is it and what do women dealing with this go through?

DR. SUSAN FRIEDMAN, REPRODUCTIVE AND FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST AT CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: Sure. Great question and thank you, Isabel.

So postpartum psychosis is psychosis that happens in the postpartum period. It is a complicated disorder, which I will try and break down. The psychosis part, psychosis is a break from reality. Psychosis is someone who is out of touch with reality. So symptoms that we see include hallucinations. So that can be hearing voices, seeing things that don't exist, having other sensory experiences with things that don't exist; delusions, fixed false beliefs that are not consistent with someone's culture.

They can be paranoid thoughts. They can be delusional thoughts about the baby. They can start reading hidden meanings into things that that don't have any special meaning.

They can also develop mood symptoms. So irritability, depression, rapid mood shifts, insomnia, and cognitive symptoms, confusion when they would normally not have that.

Now, we generally see the onset of these symptoms in the first weeks postpartum. And in distinction to a lot of other mental illnesses, we see a rapid onset and fluctuating symptoms.

We can have waxing and waning times when she is better, times when she is having more symptoms. So you can imagine with that whole group of symptoms going on, how scary that would be in her mind. And then you've got this vulnerable baby who needs their mom and all of those things going on.

ROSALES: And just how rare is this postpartum psychosis? Are there any red flags that somebody could be on the lookout for, or anything that would make them more high risk of getting this? Any way to know before you get to this pivotal time where at least in this case, as the defense is arguing, it was too late.

HATTERS-FRIEDMAN: These are great questions. So it is one to two in a thousand women, so up to one out of 500 women in the postpartum period. As far as risk factors, it can be someone who has a has their own history of postpartum psychosis or a family history and a relative, a personal history of bipolar disorder. The susceptible person who is deprived of sleep.

However, for many women, this may be the first time that they've ever had symptoms of mental illness and they might not have any of these risk factors.

As far as early symptoms, they can be difficult to pick out from the early -- the early things that we might see in any new -- like having difficulty with sleep, but then not being able to sleep when the baby sleeps; mood changes, irritability and confusion might be some early warning signs.

ROSALES: And how does this postpartum psychosis differ from something like postpartum depression? Is it that break from reality?

HATTERS-FRIEDMAN: Great question. So the while she may have some mood symptoms in postpartum psychosis, it really is this -- the break from reality as you're talking about, the potential hallucinations or delusions, feeling out of touch with reality and then this confusional state as well. ROSALES: And how often in your career have you seen something like postpartum psychosis lead into violent behavior?

HATTERS-FRIEDMAN: So one of the big pieces is were trying to prevent that by catching the cases. What we know from research is about four or five percent of untreated cases can lead to suicide, can lead to infanticide. We also see difficulty taking care of the baby due to the cognitive disorganization that she is experiencing, and so that's part of why treatment is so important.

ROSALES: And what is your advice to someone dealing with this? Potentially dealing with this right now?

HATTERS-FRIEDMAN: Sure. So, they want to seek medical evaluation and treatment. A medical workup is an important piece in postpartum psychosis to make sure it is not actually some medical problem that happened after the birth.

So we are needing to make sure if there is a medical condition rather than a psychiatric condition there. And then, getting treatment in general, the initial treatment is going to be acute hospitalization in the hospital, but that's the short-term treatment. While she is in the hospital, getting the evaluation, getting medication stabilization, also psychotherapy, also educating the family so that when she is safe to be released, there is good plans for future care.

[19:45:06]

ROSALES: And really quickly here, do you hope that a case like this, like Lindsay Clancy, will bring awareness to postpartum psychosis, maybe even get doctors, too, to ask the right questions via this exposure in such a public way?

HATTERS-FRIEDMAN: Exactly that. That could be a very positive thing out of this tragedy.

ROSALES: Yes. Dr. Susan Friedman, thank you so much. Appreciate your expertise.

HATTERS-FRIEDMAN: Thank you so much.

ROSALES: Well, if you or someone you know is in crisis, dial 988 for the suicide and crisis lifeline. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:50:24]

ROSALES: There is excitement on the National Mall for the Freedom 250 Grand Prix in D.C., our nation's capital. IndyCar drivers speeding past some of America's most historic landmarks on the converted racetrack today. Before tomorrow's main event, which is a 250-mile race commemorating America's 250th birthday.

The Grand Prix is one of the final events hosted by Freedom 250, the Trump-backed nonprofit tasked with marking America's birthday. CNN's Brian Todd joins us now live from the National Mall.

Brian, certainly a lot quieter right now than when we last saw you. How is it going?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is going pretty well. Isabel, It is a long and exhausting day, but a very exciting day here. End of the first day of racing.

Today we had the qualifying heats, some practice runs. We had an IROC race, IROC standing for International Race of Champions Series and in that race eight different drivers all drove one make and model of car, a Pontiac Firebird -- that was interesting to watch.

And as we stand here in the pit area, you know, in all the years I've covered different events here in D.C. -- inaugurations, parades, riots, protests -- I never really thought that I would stand here in a pit stop area at the foot of the nation's capital, but this is at the foot of the Capitol Building, rather -- but this is where we are.

This is the main pit stop area on Pennsylvania Avenue, looking straight at the Capitol and this is kind of a good illustrator of the sheer logistical operation that is involved in putting this together here in D.C. and in any city is just astounding.

Look at all of these stations for the cars to stop and get their fuel. Over here, take a look. The Arrow McLaren team still at work tinkering with the three vehicles that they brought here, working into the night, preparing for the big race tomorrow. So that's pretty impressive.

So that kind of gives you an idea of just like the teams involved, the people involved, all the equipment that they have to bring here, which is really just astounding. But it was also a day for the fans, and many of them were here for the first time to see an IndyCar race for the very first time in their lives, including Kristin and Brad Haun from Knoxville, Tennessee.

I spoke to them about their experience. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: What's your impression of this first time here?

BRAD HAUN, FROM KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE: Impressive. Blown away. Speechless.

TODD Well, in what way? What really strikes out?

B. HAUN: Just the sound. I love it, the speed, the crowd, everything about it.

KRISTIN HAUN, FROM KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE: Getting away from work and getting to get to experience this kind of once in a lifetime event for us has been great. Wanting to get out and have those experiences and coming here very worth it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: So part of what the Haun's and the others enjoyed was the sheer speed of this thing, and the speeds got to their top levels here on Pennsylvania Avenue.

We are in the pit area, but right over here is the track. This is the stretch where the racers reach their top speeds of between 175 and 185 miles an hour. They had to have the pit area here on Pennsylvania Avenue, because Pennsylvania Avenue is the only street being used in this course that is wide enough to have the pit area.

So our photojournalist, John O'Brien, showing you some of that. One last thing, Isabel, they had to do for smooth over 49 manhole covers in the city. Because if they didn't do that and kind of make them level with the street and secure these manhole covers, the cars would suck them off their moorings from the sheer power and speed as they pass by them.

So again, just kind of an illustration of the logistics and just the attention to detail that goes into this very, very impressive main race day is tomorrow. President Trump is going to show up. He is going to drop the green flag and take one ceremonial lap around the track before he does it. -- Isabel.

ROSALES: I've had the honor of attending a Grand Prix before in Saint Petersburg, Florida, so I know you had a blast out there and the energy was unbelievable. And to see the nation's capital from the racetrack. Incredible. Brian Todd, thank you.

Well, a special moment for a rookie on a minor league baseball team, the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

ROSALES: You saw that video there. That was a top Brewers' prospect, Sawyer Strosnider blasting his first professional homerun. An exciting moment in itself, but take a look at who caught it.

Well, the person who caught it, that fan turns out, was the rookie's dad catching his first home run. And he told the people around him he predicted it. He said, my son is going to hit a home run and I am going to be the one to catch it. We have that video now, take a look.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

ROSALES: Incredible for the rookie's first homerun and dad is the one who catches it!

Well, thank you so much for joining me this evening. I am Isabel Rosales.

"Real Time" with Bill Maher, that's up next.

[20:00:53]