Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Today: Judge Expected to Question Lone Juror in Clancy Trial; Two Men Rescued from Flooded Nepal Tunnels; VP Vance: 'I Wouldn't Call it a War"; Elon Musk's Super PAC Dumps $800K into GOP Campaigns. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Never mind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[06:00:08]

BRAD SMITH, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, just the play-by-play throughout that entire thing. Imagine showing up as one of the deputies, asking the residents, is the deer in the room with us? Only to find out, well, no, it's in the pool now, and then having to go get it out of the pool.

So hot in Florida that even that deer had the right idea.

That does it for CNN HEADLINE EXPRESS. I'm Brad Smith. CNN THIS MORNING with Audie Cornish starts right now.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: So, today in the group chat, we're going to talk about that lone holdout in the Lindsay Clancy courtroom. What could a judge say just hours from now to break their deadlock?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN REDDINGTON, ATTORNEY FOR LINDSAY CLANCY: There's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you have given him or her on reasonable doubt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Plus, the vice president confronted on the war in Iran; how it's going; and when will the fighting end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I don't know the answer to that question. You would have to ask the Iranians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Elon Musk does what the president has yet to do in Texas. Can the world's richest man save Republicans from a midterm disaster?

And the White House hires a new contractor to clean up the Reflecting Pool. But this one comes with a skeleton in his closet.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. And we're going to begin here. Tensions flaring in the courtroom.

There's a juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial, reportedly not following the law. Today, the judge is expected to question that lone juror.

So, this all started yesterday when the judge received a note from the jury, where they said that they were once again deadlocked because of one holdout.

So, then, the judge spoke to each of them individually. And then once again instructed them on reasonable doubt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: If you evaluate all the evidence, and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Clancy's defense is saying that that juror needs to be replaced. If that happens, an alternate would be brought in, and deliberations would start over. The prosecution doesn't want that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHANAN BUCKINGHAM, PROSECUTOR: I think what your honor has done, by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt, is appropriate under Commonwealth versus Ralph. So, we do not have an objection to what -- the questions or the instruction.

REDDINGTON: And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial, because of a -- because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. Joining me now, Alyse Adamson, former federal prosecutor and host of the "Alyse You Heard it Here" podcast.

Thank goodness you're here. There's a lot to unpack.

First of all, like headlines like this one, "One Angry Juror," right? First, do we even know what the actual holdup is? The defense has his take. But how do you actually think about this?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes. What we know is from the note from the foreperson of the jury. Right? And what that note indicated is that there is a juror who, in their words, or in their note, says is not following the law. But that's an important point.

CORNISH: And this is nine women, three men on this jury.

ADAMSON: Correct.

CORNISH: OK.

ADAMSON: But -- but here's the thing. Just because the foreperson says that they're not following the law doesn't mean that the juror actually is not following the law. A holdout juror is very different than a rogue juror. And what Judge Sullivan did yesterday --

CORNISH: A rogue juror. Is that a thing?

ADAMSON: It is a thing. Now, that is a juror who absolutely refuses to follow the law.

Have you ever heard of jury nullification?

CORNISH: Yes.

ADAMSON: It's when the prosecution has proved their case, and the juror just insists on doing what they're going to do.

We don't know if that's happening here. And in fact, Judge Sullivan questioned every juror under oath and asked, Can you follow the law? They all indicated that they could, and they were re-instructed on reasonable doubt. That's what the note indicated. They're struggling with reasonable doubt. And then they went back to deliberate.

So, on this factual record, there really isn't a basis for Judge Sullivan to replace the juror, because it seems like there might be just a disagreement.

Of course, Kevin Reddington doesn't see it that way.

CORNISH: Right.

ADAMSON: Because he thinks his clients about to be acquitted.

CORNISH: But it's just like calling in the teacher. It's like the students have been arguing for a bunch, and now they're like, oh, and then they ask the teacher to come and explain one more time something they think that that one person doesn't understand.

ADAMSON: I think that's exactly right.

So, if the split really is 11-to-1 to acquittal, which we are inferring based on the note.

CORNISH: Yes, we don't know for a fact.

ADAMSON: We don't know, but that seems to be what's happening. There's a disagreement between 11 jurors and this one juror. And so, they think it would be important for the judge to re-explain the law around reasonable doubt. But the judge can explain the law. The judge cannot tell the juror how

to vote.

So, it is possible that, even after hearing what reasonable doubt is, this juror is still convinced of Lindsay Clancy's guilt. And that would most likely result in a mistrial here.

CORNISH: Let me talk about what's at stake here for the defendant. Could be found a couple options. Guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty on all of those things, right? Or just not guilty -- or not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility?

It feels like the criminal responsibility and the reasonable doubt maybe are linked.

ADAMSON: No, they are, because it's a reasonable doubt as to the government's theory of first- or second-degree murder.

I think it is highly unlikely we would see a full acquittal where she's just -- walks free. And that's because, essentially, the defense conceded that she did kill the children.

It's that she would be not guilty, because it's lack of criminal responsibility. She did not appreciate her actions at the time that she committed this -- this crime.

It does mean, though, that she's not -- not necessarily going to be in a psychiatric facility for the rest of her life. What would happen, if she's found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, she would then be held. They would do a mental health assessment.

CORNISH: Yes.

ADAMSON: And then it would be up to the state to determine how long she remained in custody.

CORNISH: But we might not even get there. Right? If all of a sudden, there's a mistrial or something like that.

ADAMSON: That's absolutely right.

CORNISH: So, we have a lot more question marks with this.

Alyse, thank you so much, as always, for explaining it.

Now we've got this breaking news I want to bring to you. It's a race against time right now in Nepal after a miraculous rescue has given new hope in the search for survivors.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: It happened just a short time ago. Two people pulled alive from a hydropower tunnel. This was nine days after that catastrophic flooding killed nearly 1,300 people. It's left thousands more missing.

CNN's Hanako Montgomery joins us live from Nepal. Is it possible that there are more people trapped in those tunnels?

HANAKO MONTGOMERY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Audie. I was speaking to a commander who was on the ground at the Trishuli 3-A tunnel, and he did tell me that they believe around 40 people remain trapped inside.

But of course, we don't know the status of these individuals. We don't know if they're alive, or perhaps they might have died, of course, due to that very devastating flood.

But when we were up there, we were witnessing, I mean, amazing rescue operations. Dozens of people were standing around a hole where they were pulling out two survivors earlier on Friday, who, of course, were alive.

We saw them using a rope and tugging at that rope, trying to get any people out. We also saw them having stretchers on standby in case those individuals needed medical attention.

Now, we do know that the two workers who were rescued earlier on Friday have been evacuated to Kathmandu, to a military hospital where they are receiving medical treatment.

And, I mean, Audie, if you take a look at those videos, it is absolutely amazing. I mean, one of them resting on the rescuers' shoulders, using them for support; another on a stretcher.

And, you know, as -- as the team on the ground have heard, we've been able to speak to one of the survivors' families. We spoke to his father, who said he didn't even believe that his son was still alive.

But miraculously, he was pulled out, and he is again receiving medical treatment.

His sister, the man's sister, also believing that maybe this is a lost cause. Maybe she won't be able to find her brother again.

But of course, a very joyous moment for this family. And Audie, I mean, these rescue operations are absolutely extremely difficult.

We've heard from the major general, the head of military operations in Nepal, about how they've been having to take in rafters that you would use for whitewater rafting inside a tunnel so that they can get deeper inside.

We're also hearing that there's a conduit in this Trishuli 3-A tunnel, one of the worst-hit tunnels, that's about 26 meters deep. I mean, you can imagine just how difficult that can be for people who are trying to pull out any remaining survivors -- Audie. CORNISH: That's Hanako Montgomery, continuing to report on the good

news out of Nepal, a rescue of some workers in a tunnel. We're going to have more on that today.

Coming up on CNN THIS MORNING, we're going to continue the conversation about the Lindsay Clancy trial, because we need a jury expert to talk about what kind of deadlock this is, what could be happening in that jury room.

Plus, Vice President Vance says he wouldn't call Iran a war. So, what does he call it? And who is driving what happens next?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:13:38]

CORNISH: Six months and six days. That's how long the U.S. has been at war with Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR/CORRESPONDENT: Will this war be over by the time of the midterm elections?

VANCE: Well, Kaitlan, again, I don't -- I wouldn't call it a war. Right now, there is no active shooting. I recognize there is -- there have been places where this has flared up. Major combat operations -- again, major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: It turns out it really does matter whether the war is actually classified as a war, especially to the widow of Alabama Airman Alex Klinner.

He was killed during Operation Epic Fury. His wife posted online that she was denied some death benefits, because the Iran War is not technically classified as a war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Can you and the president personally ensure that the family of Alex Klinner gets all the benefits that they deserve, given he died serving the country?

VANCE: So, what's her name? You said his name is Alex Klinner.

COLLINS: Yes. He was an airman who was killed in the plane that went down over Western Arkansas.

VANCE: So, what I'd say, Kaitlan, is please, if you -- especially if you have the private contact information, we will reach out to her directly as soon as this is over and make sure that she gets what she's entitled to.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CORNISH: And it sounds like that happened, because late last night, CNN's Kaitlan Collins reposted a tweet from Major Klinner's widow.

Libby Klinner reports the Defense Department has just finished its review and has confirmed her benefits.

Joining us now in the group chat, Elena Schneider, national political reporter at "NOTUS"; David Avella, chairman of GOPAC; and Lulu Garcia- Navarro, host of the "New York Times: The Interview" podcast.

So first, let's just talk about what Vance was there to do. Obviously, there is not a press secretary right now. He's coming out. Technically, he's involved in this war in some way. And yet, up there, he didn't exactly sound like he had a -- I don't know, I was missing something there.

ELENA SCHNEIDER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "NOTUS": Well, he's acknowledging, basically, the quiet part out loud, which is that we are six months into this conflict. There is no clear --

CORNISH: I notice you said "conflict." Is it because the White House refuses to say "war"?

SCHNEIDER: Well, look, I think that that's still up for -- still -- clearly, they want that up for debate. And -- and part of that is because of the congressional restraints, that they would need to go get a war powers resolution, which we've seen voted down a number of times.

CORNISH: Yes..

SCHNEIDER: So, look, there is some meaningful debate about the vocabulary of how we describe it. But they're --

CORNISH: It's meaningful to veterans' benefits. Are they going to do this one at a time?

SCHNEIDER: Absolutely. And the reality is, is that there are people who have died in this who have died there. And so that's, you know, I don't want to downplay or ignore that reality.

But I also think that, in the broader context of what he's speaking to, he is in a difficult spot, which is he is up there needing to defend what the Trump administration is doing with, also, the reality that -- that they hope that some of this can be put in the rearview mirror, even with the -- the knowledge that that's not going to be likely ahead of the midterms.

CORNISH: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: Look, even last week, they were trying to recast this as an economic fight as opposed to a military one. And then this week --

CORNISH: Right. It was the sanctions D-Day and things like that.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly. And now they've traded -- CORNISH: So then let's talk about some of that.

SCHNEIDER: -- strikes.

CORNISH: Because I think that, obviously, there are increased strikes. Obviously, they have held Iran to a certain point. But in an asymmetric war, the enemy even still gets a vote. And we heard J.D. Vance acknowledge that.

Here's what he had to say when he was asked by Kaitlan about when the war might end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: When you ask, "When will this end," you're asking me a question like, when will the Iranians stop shooting at ships? I think the reality is, I don't know the answer to that question. You would have to ask the Iranians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID AVELLA, CHAIRMAN, GOPAC: He's right. I mean, ultimately, the Iranians are the ones that are going to have to say, Look, we've had enough.

That said, it's also allowing major goals to be achieved. Iran's further away from having a nuclear weapon, may never have a nuclear weapon. And Middle Eastern countries are now not being held hostage to Iran.

You see Middle East country after Middle East country finding alternative ways to get their oils to market, whether that be through land, whether that be through other pipelines, so that Iran doesn't become the big player in the Middle East.

And that's the ultimate goals of this. Let's have an economy that Iran -- world economy that Iran can't take hostage, and let's make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon.

CORNISH: OK.

AVELLA: And you can look at --

CORNISH: I just want to add something.

AVELLA: You can look at every --

CORNISH: Above the fold. They snuck this in: "Economies across Middle East face poor outlook as the war drags on."

Lulu, I need help more than your faces. Tell me.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Sorry, sorry. No, I mean, everything you said is absolutely the opposite of true. And this is why I'm a former Middle East correspondent.

So -- and this is why.

Before the -- the war. And it is a war, because not only is it -- are there active military engagements, but beyond that, war is not just defined by shooting. It is also defined by acts of war, like blockades, which the United States is currently doing in the Straits of Hormuz.

Before the war, Iran did not have control of the Straits of Hormuz. Now, as you pointed out, Audie, it does, which means it is affecting the entire region and the entire world.

In the United States right now, we have the highest price for diesel that we have had in recent memory. Why? Because of the war.

Now, what is the wider context here? The wider context is that we are coming up to the midterms. There is no world in which Iran, understanding how democracy works, is going to be engaging in any kind of diplomacy before the midterms, because it understands the political context that President Trump is facing.

CORNISH: Yes. Well, in the meantime, I'm just going to throw up the cost of the war, because obviously, people tend in the military to use this phrase, blood and treasure, which is, you know, kind of a dismal term. But let's give you those numbers.

Operations for the cost of this conflict, slash war: 37.5 billion. What is it going to cost to rebuild the U.S. bases? Thirty billion. I recall that was not even listed in the defense authorization. And then an extra 40 billion that we're all spending on fuel.

In the meantime, as we started this conversation, talking about the Klinner family, 18 U.S. service members have been killed, 757 U.S. service members have been wounded.

And I want to mention this, in this modern age, 170 dealing with head traumas.

We're going to come back and talk more about what's going on with this war. In the meantime, stay with us, because something else came up during that press conference: the vice president saying that he is sticking beside his friend who is anti- this war, Tucker Carlson, even after he called for Trump to be removed from office.

[06:20:10]

So, how will that sit with the president, who values loyalty first?

And Elon Musk opening his wallet for Republicans in the midterms. Can he save them from the campaign problem that the president's PAC could have solved?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CORNISH: Guess who? The world's richest man now opening up his wallet for the midterms.

New filings this week from Elon Musk's America PAC reveal his super PAC has just spent $800,000 to help Republicans across 13 states.

Now, a quarter million dollars of that spending went to Ken Paxton in Texas, the Republican nominee there for Senate has been warning about the state of his campaign funds.

[06:25:08]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN PAXTON (R), TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I had a runoff that lasted three months out of the total eight-month period. So, I, as of, like, June 1st, I had $0. He had already raised over $30 million.

We definitely need more help raising money, because we have such a short period of time in my part of the race.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Group chat is back. I have to start with my money man. Are you guys giving to Paxton?

AVELLA: We're not doing U.S. Senate races.

CORNISH: Oh, OK.

AVELLA: So, we work on the House. We work at state -- at the state level.

CORNISH: Why is this man broke? What's going on? Why is he being so outraised? Because Republicans have money.

AVELLA: Sure.

CORNISH: And the president is sitting on 400 million. So, I don't understand him having the hat out on TV.

AVELLA: Audie, have you ever heard a candidate say they have enough money? Right? I mean, everybody wants more of our money, right?

CORNISH: It's a Republican in Texas.

AVELLA: He came out -- he came out of the --

CORNISH: This feels like it should be easy.

AVELLA: Well, look, it's a competitive cycle, right? And this race won't be decided by -- by how much money is spent. You've got to have --

CORNISH: Clearly.

AVELLA: -- enough money. You have to have enough money to compete. You have to be able to get your message out.

But look, this is about -- for Republicans, we have to talk to Americans about what the future is going to look like. And it's dramatically different between the path that Republicans are advocating for and what you see many Democratic candidates --

CORNISH: I get all that.

AVELLA: -- advocating for, right?

CORNISH: I just don't understand why he doesn't have the bucks to deliver this message himself. And where the world's almost first trillionaire is dropping a quarter of a million, which is like pennies on interest for him, on aid now.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: That's the way it always works, right? I mean, Elon Musk and very deep-pocketed billionaires are coming in to save --

CORNISH: Elon Musk is different. Remember, he gave away checks during one --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But let me -- let me just say, Ken Paxton, in particular.

CORNISH: -- state Supreme Court election.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is an unpopular candidate that the establishment didn't want. They wanted John Cornyn to win the nomination. Trump endorsed Ken Paxton.

And so, therefore, now Republicans have a very expensive race and they have to run in Texas that they might not win. And that will send a huge signal to the rest of the country.

And I'll also say, I don't know that it should, because he's such a -- he has so much baggage. So, if they -- if they'd run a better candidate, perhaps it wouldn't be as problematic as it is. But this is where they are.

CORNISH: Musk is spending in House races, as well. Hope you can compete. Wisconsin, New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.

I have to say, his track record is not amazing when you look at where he inserted money last time. That doesn't mean it can't be effective.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

CORNISH: But how do you think of him stepping in?

SCHNEIDER: Well, let's not forget the context here. So, Elon Musk spent $290 million in the 2024 election to lift up Donald Trump and Republicans. That was obviously successful. A big part of why --

CORNISH: Yes.

SCHNEIDER: --or part of why Donald Trump won.

CORNISH: For sure.

SCHNEIDER: Not the only reason, but a part of it. And he has set aside, as been reported by "The New York Times" and

other places --

CORNISH: But when it's not Trump, has he proven --

SCHNEIDER: A hundred million. And you're right. In the Wisconsin state Supreme Court race, where he inserted himself aggressively with waving a chainsaw and handing out checks, they -- Democrats demolished him in that race.

And so, look, he doesn't have a perfect track record when Trump is not on the ballot. But that is true of any Republican who's trying to run an environment in which Trump is not on the ballot.

But you certainly, to -- to David's point, if you ask any candidate, would they rather have money -- more money than less money? Of course they do.

And I think that that is sort of key to what -- if Republicans have hopes of sort of stemming some of this Democratic enthusiasm or stopping it, it comes from having enough cash to put up on -- on the airwaves to make you --

CORNISH: But would you rather have a cash visit or a Trump visit? Trump is offering a personal visit, not money.

AVELLA: But Lulu talks about the great Democratic talking point, which is that somehow Paxton is so flawed that he can't win. Look, Talarico --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't think he's so flawed that he can't win. I'm just saying he's flawed.

AVELLA: Well, so is Talarico. Right? And so, this is election.

CORNISH: Donation from the NRSC to Ken Paxton, $62,000.

AVELLA: Today. Right? I mean, there is time between now and the election to invest.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHNEIDER: Let's -- let's not forget who Ken Paxton beats.

AVELLA: And everybody wants -- everybody wants to say not everybody is investing in this race.

CORNISH: OK.

AVELLA: It has been the argument for years that all the super PACs play in the same races, and you don't expand the field. What if now we're looking at a situation where now Musk takes Texas, and the NRSC takes New Hampshire, where the last two polls, John Sununu, the Republican, has been up. It would be a Republican pickup.

What if the NRSC says, we'll take Michigan. You take North Carolina, right?

CORNISH: I hear strategy.

AVELLA: Right? There is -- there's an actual strategy here.

CORNISH: OK. I'll take it. I'll take it.

AVELLA: And Musk is saying, I'll take Texas.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Let me -- let me just say one other thing. the thing that I find very interesting of money in this race is that it is an issue, right? Especially among Democrats.

They are running, you know, many of them talking about corporate PAC money and the influence of outside bodies in local elections. This plays very well, obviously, in the midterms when, you know, we're talking about really just districts or states.

And so, if it's not AIPAC, if it's not Elon Musk, these are unpopular organizations and figures at this moment. And so, it remains to be seen if someone like Elon Musk inserting himself into races is going to actually be beneficial, or if it gives a gift to Democrats.