Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Lindsay Clancy Jury Deadlocks, Triple-Murder Case Ends In Mistrial; Trump Calls War That Led To Deaths Of 18 U.S. Troops "Small Potatoes"; Trump To Take Same Qatari Jet That Led Him To Secretly Swap Planes; Judge Gives Pentagon Go-Ahead To Fire "Stars And Stripes" Journalist. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:23]

SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:

Lindsay Clancy's murder trial ends in a mistrial. Her attorney taking a victory lap while also lashing out at a juror who was a holdout. So, what happens next?

Plus, Trump taking his Qatari gift to jet for another trip, even though he just had to switch jets in Turkey because of security concerns. Trump admitting tonight his new jet still needs work.

And more breaking news, fired. A judge just ruling the Pentagon has the right to fire the editor in chief of the "Stars and Stripes" newspaper. The editor is my guest.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

(MUSIC)

SIDNER: Good evening. I'm Sara Sider in for Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, breaking news, Lindsay Clancy's triple murder trial officially ending in a mistrial and tonight, the Plymouth District Attorney says his office has not yet decided whether to retry the case. The jury of nine women and three men spent about 38 hours over seven days deliberating, but said it was hopelessly deadlocked, unable to unanimously decide whether to convict Clancy after she strangled her three young children to death.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: At this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: According to a note sent to the court from the foreperson, there was just one holdout juror. Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, who claimed victory in the case, went after that one juror, first calling him a liar in court, then saying this outside court. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Where do I begin to thank these jurors? Minus one. They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful, and listened to this evidence. And you could see how defeated they were sitting there.

And I got a funny feeling that they would have gone on for another week if they had to. So, I hope that guy can sleep well at night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Before the case ended in a mistrial, Clancy's legal team tried to get that juror removed from the case. The judge ruled against them. In this case, there were no questions as to whether Clancy killed her children. She confessed to that that this was about her mental state when she did it.

Clancy's attorney argued the 36-year-old mom was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and was hearing voices in her head demanding she kill her children and herself. But the DA tried to convince the jury she was of sound mind and should be held criminally responsible for the strangling of each child.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM CRUZ, PLYMOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I bring it all back to the child victims in this case. Cora Dawson and Callan. This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We're here at this courthouse today because those children are not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Jean Casarez is OUTFRONT live in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Jean, take us through it all.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So much, Sara, happened today. This morning, the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, wanted an inquiry in open court with this one juror that would not align himself with the other 11, and the judge said, look, he swore that he was following the law. Every juror I asked said they were all following the law. Can't do that. So, it was deliberation as normal.

And then several hours later, a note and the note said it all. The note read, "With a heavy heart, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision, and we will not be able to."

With that, the defense stood up. He has people working and helping him in this and he immediately said he was going to the highest court in Massachusetts for an emergency stay so the judge could not declare a mistrial in this case. And that's exactly what he tried to do. They had their filing in within minutes. There was a hearing later on. One of the Supreme Court justices presided over that hearing and she

said I've got to get to work. I've got to find a decision to give to you today and so she did within minutes, it seemed and she denied what the request was.

And so, it was back to the courtroom, and that's when the judge officially declared a mistrial.

But the jury, after entering that courtroom and hearing the judge give that directive right there, the female jurors, they were not happy. They were wringing their hands. They had their eyes closed, looking down at their lap. They were watching the judge as he was saying these words shaking their head.

No, the tension appeared to be so strong. And when the judge said to the jurors, you should be so proud of yourself. They were shaking their heads. Nope. One in juror in particular. Just no, not at all. Not proud.

And that was the end of the court proceeding. And then it all came out to the courtyard. But here is the finality because there is a status hearing that's right, a status hearing on September 29th.

The defense will have a motion for reconsideration. We may hear if the prosecution is going to retry this case. They haven't said yet. We don't know, but the fact is, Reddington said I'm ready to try this next week and the judge said it would be nice to have a fall retry on this case.

But the question is, what about the jury? Everyone knows about this case. They can quote you the evidence in this community. Can they know do know all that but still be fair and impartial?

SIDNER: That is the big question that these the judge and the defense attorney will have to grapple with.

Jean Casarez, you have covered this case from the start. Thank you so much for covering it for us tonight.

OUTFRONT now, criminal defense attorney Stacy Schneider and Mark O'Mara, who is also a former prosecutor and Susan Constantine. She is a jury consultant and body language expert who was in the courtroom during the trial.

Stacy, to you first, the D.A. saying he will decide whether to retry this case at another time. No decision has been made today. But judging from what prosecutors have said, do you expect them to go ahead and retry this case?

STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: One hundred percent. I think they will retry this case. They don't have a choice. This is their job.

Three children were murdered. Their job is to find criminality if it exists or punishment if it exists. And they have an obligation to the community. They are taxpayer funded office, district attorney's office, DAs, prosecutors. They are going to go forward and try this case again.

Whether or not they will try to have the venue moved, I don't think there's going to be a venue in this country that hasn't at least had some exposure to what's been going on in this case. This is almost like the O.J. Simpson case was back then, the coverage. But I definitely think they'll be back.

SIDNER: I think they'll be back. And, clearly, the defense thought that they would be back because he immediately said, "I'm ready to go to trial next week." And the judge says, "Hold on a minute. We've got a lot of work to do."

SCHNEIDER: And the defense knows this is coming around again.

SIDNER: Mark, to you now. I want to get your thoughts on the reaction by Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, about the jury. Here's a little bit more of what he said about that single holdout.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REDDINGTON: Where do I begin to thank these jurors? Minus one. They know that they were robbed by one man. For whatever his agenda was, so I hope that guy can sleep well at night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: I've covered a lot of trials and have never seen an attorney verbally attack a juror first calling him a liar in court and then saying that outside of court to the media. Is this unusual?

MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It is extraordinarily unusual. I mean, obviously this is emotion packed, particularly when running to knew that he had 11 in his favor and it had to come from the note. We haven't seen the note, but it had to be 11 one in favor of acquittal because of the way he reacted to it.

But having said that, I do not think that he should have gone after the juror individually. Granted him, he may well have been what we now call a stealth juror, somebody who had his own agenda, no matter what, would not have listened to the evidence. But unfortunately, once he's on that panel, you have to have respect for the jurors individually and for the jury as a whole.

I will tell you, I respectfully disagree. I think they may retry this case. I do not think they shouldn't. Here's why. I was a prosecutor. And you only can try a case if you believe that you can get a conviction. not because you think they're guilty, you get a conviction from those 12.

And unfortunately, he's been told the prosecutor's been told by 11 out of 12 that you cannot or should not try this case again and they should listen to that very strong signal from the community because even though everyone's, you know, divided back and forth the 11 who heard every bit of evidence said she is not to be held responsible criminally and he should listen to that. SCHNEIDER: May I add something here? After the jury was discharged, the prosecution gave a press conference, the head of the prosecutor's office, and he stood by trying the case. He said he was discharged. The prosecution gave a press conference, the head of the prosecutor's office, and he stood by trying the case.

He said he was protecting the three children who were killed.

[19:10:00]

He said that they believed in their case. This is the prosecution. They believed it was an intentional killing and what they did present in trial, although it appears just even from us outside watching what was coming in through evidence that their case was not strong enough to defeat a potential not guilty by insanity or by lack of criminal responsibility.

But they still have what appears to be a good faith. amount of evidence to bring forward to continue to allege an intentional killing. It might not play out for them again well the next time around, but I think they're going to do their duty as prosecutors. That's their job.

The defense attorney's job is to defend. I mean, people are going to -- it's very typical in these cases where there are hung juries, especially in a murder where the prosecution is going to come back again.

SIDNER: In this case, this is a triple murder of three children, young children.

Susan, I want to get your take on the jury and how the judge saw the work of this jury, which was very different than the way that the defense saw the work of this particular juror.

SUSAN CONSTANTINE, JURY CONSULTANT: Well, I think that the judge was certainly not happy. I mean, first of all, he was really upset with Reddington, especially when he was telling that they sent the jurors back again and work a little harder because he was glossing over the dynamite charge, which I think really offended him.

But overall, the judge was very happy about how hard the jury worked. And he was so gracious. He was such a great judge on this -- on this trial and he was so good to the jurors also.

The point being is that Mark was right on point. This guy was probably a stealth juror. We don't know what his gig was. We don't know what his background is or even if he even had an agenda.

You know, no one happened to think that maybe this guy really felt convicted about his belief. And he had every right to stand his own position. He was a juror.

He said that he understood what reasonable doubt was. He just didn't agree with it. And, you know, we don't know enough information. I would go back to his juror questionnaire. I'd want to know a little bit more about how he answered those questions and how he answered questions in voir dire.

Did they not identify that this might be a dangerous juror, that was holding bias or had some sort of agenda? I don't understand. I think that they misread this juror pretty well, pretty bad.

SIDNER: And we should mention it's not all doubt, it's reasonable doubt. You can have some doubt. But it's about reasonable doubt.

Stacy to you. The D.A., as the D.A. was speaking and talking about these children and why they took this case in the first place and tried it, was getting heckled during his remarks outside of the courthouse. Here's what happened.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You only cared when the kids were dead. Why don't you care about the mother?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: People also yelled shame at him in the parking lot. He mentioned that the attorneys trying the case were getting death threats online because of all of this. Do you think they can actually find a fair jury when you have that kind of reaction outside the court?

SCHNEIDER: No, I think the public has completely changed since Luigi Mangione's case where there's the Internet sleuthing and investment and yelling names. I mean, for members of the public to release the addresses of the prosecutors who are doing their job for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that's what they're hired to do, to protect the state. They're just doing their job.

Whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent, that's a matter for the jury to determine, not for the prosecutors, and not even for the judge. Judge just instructs on the law.

The fact that the public is lashing out this way -- I heard one part of the press conference where somebody said, the D.A. -- the prosecutor's been insensitive about the victims. And the prosecutor answered, we're not insensitive. We're protecting the victims.

So, it's all upside down right now.

SIDNER: Yeah, it's interesting the way people are reacting. Mark, what is the potential impact of a new set of jurors knowing how this trial ended and knowing how many people know many of the details of this, whether it's on social media, watching on television, there has been high interest of this case.

O'MARA: Well, it was very difficult to get a jury to begin with because of the publicity. It's going to be virtually impossible because of all the publicity now. However, we have no alternative. We don't change venues very much anymore because it's not as though in my town, Orlando may not know what Miami's doing other way around.

No matter what everybody knows about this case, they're going to have to do a very good job to vet out those people who know it inside out. I don't know how you address the fact that it was 11 to one for not guilty. And -- but you have to address the fact of how much they know.

And I don't know. I think it's going to have significant impact on the people get on the panel even though they're going to be told not to care about the previous verdict or non-verdict. It's going to have some impact and all of this publicity good, bad and indifferent on mom's behalf, on the children's behalf is going to have to play out in a very intense jury selection process.

SIDNER: And so far only the jury knows what exactly happened in that room and the jury has not talked yet, but they could. There could be even more information coming out of that jury because they have now been dismissed.

Susan, if this does go to a retrial, what do you think needs to happen at jury selection?

CONSTANTINE: I tell you what, that's one of those things that I've got to really think about because there's so many twists and turn in this case.

And I think to Mark's point that it doesn't really matter whether you change a venue. I think that it would be better if they sequestered them. The juror questionnaire was only eight questions too. So I thought it was very minimal.

The other thing is they really didn't really expand on the psychosis, mental health issues. I think that need to be explored a lot more. And also, too, they need someone like me to be in there to help them read the jury.

So, you know, certainly you need another set of eyes and ears in the courtroom to help to identify behavioral anomalies in juries that could potentially be dangerous. And when I say dangerous, I don't mean physically dangerous. They could be dangerous to either side or, like what Mark was talking about, this could have been a stealth juror.

SIDNER: Yeah. Well, this is our system, 12 jurors could not agree, even if it was just one person. That is how this works. We will see if there is a retrial of this case.

Stacy, Mark, Susan, great discussion. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

All right, OUTFRONT next, breaking news. Trump backtracking, now claiming the US is not at war with Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I call it a military conflict because it's small potatoes for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Also breaking, a judge just gave the Pentagon the go-ahead to fire the editor-in-chief of the government-funded "Stars and Stripes". A judge rejecting his claim the termination would affect the paper's editorial independence. The paper's editor-in-chief responds here next.

And our KFILE uncovering deleted posts from a candidate in a crucial congressional race that could ultimately decide who controls the House. Posts like telling one senator to, quote, "Hurry up and die."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:21:55]

SIDNER: All right. Breaking tonight, President Trump saying the war with Iran is not actually a war and it's, quote, "small potatoes", just one day after his vice president, J.D. Vance, also said it should not be called a war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: A lot of people don't call it a war. I call it a military conflict because it's small potatoes for us. It's not a big thing.

I can understand what he's saying. It's a military conflict, but it's very intermittent. I could see somebody not calling it a war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Keep in mind, 18 U.S. service members have been killed in this war and hundreds more have been injured. This week alone, we've seen the two trade strikes, the US saying it targeted nearly 60 military targets around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran fired missiles at U.S. bases in the region.

And even after Trump said this isn't a war, a minute later, he said in the coming days he may strike Pickaxe Mountain, the underground facility where Iran is believed to have uranium stockpiles.

OUTFRONT now for us, former Congressmen Max Rose and Adam Kinzinger. Both are also military veterans.

Max, to you first. Trump says Iran's not a war. It's small potatoes.

MAX ROSE (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESMAN: Sure. Is that how you would describe this? He even brought up Vietnam in comparison.

No, it's not how I would describe it. It's not how I think any service member who's speaking about the facts would describe it. It's certainly not how the family members of those who have lost their lives in this war or family members of the over 800 service members who have been injured in this war would describe it.

And we can see just how ludicrous this comment that Donald Trump made. If we take a step back and imagine if Joe Biden had said that about the withdrawal from Afghanistan, if he had said those service members who died tragically and heroically at Abbey Gate, well, that wasn't a war, would have been lambasted by the Republican Party. They would have never stopped doing it.

And it's unfortunate that they're playing politics now, not criticizing Donald Trump for saying something so horrendous.

SIDNER: Adam, Trump's comments came just a day after his vice president also said, as we mentioned, this isn't a war. There's no actual big fighting going on, no big military action going on, so this isn't really a war now. Here's what Trump said again and what Vance said, put together side by side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: A lot of people don't call it a war. I call it a military conflict because it's small potatoes for us.

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I wouldn't call it a war. Right now, there is no active shooting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: What message do these comments send to the active-duty service members who are in the midst of all this, sometimes taking fire? Many have been injured. And of course, you've got more than a dozen service members dead.

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I'm not sure if the members of the military are, you know, worried about the semantics, whether it's a war or not. It clearly is, and I think clearly, they both know it.

But this -- what is bothering I think the service members is that Donald Trump and now J.D. Vance consistently try to downplay what's happening, what they're doing.

[19:25:00]

And honestly, the difficulty of this.

Remember, like on day two, Trump said, we basically already won. This may go on four weeks at the max. You know, every Republicans out there saying this was over and my goodness, can't you give credit to them? We've destroyed the entire military. There's nothing left.

And each time it's basically pushing down the true level of danger that actually exists for the men and women in the military. It doesn't mean we have to sit around breathless, you know, and saying, oh my gosh, what do we get ourselves into? But recognizing that this is actually very dangerous for these men and women in combat.

I mean, we've found out that the widow of one of the majors that was killed in the KC 135 crash has been denied, and I think maybe that's changed in the last couple days because public pressure has been brought on, but she's been denied certain benefits because technically, this is not a war.

Clearly it is. And I think Donald Trump is trying to downplay this because he doesn't know a way out. I think if we'd had a quick victory, he'd have called it a war and said we won it. Now he doesn't have a way out and it's going to have to try to starve him economically. It's about all he has in his arsenal left.

SIDNER: Yeah, now, he's using the phrase small potatoes, which would really hurt those who have died in this.

Max, to you, we're also learning that President Trump is planning to fly that Qatari gifted plane again when he goes to Ireland. This will happen next week. This is the same plane that he got off of in this sort of clandestine move because there were major security concerns surrounding it in Turkey.

And Trump today admitted it still needs upgrades. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It has a lot of stuff, but to max it out, meaning you can go into any territory, it'll take about 60 days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Is this a good idea?

ROSE: I wouldn't fly into the thing.

I mean, here's what's interesting, though. The media will be on that plane as they are on.

SIDNER: Often his cabinet members as well.

ROSE: Of course.

Now, the cabinet members, they got embarrassed a long time ago. Okay, they stayed on the plane when Donald Trump got stowed away in an apple cart, right?

But in this particular instance, I find it very interesting whether the media companies and the newspapers and everybody else will let their representatives fly this or will they demand to a few things. One, will Donald Trump again be stowed away, unbeknownst to them? Two, has this thing been upgraded to be suitable from a security perspective for them? Those are very legitimate questions for all the organizations who have people on that plane.

SIDNER: Yeah. Adam, let's remember that Trump left some of his own, as we just remember, top advisors. like the secretary of state and treasury, the press as well, as you just heard Max talk about on this plane, he secretly abandoned it because of the security threat. Iran trying to assassinate him was the threat.

How does anyone trust him to not potentially put folks in harm's way again without their knowledge of it? KINZINGER: Well, you can't. I mean, you can't trust them on it now. I mean, flying from the US to Ireland is very different than taking off in Turkey and being within service to air missile range of Iran, who has shot down at least one manned American jet. And so, I guess it's technically less security.

But I think the biggest thing about this plane is we have to remember that. So, when Max and I were in Congress, I remember if we would go overseas. Sometimes we would take a. It's a 737 that Congress can take, but we'd always be quiet about it because we felt like we were living in opulence, even though the plane was really old.

There used to be a day when members of the military members of government never bragged about how nice the stuff they had was. Donald Trump puts out pictures of this 747 because He thinks America is going to love the fact that he lives in just plush conditions. This is not a king, though.

SIDNER: Congressman Rose and Kinzinger do appreciate you coming on, on this holiday weekend to talk about important issues.

KINZINGER: You bet.

SIDNER: OUTFRONT next breaking news, the Pentagon just given the green light by a federal judge to fire the editor in chief of "Stars and Stripes". Does this ruling embolden Pete Hegseth?

Plus, how did Democrats win in a state Trump carried by 20 points back someone who's not running as a Democrat? Will that work?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:33:54]

SIDNER: Breaking news. The Pentagon given the green light now to fire the publisher, editor-in-chief, and a top reporter at Stars and Stripes newspaper. A Trump-appointed judge just moments ago rejecting a claim that their terminations would violate the First Amendment, the judge also saying firing them will not have a chilling effect on the other journalists at Stars and Stripes.

The firings though come shortly after the paper reported on the deteriorating conditions for sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln. "Stars and Stripes" is owned and partially funded by the Pentagon but maintains editorial independence.

OUTFRONT now, Erik Slavin, editor-in-chief of "Stars and Stripes", who the Pentagon is seeking to fire.

Erik, thank you for being here. I know this is a difficult time for you. Have you heard anything yet from Secretary Hegseth or anyone at the Pentagon about your status right now?

ERIK SLAVIN, FIRED EDITOR IN CHIEF OF STARS AND STRIPES; SUING PENTAGON: No, I haven't received a termination notice, but the ruling today does allow the Pentagon to go forward in separating myself and Lara Korte, our Mideast reporter, and our publisher, Max Lederer.

It's a very high bar to obtain an injunction, and we understood that going in.

[19:35:06]

So that is the ruling that happened today. But what hasn't been ruled on is whether or not the Pentagon Legally fired us for or is preparing to fire us for insubordination involving a CBS interview that we did where we essentially affirmed the concept of a free press and spoke out against censorship.

You worked at Stars and Stripes for more than 20 years. What is your reaction to this judge's order, knowing it was going to be a high bar? But the judge says, look, the Pentagon can fire you.

SLAVIN: Well, you know, I'm still reviewing this with our attorneys. This is still very fresh. It came the ruling came out, I think around 5:30. So we're still trying to determine exactly what the rationale was.

But what I can say is that this really isn't just about the three of us. This is about the right to a free press for people who have sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. And it's a principle that we will continue to fight for even if we don't have jobs. Even if I have to find another way to put food on the table.

SIDNER: Look, amid your firing "Stars and Stripes" has published articles the Pentagon could view as unfavorable for sure. The from soldiers sleeping in their cars due to faulty air conditioning at an army base in the United States to the leadership vacuum caused by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll's departure, his resignation to the criticism Secretary Hegseth has received for a social media posts that where he tried to mock a Canadian -- member of the Canadian military that turned out not to be a member but a young person. The judge denied your claim that you being fired would send a chilling message to "Stars and Stripes".

Are you worried this is actually going to do just that?

SLAVIN: Well, the job of a journalist in a free society is often to hold government to account, and in the case of "Stars and Stripes", it's often to hold the Pentagon to account on behalf of the service member, and I think it's a very important job.

And really what's happening here is now you have the Pentagon holding a free press to account. So, I do absolutely believe that this will have a chilling effect in the newsroom when reporters see that the Pentagon can fire them if they speak out in favor of a free press against censorship.

And the knock-on effect of that is that service members may not feel that our news is credible, and they may not feel that they are receiving what they once did.

SIDNER: What's your next move now? SLAVIN: Well, I'm going to speak with our attorneys and see what the next legal steps are. I absolutely believe that in the end, when the merits of the case come out, that we will prevail. But that's going to take a very long time, so I will probably be looking for another job come next week unless the Pentagon has a change of heart. But I don't think that's likely to happen.

SIDNER: May I ask you why you think the administration decided to fire you?

SLAVIN: You know, it's hard for me to say. It's apparent that they did not like the CBS interview. They did not comment for that particular interview. So, I think they felt that it just didn't represent what they were.

But again, that's not really our job. Our job is to talk about who we are and to defend the concept of a free and independent press and to execute that. So that's what we did.

SIDNER: You simply talked about journalistic ethics in that interview and stood by the reporting of the Stars and Stripes which has been strong but at times critical of what is happening with this administration when it comes to members of the military.

Erik Slavin, thank you so much. We will certainly keep up with you and your case. Appreciate you coming on tonight.

SLAVIN: Thank you.

SIDNER: All right. OUTFRONT next, our KFILE with exclusive new reporting about a candidate in a crucial swing district. That candidate deleting posts that supported abolishing ICE, prisons, and even the United States Senate.

Plus, we take you inside a futuristic Chinese factory that could change American manufacturing forever. Few lights you see there, few humans, but a whole lot of robots.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:44:06]

SIDNER: Tonight, we're beginning with a quote, "F you, hurry up and die." That's just one of the hundreds of deleted posts KFILE found by a Michigan congressional candidate. William Lawrence is a progressive Democrat running in one of the House races that could help decide control of Congress. Lawrence said he wrote a song after moderate Democratic Senator Joe Manchin opposed President Biden's climate agenda. Quote, "Our generation says F you for everything. Hurry up and die so that we can get started."

And that was hardly the only provocative post uncovered by our KFILE. Lawrence voiced support for abolishing police, prisons and even the U.S. Senate. He also called for ending fossil fuel production, open borders and even attacked the nuclear family home.

Lawrence is now the Democratic nominee in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, a crucial swing district.

OUTFRONT now, CNN's Andrew Kaczynski, who is here and broke this story.

[19:45:02]

Andrew, what did you find here?

ANDREW KACZYNSKI, CNN KFILE SENIOR EDITOR: Well, just to set the stakes for this race, this is one of the most important House races for Democrats in the entire country. It is a partisan rating of 50/50 according to the Cook Political Report, literally straight down the middle. It was previously represented by a Democrat. Donald Trump won it in 2024. If Democrats are going to take back the House. They must win districts like this one, and that's what makes these deleted tweets so notable.

Lawrence is now running in this true swing district, and he has a record we uncovered that shows him far to the left of the electorate that he's trying to win over. I want to walk people through just some of them. Let's start with policing.

In 2021, Lawrence praised a Minneapolis defund the police campaign writing that had brought the country, quote, closer or nearer to a world without police and prisons on climate. He argued that the remaining fossil fuel production should be wound down through what he called the forced nationalization of these companies.

He also called for President Joe Biden to promise to end the coal industry through executive order as part of some hardball negotiating tactics. And a year later, he called the nuclear family home and isolating, violent way of organizing society, adding "I don't want to be a part of that."

He also urged people to envision a world of free and open migration. Then he asked, you mean anybody can move anywhere? And then he answered his own question with an enthusiastic yes.

In another post, a deleted post, Sara, he had just three words, "abolish the Senate".

SIDNER: Andrew, you also found some of his harshest posts were aimed. Not at the Republican Party, but at his own party.

KACZYNSKI: Well, that's right. After the 2020 election, then Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, who's now the governor of Virginia, warned that Democrats rhetoric around defund the police and socialism. She said that that had hurt Democrats that year in competitive House races. Lawrence dismissed that criticism as a, quote, "tantrum" and said that the activist left was, quote, "here to stay" and warned that timid Democrats who couldn't deal with it could, quote, "leave the party".

In another post, he wrote that it was better to be a minority party that stood for something than a majority party that can't govern when discussing Senator Joe Manchin. Now, he also went after Elissa Slotkin. That is the Democrat who previously represented this district, writing in 2020 that she was -- he was, quote, "ashamed" to be represented by her and called her a supposed Democrat.

SIDNER: Has he responded to you about all of the things that you found?

KACZYNSKI: Yes, we reached out. So previously he'd actually disavowed some of those defund the police posts that came out during the campaign. We reached out to him on the rest of this stuff. I'm going to read what he told -- told -- what he told us.

He said, "Like many millennials, I've done my fair share of thinking out loud. I've been clear that I disagree today with some things that I posted in the past. I don't support defunding the police or open borders. I don't agree with my previous statement of Senator Slotkin, who has been fiercely critical of the Trump administration's war in Iran and is doing essential work to protect the integrity of the upcoming election. I remain a staunch critic of the political status quo and the obscene concentration of wealth and power that corrupts our politics and leaves working people unrepresented."

So it's going to be interesting to see how this goes. He's definitely some views that are further to the left of where that district is on that House rating. But it's going to be -- looking to be a bad year from Republicans. So he still could win and we'll see how it plays out.

SIDNER: We will see in this swingiest of swing districts here. Thank you so much, Andrew Kosinski, for your reporting. Appreciate you.

All right. Also tonight, another key race for Democrats, one they may need to win if they want to take back the Senate. Except there's one issue here. There isn't a Democrat on the ballot.

The candidate trying to unseat a Republican who has held statewide office for over a decade now is an independent.

Jeff Zeleny is OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With great pleasure that I introduce Dan Osborn.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He's not a Republican, and he's not a Democrat. But Dan Osborn is a wild card to watch in the fight for control of the Senate.

DAN OSBORN (I), U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE IN NEBRASKA: I want to prove to the entire country, and it's going to start right here in Nebraska, this is how you win elections.

ZELENY (voice-over): He's running as an independent, a prairie populist in Nebraska, trying to unseat Republican Senator Pete Ricketts. Yet he's not running against both parties. Democrats are no longer fielding their own contender, a blunt admission of their weaknesses here on the Great Plains.

OSBORN: We have to stop looking left and right and pointing fingers, and we have to start looking up. We ran one of the closest Senate races in the country.

ZELENY (voice-over): After losing a Senate race in 2024 by fewer than seven points, Osborn is trying again. And this time, he's not alone.

[19:50:01]

Democrats are also backing independence in South Dakota and Idaho.

In Montana, some party leaders are supporting Seth Bodnar, an independent former university president after a long shot Democrat declined to drop out.

ZELENY: What is the state of the Democratic brand in rural America, in rural Nebraska?

JANE KLEEB, CHAIR, NEBRASKA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: You know, our brand still needs a lot of help.

ZELENY (voice-over): Jane Kleeb, who leads the Nebraska Democratic Party and is vice chair of the DNC, urges voters to back Osborn.

KLEEB: I think it's pragmatic, but I also think that it shows people that we are willing to cross party lines and not let our ego of partisanship be in the way of what's best for Nebraska.

ZELENY (voice-over): Osborn, a mechanic and union president at a now closed Omaha cereal plant makes clear he has little use and no loyalty for either party.

OSBORN: People are definitely jaded right now. They're politically exhausted.

ZELENY (voice-over): Osborn is a Navy veteran. He believes fallout from the Iran war, starting with the cost of gas and groceries, has awakened frustrated voters who are hungry for change.

OSBORN: We were promised no new wars, no new foreign wars as a campaign promise. But yeah, here we are.

ZELENY: I notice that you don't hammer Trump too much or dwell on him too much at all.

OSBORN: No, because I'm not running against Donald Trump. I'm running against Pete Ricketts.

ZELENY (voice-over): Ricketts is trying to brand Osborn as out of step with Nebraska, which Trump won by more than 20 points two years ago.

AD NARRATOR: Dan Osborn, fake independent, real liberal.

ZELENY: To the suggestion that you're somehow a closeted Democrat, you say what? OSBORN: I'd say if I was running against a Democrat, they'd call me a closeted Republican. I just happen to be running against Republicans.

ZELENY (voice-over): Stephanie Nantkes is a proud Democrat, yet she knows how her party is viewed.

ZELENY: How are Democrats as a party thought of here?

STEPHANIE NANTKES, NEBRASKA DEMOCRATIC VOTER: Not well. Not well at all.

ZELENY (voice-over): She believes an independent like Osborn stands a better shot than many might think.

NANTKES: People are more outraged by Washington, D.C. now than they were then. And two years ago, he almost pulled it off. So what do you think might happen this time?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZELENY: And all of these independent candidates are military veterans as well. That carries a significant amount of weight just given the importance of the Iran war.

Now, Democrats, of course, would like to deny Republicans a Senate majority in these hard-fought races. These independent candidates say they simply want to change the system and get things done in Washington -- Sara.

SIDNER: Jeff Zeleny, our thanks to you.

OUTFRONT next, a special report on China's robotic workforce, now two million machines strong, is what's happening inside these dark factories, a sign of what may come to the United States. That story ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:57:31]

SIDNER: Tonight, the U.S. adding 162,000 jobs last month. That is the strongest number in five months. It comes as China is replacing jobs with robots, millions of them. Are they coming for American workers next?

Mike Valerio is OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE VALERIO, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When you walk through one of China's dark factories, called them because the working robots don't need lights, you see the glow of some of China's most advanced electric vehicles and a vision of the future factory here now.

VALERIO: Which parts of this factory can operate with very little lighting and very few people?

YANG HUI, FACTORY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (through translator): The welding shop, where we are now, if we built this, say, 10 years ago, there would have been around 700 people. But after introducing some automation and applications of artificial intelligence, we have fewer than 200 people.

VALERIO (voice-over): Here at Zeekr, a high-end Chinese electric vehicle maker, robots do 100 percent of the welding. Humans are still needed for a few key tasks, including parts of final assembly, maintenance, and quality control.

VALERIO: This is what it's like to walk through the factory during the busiest time of day. You can see over here hundreds of robots that are working, but in my field of view, fewer than a half dozen people in this section.

VALERIO (voice-over): In China, where a shrinking aging population is eroding the cheap labor advantage that helped make Beijing a global manufacturing powerhouse, automation here could offer a glimpse of what's ahead for American workers.

ZHANG KUN, FACTORY TECHNICAL QUALITY MANAGER (through translator): I think it's only some of the relatively low-level labor that will be replaced, but there will be an increasing need for people who can control these machines and control these programs.

VALERIO (voice-over): China now has more than 2 million industrial robots working in its factories, according to the latest data, roughly five times America's total.

VALERIO: President Trump has said that he wants to rebuild American manufacturing and also protect U.S. automakers against Chinese competition, but here's the thing. Can America even compete when China is rethinking the future of the factory, one that needs far fewer people or perhaps in some areas needs no people at all?

JOSTEIN HAUGE, POLITICAL ECONOMIST, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE: It's going to be hard to compete. The pace and scale of China's industrialization, China's manufacturing boom is -- honestly unprecedented in human history.

VALERIO: So I'm thinking of the automotive workers back home in the United States and they may watch this story and be somewhat concerned about their jobs, that they could be automated in the future. What would you say to anybody like that watching this story?

HUI (through translator): We will raise the overall compensation and income level of people working at individual workstations.

VALERIO (voice-over): For now, what's happening inside China's dark factories could illuminate where manufacturing is headed next and whether American workers can find their place in that future.

Mike Valerio, CNN, Ningbo, China.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SIDNER: Thank you for joining us.

"AC360" starts now.