Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Whistleblower: USPS Officials Call New Ballot System a "Shit Show"; Voting Sites Eliminated; Generational Change Argument Falls Flat In Massachusetts; Hegseth Leadership Scrutinized Amid Military Resignations. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired September 01, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
KMELE FOSTER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE AT TANGLE, PODCAST HOST: They believed they were being targeted for racial oppression in their country. There was some dispute about that.
JEMELE HILL, PODCAST HOST, CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC: Some?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, there's basically no. All right, last one. I'd love for you to invite Mrs. Borelli on the show some night. So that Joe -- with Joe, so that we can see how they discuss things at home.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL, MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR CHARTWELL STRATEGY GROUP: Oh, wow. My wife would gut me like a fish. Do you think I talk to my wife like I debate on this panel? I am just a nice, humble guy, you know, cleaning the dishes.
PHILLIP: Good to know, Joe. Good to know. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Tonight, a warning of potential catastrophic failure of the election system. A whistleblower breaks silence about the post office and its rules to restrict mail-in voting. Plus, a critical county in Texas eliminates 92 voting sites ahead of the midterms. One of the commissioners who fought to stop it will be my guest. And new tonight, the generational change argument falls flat in Massachusetts. Why Democrats gave 80-year-old Senator Ed Markey another run. And later, the retired Air Force secretary who was calling on military leaders to stand up to Trump and Pete Hegseth, he's here with me tonight on "Laura Coates Live." Good evening. I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura. You know that way of voting that about 47 million Americans used in the last presidential election, the one President Trump has spent years attacking despite using it twice himself this year? Yes, I'm talking about voting by mail. And tonight, we're learning about the Trump administration's plans to change it. An anonymous whistleblower is revealing what's happening at the Postal Service.
Now, this involves a new digital system that screens mail-in ballots before they're sent to voters. The whistleblower's report was released by Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. Now, it says that it was developed on such a rushed timeline and with so much confusion that several USPS officials are describing the whole process as a shit show. The report warns potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner or at all. And the most shocking part may be what the whistleblower describes as an internal zero percent failure policy.
So, picture this. An election office drops a batch of 10,000 ballots to be mailed to voters. The Postal Service scans a sample of the barcodes and just one does not check out. Maybe the scanner can't read it or maybe the information doesn't match what's in the system. Whatever it is, it's not just that one ballot that gets put aside, the whistleblower says the entire batch gets rejected and returned to the state, all 9,999 other ballots, even if there's nothing wrong with those.
And here's another important part of this. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing these new requirements. The Trump administration is appealing. So, it's not even clear if they'll be in effect for the midterms, but the whistleblower says the Postal Service kept working on the system anyway even while a court injunction was still in place. Multiple secretaries of state say that the Trump administration is setting the Postal Service up to fail and ignoring the law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CISCO AGUILAR, NEVADA SECRETARY OF STATE: This president is tearing a trusted organization that was loved by Americans apart. They are making them the failure that they're going to be in this upcoming cycle. I'm also not surprised that they're not following the rule of law. When has this administration even considered a law or looked at the law before they made decision?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENA GRISWOLD, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: It should be abundantly clear that Trump is laying the groundwork to try to reject the results in November if they don't go his way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: A Postal Service spokesperson says they're reviewing the whistleblower's concerns. A statement says that they've spent months developing a system that is a simple, secure, and efficient way to share lists of individuals receiving ballots by mail in their respective states, and it says this work has at all times been conducted in a manner consistent with court orders
With me now, Miles Taylor, former national security official during Trump's first term. He is also the founder of Defiance News. I should note that Defiance helps fund Whistleblower Aid, the nonprofit who is representing the USPS whistleblower. Also with us, Rick Hasen, the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law. Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Miles, I'm starting with you because you met with the whistleblower's counsel tonight. What did you learn? MILES TAYLOR, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST, FOUNDER OF DEFIANCE NEWS, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, I learned quite a bit. I mean, look, Victor, you know, the top line here, obviously, is that this bombshell whistleblower complaint shows that the Trump administration was allegedly defying a federal judge and building systems that could deprive Americans of their rights.
[23:05:06] One of the things I want to note, Victor, is this is the type of thing when I was at the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration, we would have cringed at the thought of because this is how you make it easier to hack American elections, put aside the fact that it sounds like this system could have failed people and deprived them of their right to vote. This centralizes the ability of an adversary to try to hack our elections.
Now, in those conversations that I had tonight with the Whistleblower Aid attorney who's representing the whistleblower, one of the things was very clear, that this individual feared that the chain of command inside the executive branch and the chain of potential whistleblower disclosures was broken. There was not a safe place for this individual to go.
And I think that, as a first point, is important to note, that the inspector generals, the channels, normally, we would expect someone to blow the whistle on lawlessness, are not trusted anymore by individuals who think they've witnessed criminal conduct. That's why the individual went to Congress.
But I'll tell you, Victor, right now that whistleblower's attorneys are still very worried about the possibility of retribution, the possibility that the Trump administration is going to try to hunt that person down, and this is something the administration has been doing, engaging in retaliation against whistleblowers. Now, they have taken extra precautions in this case to protect the individual, and they're telling me, Victor, there is the possibility of more disclosures from this person.
BLACKWELL: Well, Miles, of course, you know the risk of calling out the administration from the inside. That 2018 New York Times op-ed where you were anonymous at the time, leading a part of the resistance inside the administration.
Rick, let me come to you. The Supreme Court said in an earlier challenge to the president's mail ballot executive order, said it was premature because the states had not been harmed. Well, now, the Postal Service has this plan. Several states have sued again. Federal judge temporarily blocked the new requirements. Does this report from this whistleblower strengthen the state's case?
RICK HASEN, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, DIRECTOR OF SAFEGUARDING DEMOCRACY PROJECT, UCLA: Sure, it strengthens the state's case. And, in fact, today, the lawyers representing the 23 states and the District of Columbia blocked the whistleblower's report to the attention of the judge by filing supplemental authority. In the meantime, the U.S. government is doing what it can to try to get the judge's temporary restraining order overturned. Right now, there's a motion for a stay before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. I think it's unlikely that the government is going to prevail there, which means this could be back in the laps of the Supreme Court by the end of the week.
And I say also, at the end of this week, North Carolina starts mailing out ballots. There was a declaration that was put in to the record coming from an election administrator with 20 years' experience who said it is absolutely impossible for states to comply with these rules even if the portal is actually working, you know, for, you know, the uploading of all of this data. It's just you don't roll out a brand- new show straight to Broadway, and that's what they're trying to do here.
BLACKWELL: So, Miles, CNN has also learned that Department of Homeland Security will launch a voter fraud investigation in nine states, mostly blue states. Sources say that Homeland Security investigative agents who -- I mean, they typically track down cartels and human trafficking rings. They'll be tasked to pursue leads and conduct field interviews and support prosecutorial review. Why is DHS using these agents for this? I mean, this seems to be something they're not even trained to do.
TAYLOR: You hit the nail on the head. This is complete madness. I've spent 20 years working with this department. I've worked with almost every single Homeland Security secretary of every presidential administration of both parties. Most of them would tell you their immigration agents are absolutely woefully unequipped to jump into an election and play a critical role in an election.
Any time we would send agents, whether it was people from the Coast Guard, whether it was people from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, on a new assignment, they need to understand the left and right parameters of the law and what they are getting into. These agents are not trained to do this. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
And it doesn't start here. This is something that's actually now been going on for months. The administration has had USCIS agents that are supposed to be investigating visa fraud. It re-tasked them this summer, almost everyone who was working on visa fraud, to start combing through voter rolls. I'm going to tell you right now, none of these people in their careers have combed through voter rolls.
[23:10:00]
This is entirely inappropriate. I'm not going to send a baker into a hospital to do brain surgery on someone, yet that's what this administration is doing. They're just taking warm bodies in the department and throwing them at elections. And it's just -- again, it's a recipe for disaster where people's rights may very well be violated.
You've got folks who don't know what they're working on. Now, that apparently is going to continue with ICE, HSI, doing these reviews in different states and other immigration components of the department meddling in a space they don't belong.
BLACKWELL: Miles Taylor, Rick Hasen. And Miles, you say there could be more coming from this whistleblower. We'll see what comes. Thanks so much.
Tonight, we're learning of a dramatic move in Tarrant County, Texas, the third most populous county in the state. Commissioners just voted to shut down nearly a third of the county's polling sites, 92 in all, just two months before the midterms. And while county officials claim the decision is purely about efficiency, some voters just don't buy that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: You tell us this is about efficiency and saving our tax dollars. I'd love to know what you all think our tax dollars are for.
UNKNOWN: Voting is a right, not a privilege. Making citizens jump through hoops to vote is the kind of cowardice engaged in by people who don't think they can earn our votes.
UNKNOWN: This is what we're doing after this from now until November, whether you cut these places or not. We're going and we're knocking on doors and we're bringing people out. And we're telling them where the voter locations are, and we're helping them get there. And nothing you can do can stop us from removing you in November. So, come November, you better find yourself a new job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: With me now, Democratic Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons. She voted against this plan. Commissioner, thanks for being with me tonight. There are people, as we heard there, who agree with you. Why is this wrong for Tarrant County?
ALISA SIMMONS, COMMISSIONER, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS: Look, to understand today's vote, your viewers need some context about Tarrant County. It is the last, largest remaining red county in the country. Tarrant County is the third largest county in Texas, the 14th largest county in the country. And Tarrant County is the reason everyone now knows about redistricting. The gerrymandering that reshaped Texas and national politics started right here in Tarrant County with my seat.
And so, once the president and the governor found out how successful my MAGA colleagues were, they went for the congressional seats out of Texas. So, they redrew the maps in Tarrant, then Austin felt it and Dallas and so on and so forth.
BLACKWELL: So, let me ask you this. I'm going to read a quote here from the mayor, excuse me, of Arlington last week. He said, "My concern is that we don't just cut them for cost savings, but we're cutting them for political reasons." Now, you started to pull that thread. I want to pull it a little more. Is this an area that typically votes for -- these being cut in areas that typically vote for one party over another? Why do you believe these changes are happening now?
SIMMONS: Well, they are afraid. Again, Tarrant is -- it's really purple. Tarrant County is purple. We in the primary, March 3rd primary, Democrats outvoted Republicans by 40,000 in Tarrant County. And we had a Senate District 9 race. That Senate District 9 had gone 17 points for Trump. And we had a Democrat win that Senate District race. And so, they see the writing on the wall. They know that Tarrant County is poised to flip.
BLACKWELL: And so, 92 sites, as I said at the intro. Originally, the number is 140. Officials say it specifically targets low turnout locations to save resources to stream counting operations. Are you willing to close any of them or should all of these locations, you believe, should be opened in November?
SIMMONS: So, midterm 2022, we had 316 polling places. August 4th of this year, the elections administrator pushed by my Republican colleagues came back with 176. And so, they put it off for a month to pretend that they were concerned about the voter feedback. And so, today was the vote, and we came out with 224 polling places.
[23:14:56]
That's 92 fewer polling places than 2022 in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. It is utterly blatant, ridiculous, and they're afraid.
BLACKWELL: Can we make it plain here? I mean, you were out over the weekend with James Talarico, who is the Democratic nominee for Senate there. Do you believe this is about his strength in polls, his fundraising strength, and the possibility that he could be elected to the Senate?
SIMMONS: Yes, yes, part of it is. But in Tarrant County, again, it has been red for so long, 30, 40 years. And the tide is turning here. We have a very interesting county executive, county judge. He is MAGA to the bone, he's a tyrant, and he has drawn so much attention to himself. And then you have me --
BLACKWELL: Yes.
SIMMONS: -- who -- I do not take much of anything. And so, the past three and a half years that we've served together have highlighted county government. And so, yes, what we're doing locally, the fight we're putting here -- putting up here locally --
BLACKWELL: Yes.
SIMMONS: -- that is what has gotten everybody interested and, of course, the Talarico campaign.
BLACKWELL: Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, thanks for being a part of the conversation tonight. And remember --
SIMMONS: Thank you. BLACKWELL: -- as you are watching the show, you can join the conversation as well. Just text us your questions and comments at 818- 972-7272. A panel will join me to answer them later in the hour. Just make sure you include your first name and your city or your state.
Sometimes, age really is just a number. Eighty-year-old Democratic Senator Ed Markey fends off a primary challenge from a congressman nearly half his age. So, how did he do it and what does this mean for the party? A panel joins me next on that and more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: Tonight, a political battle of the ages in Massachusetts, 80 versus 47, and that 80-year-old progressive won. CNN projects that incumbent Democratic Senator Ed Markey will beat Congressman Seth Moulton for the party's nomination. Markey was first elected to the Senate in 1976, two years before Seth Moulton was born. And Moulton made the case that Markey was not equipped to address how A.I. and technology are changing our world. But voters did not buy that argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I appreciate Seth Moulton's appeal to being younger and more with it, but his actual platform just isn't as progressive as he wants to make it appear.
UNKNOWN: I would have voted for Ayanna Pressley in a flash, but Markey is clearly the more progressive and that's a very important thing to me.
UNKNOWN: What do you think of Moulton's arguments that it's time for generational change?
UNKNOWN: He's right, but he's just not the one.
(LAUGHTER)
UNKNOWN: Why is that?
UNKNOWN: His stand on things like transgender issues and his just general need to run for president as a congressman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: All right, let's talk about it now with my political panel, CNN political commentator Karen Finney and Republican strategist Leslie Shedd. Karen, my first question was going to be, why do you think voters didn't buy the generational argument? I think he just said it.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO HILLARY CLINTON: He just said it. You know, that's the same thing, frankly, that I was hearing from folks. He's just not warm and fuzzy. People just weren't feeling him.
It was interesting that the gentleman said he would have voted for Ayanna in a heartbeat because I think she represents when people think about what generational change could look like in Massachusetts. She is more what they had in mind. Seth Moulton has always been a little bit kind of a different mold, if you will, in Massachusetts. So, I wasn't surprised. But those numbers, I mean, he got trounced --
BLACKWELL: Yes.
FINNEY: -- pretty handily there.
BLACKWELL: And so, I think I'm hearing from you that this doesn't really inform the rest of the party, doesn't inform the rest of the primaries, that this was about Seth Moulton.
FINNEY: Yes, but, look, I think it's important. You know, so much has been made about these DSA candidates, but we forget 36 congressional candidates who are new Dems, who are moderates, have won their primaries. Some of them were incumbents. Some of them are challengers. So, it has been a bit of a skewed picture, anyway, in the conversation.
And I do think a lot of this comes down to who do voters trust to deliver what they want. Clearly, in Massachusetts, people believe we actually trust Ed Markey over Seth Moulton to do what we care about. And I think that's why you're seeing our candidates are very focused on local issues. They're focused on what is impacting people. You know, in Iowa, they're talking about, you know, farmers and ranchers. In Alaska, we're talking about, you know, fishing industry issues.
BLACKWELL: Yes.
FINNEY: And so, health care is a big one. So, it's very localized. And so, I think candidates who speak to that and stay with that and who earn voters trust are the ones who are getting across the finish line.
BLACKWELL: All right. Leslie, let's hear from Seth Moulton earlier this evening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA), MASSACHUSETTS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: We didn't achieve our goal tonight, but I am confident that because of this campaign, others will be inspired to buck the system when they're told to wait their turn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: You think this is maybe an issue for your party as well, this generational conversation?
[23:25:00] FINNEY: Here's what I actually think when you're looking at this because, as of right now, at least Stephen Lynch is still leading, right, in his race. He is a longtime incumbent, very, very moderate. You heard those voters before. They were talking about how they wanted somebody more progressive.
I think, and I said this on the show a couple of weeks ago, that candidates in this cycle are going to matter so much more, especially in high-profile races than the party themselves or even necessarily their policies. I think that finding and recruiting good candidates who can talk to voters about the issues that they care about, who can relate to voters, who can, you know, connect with voters is going to end up being the most important thing at the end of the day, and that's true for both parties.
BLACKWELL: Let's head down to Texas. Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico haunted by some statements from 2020, where he talks about capitalism being oppressive. Let's play this discovery from CNN's KFile.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES TALARICO (D), TEXAS: So thankful that you asked this question, and also thankful that young activists have really drawn the link between climate change and white supremacy and capitalism in our country. And I think only in the ways that all three of those oppressive systems work together are we going to be able to begin the process of dismantling them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: So, Talarico's campaign distanced himself from those comments, called him a -- quote -- "proud capitalist."
FINNEY: Yes.
BLACKWELL: Also agrees with the majority of Texans that racism, natural disasters, and billionaire-controlled economy are problems that must be addressed. Do you think this is a significant problem for him?
FINNEY: I don't, for two reasons. Number one, I think most Americans are fed up. They don't think capitalism is working. It's not that we're not. I'm a capitalist. But it ain't working. I mean, the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger.
And when you have in Texas -- you know, if I were his campaign, I actually would have brought this back to a couple of things because, really, he was talking about systemic racism, environmental racism. You go to a place like Port Arthur, Texas where you have very poor Black communities. Children have the highest rates of things like asthma, cancer. Why? Because they are living right next to the petroleum industry. And so, the air quality, the water quality, all of these things. These are not people who have a kind of political power to push back on the big companies. It's a similar debate to what you're seeing right now with the A.I. data centers. It's a huge issue in Texas.
So, when you're talking about systems where the people in power make decisions that poor people, lower income people have to then pay for, whether it's higher costs, higher health care costs, to my mind, that's what he was really talking about, and that is a conversation we should be having.
LESLIE SHEDD, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, I'm so sorry, but I just completely disagree. It's one thing if he said I'm fed up with capitalism or I'm frustrated with it or I feel like it's not working. He literally compared it to white supremacy. I mean, that is a huge comparison.
FINNEY: He was quoting what young people have been saying at the time when they were talking about environmental racism, and they were comparing these three systems together.
SHEDD: And he agreed with them on that. Look, Republicans are going to take that and cut it up and put it into ads and run it everywhere across the state of Texas, and it's going to be a huge problem for him. This is a problem for Democrats like across the field right now. History would tell you that this should be a good cycle for them. But they are picking these people that are, you know, self-proclaimed socialists or at least run on socialist policies. And Americans, at the end of the day, are just -- they're not socialists, and I think that they're really hurting themselves.
BLACKWELL: All right, Leslie, Karen, stay with us. We've got a lot to talk about. You'll be back later in the hour to answer questions from our viewers at home. Remember, you can just text your questions to us, 818-972-7272. Give us the name. Give us the city or state as well.
Still ahead, the purge at the Pentagon. Look at this. No signs of stopping as Secretary Pete Hegseth faces serious questions about the personnel decisions he's making. My next guest says that military leaders must learn to speak up and take a stand. Retired Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall is here to make his case, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: President Trump's makeover of the military has gone so far that it has even caught him off guard. "The Atlantic" reports that former Army secretary, Dan Driscoll, warned Trump that so many top officers and generals had been fired, that the president was surprised and -- quote -- "expressed concern about the deep cuts to the Army's senior leadership." By our count, more than 20 military leaders have been pushed out of the Pentagon since Trump returned to the White House. "The New York Times" reports that in recent days, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has blocked at least seven Army officers selected for promotions.
My next guest warns the purge of the Pentagon is replacing those loyal to America with those loyal to Trump. In fact, he warns in "The New York Times" today -- quote -- "Military officers can't look away from this any longer."
Former Air Force Secretary under President Biden Frank Kendall wrote that op-ed. He joins me now. He's a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Good to have you in studio. Oh, let me also say he's also the author of the newly released book, "Lethal Autonomy." Can't leave that out. Thanks for being here.
(LAUGHTER)
You wrote in your op-ed today that the military leaders are choosing to either deny what's happening or ignore it. Why do you think that military leaders are struggling with this?
FRANK KENDALL, FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. AIR FORCE: I think they're struggling. I think they're being asked to do things that they know, in some cases, were wrong and that they shouldn't do them. It is a sort of defense mechanism. These are not bad people. They're -- I know -- I know a number of them. I know General Caine reasonably well. I don't -- he's a professional, but he's in a very, very difficult position.
[23:35:00]
Here's what the administration has done. It has brought in handpicked lawyers, both for military lawyers in some cases and for other lawyers in the administration and executive branch, who are willing to support anything Donald Trump wants to do. So, if an officer wants to object to that, he has to do it over the legal authority. So, we should be guided by it. That's a very awkward position. It's a very difficult position to put somebody in.
There's a point, though, at which our senior leaders need to say no. They need to follow their conscience, follow their oath, which is to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump, and tell the president and the secretary of defense, no, this is not something I can do. And I think in some cases, personally, we've crossed that barrier already, most notably the drug strikes, the strikes on the boats in the Caribbean Pacific. Most legal authorities agree that this is our extrajudicial killings. You can make arguments, I think, either way about some of the other things they've been asked to do.
What concerns me most is the upcoming election and what our military may be asked to do in the context of the election. And I was basically trying to express my concern that you can't separate out pure military advice from overall advice about what the president should and should not do and what orders you're willing to follow. This is tough, but somebody who has given that responsibility of a combatant commander, a four-star general or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has got to be willing to do the right thing despite the difficulties that they face.
BLACKWELL: "The Atlantic" is reporting that Driscoll warned Trump that the loss of all these top generals makes it almost impossible to reform the Pentagon. Do you agree with that? KENDALL: I'm not sure I'd put it exactly that way, but one thing it makes impossible to do is to get good advice. People are so frightened. Everybody I talk to from the Pentagon is nervous about losing their job. They're nervous about being fired. They're nervous about something happening in the record, whatever. There's a climate of fear like I've never seen before.
I've been through a number of transitions. Political parties come and go. Leadership comes and goes. Priorities change. And generally, you just follow whatever the current leadership is directing, people support that and they do it with good faith. Much more is being asked of people in this case.
And the purges, if you will, I think that's the right term, they're based on culture wars, ideology to some degree. Hegseth is doing something I've never, ever seen before, which is a secretary of defense removed people from promotion list. I've had a couple of cases when I was secretary of the Air Force where an individual was challenged, where he had something adverse in his record, and I had to go explain to the secretary why I wanted to still promote that person. That, as far as any secretary I've ever worked with, has gone.
So, this is extraordinary. And the reasons they are being pulled off of this list seem to be basically about politics and loyalty and aversion to anybody who might be a -- quote -- "DEI candidate," who is a minority or a woman.
BLACKWELL: Yes. As there is all this tumult at the Pentagon, let me put up on the screen something that the secretary is also focused on, Secretary Hegseth. This is not what I was talking about, but we can go to that, anyway. That's the USS Abraham Lincoln. That's now pulled in a port at Thailand after more than 250 days since its last port. And there have been concerns about a lack of resources, mental health deterioration on board this aircraft carrier. What do you think is the legacy of these last 250 days?
KENDALL: Well, what really has happened here is the force has been stressed. It has been put into a conflict that the president took us into completely on his own. We weren't ready to go do this. We did it with the assumption that the regime would collapse in Iran, and that has not happened. There was no real reason to believe that but, apparently, that's what the case was. And now, we're in a very predictable, prolonged conflict.
You know, Iran has certain asymmetric advantages, and they're exploiting them, their ability to control the Strait of Hormuz in particular and their ability to absorb some punishment and still have some military capability. You know, we destroyed some of their formal forces, but they still have a lot of concealed and distributed assets they can use to launch strikes in the strait or in the region, and they're using that.
So, now, we're stuck in a prolonged conflict that we don't know how to get out of. And part of that is stressing the force. We've got very long deployments, not just for the Navy, as you saw, the Abraham Lincoln, but other ships, air assets that are in the region in particular, and we're consuming munitions at a very high rate or have been until recently, putting us at risk in other parts of the world. You know, we've blundered into what is both a tactical, operational, and strategic debacle, basically, with this decision to go to war against Iran.
BLACKWELL: And we are seeing an escalation at this moment between the U.S. and Iran.
KENDALL: Yes.
BLACKWELL: Secretary Frank Kendall, thanks so much for being with me.
KENDALL: Thank you. Good to be with you.
[23:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Putting this woman behind bars is not going to -- it's just going to cause more suffering and it's not going to bring the children back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: The public debate over Lindsay Clancy intensifies as the jury struggles to reach a verdict. Is a mistrial the outcome that we're headed for? We'll get into that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM SULLIVAN, JURIST, LAWYER: I know that this was a long trial. All right. I know there were over 80 witnesses, there were over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all the instructions that I gave you, to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Well, the jury has been deliberating for four days. They're deadlocked, though, on the question at the heart of the Lindsay Clancy case.
[23:45:00]
Was Clancy criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023? Cora who was just five years old, Dawson who was three, and Callan, eight months old. The prosecution has argued that Clancy acted intentionally, rationally, and swiftly when she killed them. But our defense argues that she should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and not in her right mind.
Joining me now, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams, along with screens critic for "The Washington Post," Monica Hesse, who's out with a brand-new column titled "The Abject Hell of the Lindsay Clancy Trial." Welcome to you both. Elliot, at what point does this shift from a deadlocked jury to a mistrial?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, when it happens, I think --
BLACKWELL: You think it's a win?
WILLIAMS: -- I think it's -- I think it's a win.
BLACKWELL: Yes.
WILLIAMS: And I think, you know, to step back for a second, you typically see mistrials where, number one, there's competing expert testimony where experts are just not in agreement with each other and when there's emotionally charged issues at the center of a trial. What do you have here? Those two things, competing experts and emotionally charged.
Now, the jury has tried to come back a few times or at least once saying that they don't think they can come to an agreement. The judge can give them a big instruction saying, it's called the dynamite instruction, saying, OK, ladies and gentlemen, go back to that room, set aside your feelings, try to see other people's feelings, and see if you can come to some consensus. The court wants consensus here. After that, I think -- my guess is that they come back, and they can't.
BLACKWELL: Monica, this latest column from you, you talk about how the casual armchair viewers to the sleuths online think they have this figured out. It's not simple, obviously. What do you take from the inability thus far for this jury to reach consensus?
MONICA HESSE, SCREENS CRITIC, THE WASHINGTON POST: You know, the crime at the center of this case is unspeakable and brutal. but in terms of the story behind it and in terms of the way that it was presented in the trial, there was a lot more nuance than I think a casual viewer might realize, who was just dropping by occasionally. So, it doesn't surprise me at all that the 12 people who have been watching this for five weeks would just be really struggling with how to define justice in a case like this.
BLACKWELL: So, the jury, Elliot, has what, five options here.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
BLACKWELL: To decide guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter or they not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility or just a full acquittal, not guilty. Does the number of options here contribute to the ability to reach a verdict?
WILLIAMS: I really don't think so, Victor. I think why they can't reach a verdict is that the law requires them to be unanimous in order for there to be a verdict. And because of the nature of, particularly that last one, this idea of criminal responsibility, asking jurors to substitute themselves in effect for psychologists or psychiatrists and being able to say she was not in control of her actions or emotions or ability to regulate, that itself is such a fraught and complicated decision for jurors to make that I think different people are in different places on it.
You see this frequently in a lot of these cases, and I just think it's going to be really hard for 12 people to come together and say, we all agree, coming from the different places we come from, that this thing happened here and this is how she should or should not be held responsible.
BLACKWELL: Of those 12 people, nine of these jurors are women, and there have been some who suggested that the gender imbalance on the jury may be contributing to the inability to reach a verdict or sympathies in the jury room. Do you think there's some credibility?
WILLIAMS: I don't like playing that game at all, certainly, and Monica can speak to this quite well given her beautiful writing around gender, about the complicated gender issues around this case. But you never know what's going to happen when people go into rooms.
Just on a personal level, Victor, I'm a former prosecutor, I am the last person a prosecutor wants in a jury because prosecutors are actually bad for other prosecutors because we know when a case is not a good one and would actually vote to acquit. And I think, you know, lawyers go into cases thinking jurors will rule a certain way based on who they are, where they come from, and you just don't know what sticks out to them when they get in that room.
BLACKWELL: Weigh in there, Monica. Do you think that the nine women, three men on this jury plays any role in the inability to reach a verdict?
HESSE: I really don't. I think that Elliot is exactly right because the women that I've talked to who are mothers, I'm a mother, and the idea of harming your child is so unspeakable that I think some women have the visceral reaction of any mother who does this deserves to be punished. And I think some women have the visceral reaction of any woman who does this must be legally insane because that is the only explanation for how a woman who, by all accounts, was a loving and good mom could do this to her children.
BLACKWELL: One line from your piece here, you write, "A courtroom is not the right place for this, I found myself thinking more than once. Which is ridiculous because the courtroom is the only place we have for this."
[23:50:041]
So, I want to pull that thread a little more. What do you mean by that?
HESSE: This is not a case where the prosecution is saying this woman is a monster and the defense is saying this woman is innocent. Both sides are saying this is a very, very sick woman who was -- who was deeply struggling. So, the argument comes down to how much you believe she was struggling, how much control you believe she had, what you believe was going through her mind in the exact moments of this atrocious act.
And as Elliot pointed out, that requires jurors to try to achieve a level of psychological expertise that most of us just don't have for an act that most of us just can't even fathom.
BLACKWELL: Our deliberations continue on Wednesday. Monica, Elliot, thank you both. And CNN will be on verdict watch tomorrow when court resumes. Live coverage on CNN and CNN All Access.
Up next, your turn to drive the conversation. The panel is back with me to take on the questions that viewers like you have been sending us. Just text them to 818-972-7272.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: We've been getting lots of questions from our viewers tonight, and we have just the people here to answer them. And a reminder for those of you at home who want to participate, text us at 818-972-7272. Just include your name and your city or state.
Leslie Shedd, Karen Finney are back. Leslie, you're first. Ben asks, come on, Leslie, do you think Republicans will see this latest mail-in ballot move by Trump as undermining the ability of people in the U.S. to vote and backfiring on him?
SHEDD: I think that when you talk to voters across the board, they want to make sure that elections are secure, they want voter ID laws, they want to make sure that the right people are voting and that's it. I think that they're definitely going to get behind some of these measures. I do worry about the mail-in ballots. I think there are a lot of Republicans and Democrats that tend to use that.
BLACKWELL: All right. Karen, for you. Perry from Queen Creek, Arizona asks, how do you motivate the Democratic voter who feels the party allows the Republicans to violate rules and regulations but offers no viable solutions, just complains?
FINNEY: Well, I would say, you know, Democrats have been out over the last couple of weeks while this recess has been going on. And I should mention, when we talk about this, we talk a lot about congressional Democrats. But don't forget, your governors, your AGs, your secretaries of state, they have been fighting back and winning again and again and again over the last 18 months.
But also, we've been out there talking about, you know, we were talking about this just during the show, the issues that are impacting people. They are really trying to put forward an agenda that's not just about we're anti-Trump, it's about here's how we're going to work to lower costs, here's how we're going to try to rein him in and get some sense into this incursion, what we're doing in Iran, and take care of our troops. So, I mean, they're trying to put forward a proactive plan as well. But people know we've got to earn voters trust between now and Election Day.
BLACKWELL: Josh from Los Angeles. Leslie, this is for you. I thought Rs, Republicans, were for a strong military. Do they really think Hegseth is making our military stronger with his management?
SHEDD: So, this is interesting. We were actually just kind of talking about this back in the Green Room. And when I talk to people that serve in the military or have served, I really get a 50-50 response from them, right? Some of them are worried that, you know, we're losing some of our top talent and others think, look, we are at an inflection point when it comes to defense, we need generational change at the Department of Defense, and we're going to be able to meet the moment. I think that's what Pete Hegseth is doing.
BLACKWELL: Dave from Oregon City, Oregon. Karen, is it hypocritical for progressives to use age as an argument to defeat elderly moderate incumbents, but then support other elderly progressive incumbents?
FINNEY: So, this goes back to something I was saying earlier. I really believe, at the end of the day, it's about trust. And I think when you're an incumbent, it's harder sometimes to make the argument that you can be trusted because the point is, well, you've been there, what have you done? But someone, for example, like an Ed Markey, he has a whole record to point to that says, how do you know you can trust me? Let me show you what my record has been and what I've -- what I've been able to do. So, I think it's more about trust than it is incumbency and age.
BLACKWELL: All right. A viewer from Chicago asks, if the Republicans are so concerned about tax dollars, why aren't they making a fuss about tax dollars for the White House ballroom?
(LAUGHTER)
SHEDD: Well, I think, first of all, you have to look at the White House. It's essentially, you know, the crown jewel of U.S. national security. You need to make sure that it's safe. I think that's what the president is wanting to do here. I also think the president has been cutting taxes. He just passed the largest tax cut in the history of the United States. He is out there trying to lower energy prices, cut regulations, and people will get behind that.
FINNEY: Yes. I would just point us to the millions of children who have been cooked off -- kicked off of food stamps, who no longer have health care because of the president's tax cuts and the ways that that has benefited the wealthiest Americans, not the working people of America. So, good question.
BLACKWELL: Jane from Tennessee, a little time left. If Trump loves data centers so much, why does he not put one near Mar-a-Lago?
SHEDD: There is one. There's one near Mar-a-Lago. I literally was reading about this the other day, actually. Look, I understand why people are frustrated with data centers. This is why I think this is a decision that should really be made at the local level, making sure that people get a chance to weigh in. [00:00:01]
But any politician that tells you that they're never going to have data centers come in, that are trying to appease their people and not being honest with them, they're lying. If you like your A.I., you like your cellphone, you like your smart T.V., we've got to have data centers that power all of these. Any politician that tells you differently is a liar.
BLACKWELL: I don't -- I've got to see if there's a data center --
SHEDD: There is.
BLACKWELL: -- on Palm Beach Island.
FINNEY: How big is it? I want to know.
BLACKWELL: Karen, Leslie, thank you both. Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
