Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Changes in Meat Processing Regulations?; Interview With Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC); Massachusetts Votes; Lindsay Clancy Jury Deadlocked. Aired 10:30a-11a ET

Aired September 01, 2026 - 10:30   ET

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

ELYSE HERSHON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, essentially, the jury is not told this, but what the court, meaning the judge and the lawyers, look for are certain key words or language that's used to imply that they cannot and will never come to a verdict, something like hopelessly deadlocked or absolutely cannot agree, something that's a little bit more extreme.

[10:30:10]

Then what the judge will do is give what's called a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction after conversing with the lawyers. Essentially, that is the last send-out to the jury that they're going to give it one more bite at the apple, try to come to a verdict.

And, at that point, if they cannot come to a verdict, they will return and tell the court that. So, it will be at least one or two more notes from the jury, I would anticipate, that says that they cannot agree until they come to a verdict.

If it's -- then the judge will order a mistrial after they come back after that Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, and then Lindsay Clancy will return to took Tewksbury Hospital while the district attorney's office decides that they want to retry this case.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, so just to take a step back here, you have nine women, three men as part of this jury.

And I'm wondering what you make of just the change, even in just our body language, Elyse, as we heard Jean talk about yesterday they appeared still and stoic, and she said that that was a stark contrast from what she had seen throughout this trial, where they were more chatty with each other and more engaged. It's a very different picture now.

And I just wonder what your takeaway is, and how does a hung jury in such a complicated case like this work its way through?

HERSHON: Great questions.

And I have driven myself crazy every trial I have done where the jury comes in the morning, at the end of the day while they're deliberating, trying to look for some glimmer of hope, some connection, some sign that there's at least one person fighting for your client on that jury. It really is impossible. You can overanalyze it, but there really is

no way to know. But certainly they are dealing with a very horrific facts on this case. They're dealing with three dead children who were killed in a very extraordinary way, by strangulation, very up close and personal by their mother.

They have the photos that we have not seen out in the public. They were protected by a court order, and they hear that terrible 911 call that we didn't hear either. So they are faced with very upsetting evidence. And, of course, it's going to weigh heavily on them.

It's going to weigh heavy on heavily on them what Lindsay Clancy's future should be, and are they going to convict her or are they going to find her not criminally responsible and return her to a locked psychiatric facility, in the hopes that someday, way down in the future, she could return to somewhat normal?

BROWN: And tell us more about how Massachusetts law could be playing into the fact that at this point the jury has not reached a consensus with the verdict?

HERSHON: So, Massachusetts is a unique state in that, once criminal responsibility or mental illness is raised as a defense, it is on the prosecution to basically disprove that mental illness overcame her ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of what she's doing and conform her behavior to the law.

Essentially, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible, she either premeditated and deliberately killed her children, or it was not a complete defense. Even if mental health is a mitigating factor, they could convict on manslaughter as sort of a partial verdict or a compromise verdict.

So, Massachusetts, the burden stays entirely on the prosecution, and essentially if the jury is thinking that mental illness could have overcome -- she was in psychosis and she's not criminally responsible, if they're holding the prosecution to their burden, that could be something they're stuck on.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And just to explain to our viewers, if you don't mind, Elyse. She admits, she admits she killed her three little kids. She strangled them and she killed them. And so it would seem like an obvious conviction if she herself is admitting that she committed this act.

HERSHON: Yes, and we have to differentiate legally between killing her children and murdering her children. Even though they're used interchangeably out in the world, they mean something very different in a courtroom and very different on a verdict slip.

The prosecution normally in a homicide case does have to prove that the defendant on trial is the one who did it. We know here that Lindsay Clancy did it, meaning she took the lives of her children so horrifically.

What we don't know, and what the prosecution, the question is whether they proved this, is that she was not overcome by mental illness at the time, that her mental health or defect was not so much as to absolve her criminal responsibility in this case. Now, really, I would -- if there's a not guilty on the verdict slip, it's highly unlikely they're going to come to that.

[10:35:02]

But the question here really is, where is Lindsay Clancy going to go? Is she going to go to state prison for the rest of her life without the possibility of parole, or potentially with the possibility of parole, murder one or two, or is she going to go to a locked psychiatric hospital for the next 10, 20, 30, perhaps the rest of her life?

BLITZER: We're following the huge breaking news out of the Lindsay Clancy trial right now. The judge just a few moments ago said the jurors, all the jurors were unable to reach a unanimous decision, and, as a result, he has a asked them to go back and continue deliberations and start over again from the beginning.

If in fact at the end they can't reach a unanimous decision -- and even if only one juror disagrees with the others, that's not a unanimous decision -- and then the prosecution has to decide, do they go back and start all over again? We will see what happens.

We're watching this dramatic development unfold right now. Stay with us. Much more of our special coverage right here in THE SITUATION ROOM after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: All right, we will continue to monitor developments from the Lindsay Clancy trial, but we want to get to some other news right now.

Happening now: Voters in Massachusetts are headed to the polls for a series of key primary races. In today's marquee contest, 80-year-old progressive Senator Ed Markey faces a challenge from moderate Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton.

Moulton, a 47-year-old Marine Corps veteran, argues it's time for a generational change in Washington, while Markey says he is more energized than ever.

Joining us now in THE SITUATION ROOM are former National Republican Senatorial Committee aide Liam Donovan and CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Paul Begala.

[10:40:08]

Paul, let's kick it off with you.

How are you viewing this primary between Senator Markey and Congressman Moulton, as Democrats grapple with the future of the party?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think the Democrats -- I think the Republicans have more problems than my party, but the Democrats have problems.

And they include a lot of people thinking they're too old and too far left. I'm supporting Seth Moulton. I hope he wins, because he's not too old and he's not too far left. Ed Markey, God bless him, he first got elected to public office in 1973, when gas was 37 cents a gallon, OK?

This is just time for a change. And we have seen this across the country. Now, Markey's got a commanding lead in the polls right now, but I will say a lot of the polls in these primaries have been way, way off.

BROWN: So you think the generational change argument is a strong one for Moulton?

BEGALA: I think it is.

On top of that, I thought Moulton had a terrific moment in the debate when he -- he's a combat Marine veteran, Seth Moulton is. And he turned to Senator Markey and he said, guys like me had to fight the wars that you voted for. Now, that's a way to be more progressive than Ed Markey, Markey supporting the forever wars under President Bush, Moulton being one of the Marines who had to go fight those wars.

I thought that was a good moment as well. But there is a sense. I mean, come on. I'm sorry, but you want a six-year no-cut contract at age 80? Like, unless your name is Tom Brady, I don't think that's a very good sell.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: Who do Republicans want to see when in terms of like who they think would be the easier?

LIAM DONOVAN, FORMER NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE AIDE: I think, as Republicans, we're sitting and sitting back and seeing what this Democratic Party is. I wish we had the Democratic Party that Paul's describing.

I wish we had one where they just want a younger generation and maybe to move toward the middle. I think that'd be great for the country. That's not what we're seeing, and I think this is the dog that didn't bark. The Senate race on paper, an 80-year-old Senator Ed Markey, should be very vulnerable.

The -- Seth Moulton has been laying out the case that Paul just laid out, and it's not working because the reality is, Democrats want the hard, pugilistic progressive left that the DSA is serving up. That's why we're seeing what we're seeing in Michigan, the close call in Wisconsin.

It's not working in Massachusetts. If it should work anywhere, it should work in Massachusetts. I think watching the House races is where we're going to see how this really works. Stephen Lynch, the incumbent there, is getting a challenge from the left, Dan Loath (sic). That's the generational plus move to the left. The other one is in Seth Moulton's open seat. We're seeing Dan Koh, who's a Biden staffer getting a challenge from a challenger that's backed by the Squad. I think that's going to be the real litmus test, not this one. Ed Markey has nothing to worry about. Despite being Biden age, he's going to roll against Seth Moulton.

BROWN: All right, we will see.

I also want to ask you about what's happening at the White House today. The president is meeting with this group of energy companies there, and he's going to discuss efforts to lower gas and diesel costs. As you well know, the broader economy and the cost of living, those are issues that are our top of mind as we head into the midterms.

Has the administration done enough to tackle the affordability problem?

DONOVAN: This is a wildly complex issue. And so whatever levers they can reach for, I think they're trying to do. At this point, 65 days out from the election, voting starts even sooner. There's only so much you can actually do to effectuate.

But I think by bringing the executives into town, by trying to show their doing as much as they can, it's about signaling to the electorate, who only cares about cost, who only cares about affordability. This is about kind of performance at this point. There's only so much that the president can control, but you don't say that in politics.

I think the other piece of this is, this is a good cudgel for Democrats heading into the election. But at the same time, if you're looking at what's happening in blue states, for instance, yesterday, a federal judge struck down a law in New York. Blue state legislators and A.G.s are trying to actually penalize oil and gas producers in ways that are going to raise prices at the pump.

The Supreme Court's going to hear about this in October. I think that's the thing is, like, it's a great argument, but there's hypocrisy at play that people need to be aware of. I don't know that's going to help at the polls, but it's something to keep an eye on heading into the fall.

BROWN: Paul, what do you say to that? And do you think Democrats have done enough with their messaging around how they're going to help the everyday American?

BEGALA: Well, the truth is, Democrats don't have to do anything. The greatest thing we have is Donald Trump. Thank God he's out there every day.

And the more he talks about gas prices, the more people think that gas prices are too high and they're getting ripped off. He likes to put his name on things. He's putting it putting on the Kennedy Center. I think maybe Grant's Tomb is next. I want to put his name on 161,000 things, 161,000 gas stations all

around the country. Let's give him full credit for the gas prices that he has run up with this God-awful war in Iran. And he's going to pay the price in November. There's just no question about it.

He can't do anything in 62 days, and all he's done so far is boost the prices. And the more he talks about it, the more voters are going to say, oh, yes, that's the guy and that's the party that raised my price at the pump.

BROWN: How big of a problem is the Iran war for Republicans right now?

DONOVAN: This is something that you would have liked to seen buttoned up by now. I think it's just white noise at this point. It's not good, but it's a something that you probably can't resolve in the next 65 days in a way that's going to make a significant dent.

[10:45:10]

And so it's just something that at the individual level, at the race level, people are going to have to contend with, and really it comes down to how these primaries shake out. What are the one-on-one sort of Republican against Democrat? How can they run on a sort of candidate- to-candidate basis?

It's always going to be difficult running uphill in a rough environment in the midterm. Republicans need to scrap and claw every way they can and punch back in ways that aren't getting bogged down in questions about gas prices.

BROWN: All right, Liam, Paul, great to have you both on. Thanks so much.

BLITZER: And thanks from me as well.

Also new this morning, sources now tell CNN that the Army secretary, Dan Driscoll, has handed in his resignation. Driscoll has been at odds with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the transformation of the U.S. Army.

Hegseth has fired several top generals, including the Army chief of staff. Sources also said Driscoll brought up concerns with the Army's readiness six months into this war with Iran.

With us now is Republican Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina. She's a key member of the House Armed Services Committee, also the Veterans Affairs Committee.

Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us.

I want to get your reaction, first of all, to Dan Driscoll's resignation. Do you have concerns this may be driven by conflict with Secretary Hegseth?

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Good morning, Wolf. Of course, I believe it is. It'd be obtuse not to admit that. Any time

you have any kind of organizational change, particularly with an organization as large and as prominent as the Department of War, where generals are being fired, you're absolutely going to have pushback.

You're going to have people who don't like it because it's different than what it has been in the past. And that's what leadership is all about, whether you like it or not.

And I think that, when you look at some of the comments about readiness, I would argue that readiness has been an issue for years because of the way the bureaucracy within the federal government, within the Department of War, at the Pentagon, particularly when it comes to procurement, particularly when we're talking about the development or arsenal of missiles and artillery and all those things, kinetic and non-kinetic options, drones, et cetera, we have a real issue with how slow things go.

And I think that I see Secretary Hegseth as someone who wants to change the paradigm, speed things up, do things better, more efficiently, because we do have conflicts, we do have enemies around the world that we have to be prepared for.

BLITZER: Does Driscoll's resignation, Congresswoman, threaten the independents of the role of the Army secretary? There are currently no Senate-confirmed Army leaders left.

MACE: Well, I think you will see people lining up.

The rumor on the Hill this morning is that Sean Parnell is going to want to pursue that position. We will see what the administration does and who at the White House has the best inroads there to get someone Senate-confirmed. I think it can happen if the Senate's willing to come in.

But we have got these midterm elections 65 days out. Who knows what kind of time they want to spend on Capitol Hill when everyone's fighting for their life in the midterm elections?

BLITZER: Sean is the Pentagon press secretary, the spokesperson at the Pentagon. You think he's qualified to be the Army secretary?

MACE: That will be up to the Senate. I don't have his resume in front of me, but that's the rumor this morning that I'm hearing, that that's going on behind the scenes.

And we will see who else throws their name in the hat. He might not, but I'm hearing -- I'm hearing that today because of this shakeup. And we will see how it turns out here in the next few months. There's not a lot of time.

BLITZER: You brought up the concerns that are out there about the Army's readiness right now.

MACE: Yes.

BLITZER: What message does all this send to Iran and other U.S. adversaries?

MACE: Well, I think the biggest thing is that we need to be aggressive. We need to be prepared for any conflict around the world. We need to be sure that we're not weakening our defenses or our offenses when it comes to China and Taiwan.

Obviously, if you're depleting resources, that's a major concern, regardless of what's going on. What's going on in Ukraine affects us as well. And we do have to be ready for anything that could happen in the Indo-Pacific region at any time, which is a vulnerability.

And I think that's why you're seeing a lot of pushback too from the American people. The majority of us don't want to see war with Iran. The vast majority don't want to see troops on the ground. We don't want to see nukes in the Middle East, but, by God, we also don't want 100,000 American troops dead in Tehran.

BLITZER: How concerned are you, Congresswoman, about the current length of the war with Iran? It's now been six months. Originally, the president thought it would just be a few weeks. What is the potential that this could be drawn out even a lot longer?

MACE: Well, we're seeing that in real time now.

And just because somebody stops bombing one day, starts bombing the next, it doesn't mean you're starting and stopping a war. This is an ongoing conflict. This is an ongoing war. The grace period is over. We have offered past presidents just over 90 days to come to Congress to declare war or end it, and that needs to happen sooner, rather than later, so that we can adhere to the War Powers Act.

[10:50:00]

That's what needs to happen. And if the War Powers Act were to come up today, I would vote for it.

BLITZER: Turning now to the ever important issue of what's called affordability, President Trump is preparing to sit down today with top oil executives over at the White House as the war with Iran has pushed gas prices above $4 a gallon.

Every day of August, a new record seems to be unfolding. The president now says it could take years, years to see the benefits of the new Venezuelan oil deal. What do you tell voters in South Carolina when they ask you, when are gas prices going back down?

MACE: That's a hard question to answer because our reserves are down also. And the longer that the Iranian war goes on, the Strait of Hormuz issues that we have, the longer oil prices stay up.

And I will be the first one to tell you, Wolf, affordability is not the case that's been made by either Republicans or Democrats. I think it's one of the primary reasons why you're going to see a bloodbath within both parties on the ballot, both in their primaries and in the general election in November. I think it's why candidates like the Democratic Socialists of America

within the Democrat Party are gaining ground in some of those contests where, the more progressive you are, the better it is, because people are entirely disgruntled with the political class, as they should be.

What Congress should be doing right now is focusing first on seniors. I know that, when I was around the state of South Carolina, it's the fastest growing state in the country. Cost of living is through the roof. Gas can be over $4 in some places, and seniors are being kicked out of their homes during their golden years.

And that's where our focus should be, where both parties should be, and it's just -- it's just not. It's just tit-for-tat fighting. And they're going to duke it out in November with the biggest, nastiest accusations ever to see who can seize power, and that's what this is about.

BLITZER: Yes, here in the D.C. area, the gas prices at some locations -- and I have had to go to those gas stations -- is closer to $5 a gallon than it is to $4 a gallon.

MACE: I believe it.

BLITZER: A quick question on another sensitive issue before I let you go, Congresswoman.

There have been a lot of bipartisan concerns expressed in recent days about these data centers and fears of higher electric bills and pollution potentially. President Trump recently said communities who don't want these centers will -- quote -- "end up being backwards and poor," his words.

What's your reaction?

MACE: Well, it's up to the people to decide.

What we're seeing in South Carolina and other states across the country are county level fights where thousands of people are showing up. They don't want the government to take their land for a data center that's going to employ 20 people, hurt the environment, and steal their property.

China's putting them in the ocean. Elon wants them in outer space. There are places here on the planet, here in the United States that wouldn't use eminent domain. A.I. is a national security issue. Data centers are a national security issue, but we can handle it, I think, in a commonsense way, where we aren't taking people's property.

I know, in South Carolina, electrical -- electric prices are skyrocketing. They're through the roof. They're double in the last three years in some places because of data centers taking up the water, taking up the electricity, expecting ratepayers to pay that bill. And that's not what people want.

And that's why you're seeing the pushback in a bipartisan way. It will be on the ballot. Data centers will be on the ballot in November. BLITZER: Yes, we will see what happens.

Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, thanks very much for joining us.

MACE: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Pamela.

BROWN: All right, coming up here, Wolf, in THE SITUATION ROOM: President Trump is seeking to ease the rules around ranchers processing their own meat. But could that actually make our food supply less safe?

The president of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association joins us up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:40]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, the Trump administration is facing pushback on its new rules for farmers to process and sell meat to bring down prices for American shoppers.

A couple weeks ago, the president said he was trying to lower prices by allowing the U.S. to import 300,000 metric tons of foreign beef to enter the country duty-free. Well, that move angered American farmers and ranchers, who said the president should be helping their industry as it fights higher costs created by his tariffs and the Iran war.

So, the president has unveiled the Ranchers First Initiative, and it aims to reduce red tape for small farms to process their own meat. It also seeks to reduce the power of the nation's four giant meat processing companies.

The initiative allows the easier sale of meat across state lines and new loans for small regional meat processors. But there's still some questions about this new initiative.

So, to discuss, I want to bring in Justin Tupper, the president of the U.S. Cattlemen's Association.

Thanks for being here. We do appreciate it. Love your hat.

So, I first want to get your reaction to this newly unveiled initiative.

JUSTIN TUPPER, PRESIDENT, U.S. CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION: Yes, thanks for having us.

And there's some good things in there. As far as ranchers being able to butcher their own beef, we have been able to do that all along. We can grow our own beef, take it to a local butcher shop, and have it butchered at any time. We could -- I could sell you a beef in your name and you can take it there. The one thing you can't do is take a beef to the local butcher shop

and then sell it to just anybody else that isn't yours. It has to be federally inspected to do that. So -- and we think that's a good thing. We don't think you should pull back the veil. We think beef is the -- U.S. beef, the safest, best protein on the planet.

We want to make sure we can keep it that way. So I think there's some good things in there, but there's also some of it is things that we could already do at this point in time.

BROWN: So when the administration says it wants to cut red tape, are you concerned at all that that could compromise food safety standards?

TUPPER: I don't. I think the regulations -- we have the highest regulations in the world regulating our beef processing here. I think the regulations that need to be cut are the regulations that allow the big four packers to sell in these grocery stores that don't allow the small and regional beef packers to do the same.

I know of a place in Missouri that made big inroads, a small packer, in some of their regional grocery stores, and all of a sudden, as soon as the big four found out, they said, well, we're not going to sell you any other kinds of meat if you're going to continue to buy from the small and regional packers. So they were pushed out that way.

So some of those regulations that slight toward the big four packers, that could be helpful. But for the most part, we believe, again, the safest, best protein on the planet is U.S. beef.

BROWN: I wonder what your message is just to the everyday American why they should care about this issue right now.

TUPPER: Well, I think -- we don't think beef in the -- we know everything's high. We feel it too, the highest input costs we have ever had. Our feed costs are the highest they have ever been. Fuel prices affect us every day. Everything we do, as far as moving our cattle around, taking them anywhere they need to go, fuel prices affect us.

So we understand that. Insurance is the highest we have ever seen. We know that, but we also think that, in comparison, we don't think beef is out of whack. When you look at just a pound of beef and the nutritional value it has versus just about anything else, it's not that high in comparison.

So we appreciate the consumers that have stayed with us. We try to make sure that we can feed the world. And the U.S. rancher would much rather be out doing the ranching than having to discuss some of the things that the government wants to interfere into our business.

BROWN: Are you surprised by all the rising costs that you just laid out under this administration?

TUPPER: Well, I think some of it, we know happens, and for lots of reasons that are out of our control. But we have got to look at those costs no different. Each and every individual rancher has to look at those costs and what

they can do to try to cut them down, because it bites into ultimately the net profit, and that that's every household in America. So I think it's a difficult time. Inflation has been high. It is not new news. It's been that way.

But we're going to work to continue to raise the best beef we can and make sure the consumer has a choice. We really want mCOOL, so the consumer can decide which beef they want to buy in the grocery store. That's in the farm bill, and we're hoping we can get that passed.

BROWN: All right, Justin Tupper, thank you for coming on. We appreciate it -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And the next hour of THE SITUATION ROOM starts right now.