Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Interview With Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC); Jack Smith Testifies Before Congress; Lindsay Clancy in Court. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired September 29, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: Why don't we just pick a trial date? And that -- that will get this case moving.

KEVIN REDDINGTON, ATTORNEY FOR LINDSAY CLANCY: Because there's no...

SULLIVAN: Because the discussion -- the discussion three weeks ago was, let's try this thing in a week, right?

(LAUGHTER)

SULLIVAN: And now no one wants to pick a trial date.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was not the commonwealth's position.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I think that, when you factor in that this could take some real time to go through these issues and then exercise any rights, I'm just concerned that any trial date we pick might not be realistic.

REDDINGTON: I agree.

SULLIVAN: Then the parties can move to continue one. Why don't we do this? November 2, be prepared to talk about picking a trial date.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Your Honor.

SULLIVAN: All right. And why don't we just do that? I will leave it at that, all right?

This is a matter of wanting -- while I'm hearing about how important this is to get this resolved, to deal with this for all the parties, that's what I'm trying to do, all right? And I'm not saying -- I'm not blaming counsel for that. But that's my goal in this thing is to get this thing tried as soon as proper without sacrificing anyone's rights, anyone's position.

But I don't want this thing to then just start to kind of get kicked down the road, punt it, and go forward.

REDDINGTON: It's not going to get punted, but I will tell you right now I'm -- I can't do a trial before June. I will just let you know that right now. It's not a matter of punting or kicking or anything.

(CROSSTALK)

SULLIVAN: We will talk about that on November 2. Everybody can take a look at their schedules.

All right, so, anything else? So, we have got November 2, they will be here 9:00. So we will be in recess at this time.

Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Your Honor.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, so, they're -- it looks like they're about to take another little break right now. The judge, William -- the judge, William Sullivan, saying that November 2 they're going to resume this hearing and talk about a discussion about whether or not there should be another trial, should -- there was a mistrial, as we all know.

I want to bring in criminal defense attorney Elyse Hershon right now.

Elyse, we heard Clancy's lawyer argue, where is the evidence that she did this? Does that show a departure from her earlier defense?

ELYSE HERSHON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning and thank you for having me.

Yes, so Kevin Reddington is making the argument that he wanted to make a trial, but was not able to. Essentially, when you go forward with a criminal responsibility defense, you have to, as a lawyer, actually concede that your client did it in order to ask for the jury to find her not criminally responsible.

And that removes your ability as a lawyer to go forward with the presumption of innocence and argue reasonable doubt. He wanted to bifurcate -- he wanted to split the trial to figure out, does the jury think she's guilty or not, and then argue criminal responsibility. That was denied.

So, the trial focused on, she did take the lives of her children, but it wasn't murder. It was not guilty for criminal responsibility. Now, here, because we're not on trial and it was already a mistrial, Reddington got to get up and make both arguments, both that they didn't prove that she did it beyond a reasonable doubt, and, on top of that, they did not disprove that she was suffering from a mental health illness or defect.

So it was very strategic here, and he threw everything at this judge to consider.

BLITZER: Because they were arguing she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, right?

HERSHON: Yes, so the big diverge here is, all the experts, the three for the commonwealth experts and the three for the defense, all said she was suffering from a mental disease or defect. That's a legal term.

But was it enough to overcome her criminal responsibility? That's where the paths diverge. But, remember, it's the commonwealth's burden. We're back here at square one essentially, three first-degree murder charges, one for each of the children. Did she suffer from postpartum psychosis?

The defense witness -- expert witnesses said yes. But, remember, that is not a requirement for a criminal responsibility defense. She just had to have been suffering so much so that she couldn't appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct and couldn't stop herself.

Was it psychosis? That's the defense theory,. But it could have been postpartum depression. It could have been some other type of psychosis. But in this case, postpartum psychosis was the theory of criminal responsibility.

BLITZER: Elyse, I want you to stand by.

Our own Jean Casarez, who's been covering this from the very beginning, she's outside the court right now.

And, Jean, the topic of a new trial date seems to be a major issue in these ongoing deliberations. Tell us why that's so important right now.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's how the judge ended the hearing. He wanted to set a trial date, and he was ready. He had his calendar. Let's go. What's the trial date you want, prosecutors?

[11:05:04]

And the prosecution said, Your Honor, let's argue these motions. We need to see what you order in regard to these motions, appellate action. Now, we knew this was going to be a possibility. Martin Weinberg, who argued some of these, is an appellate attorney in many respects.

And the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, if the rulings are not in the favor of the defense, they will be appealed. There's no question in my mind they will do that, the motion to dismiss and other motions associated with ending this trial, ending this criminal prosecution in its tracks.

Fascinating, though, that the defense wants to be unredacted juror notes and also sidebar conferences, bench conferences. Prosecution really fought back that the sanctity of the jury should be upheld, because there will be a chilling effect. No one in the commonwealth will want to be a juror if their notes are released and if the sidebar conference is talking about the jurors conceivably would become public knowledge.

BLITZER: I thought it was significant, but tell me if I'm wrong, that the judge, William Sullivan, ended this session that we were just watching right now by noting he wants to have November 2 emerge as a date when they could all be prepared to talk about a new trial. What about that?

CASAREZ: Absolutely. He's telling them, I want to set a trial date.

So it's interesting, Wolf. There was not even a discussion whether there's going to be a prosecution again on this active criminal case. It was assumed or it was set at sidebar or in the judge's chambers. It was just, it's happening. What's the date? And so that is interesting, in and of itself.

But this trial is proceeding, and they are proceeding with now motions to dismiss. They're preserving that for appellate purposes. But I think the road in Plymouth County is for this case to have a second trial, as happens many times with criminal prosecutions that don't reach a verdict the first time around.

BLITZER: The judge said he wants them to be prepared to talk about a new trial. He didn't necessarily specific say -- specifically say there would be a new trial, right?

CASAREZ: Well, he wanted to set a date, and so that could be in theory he wanted to set a date, or there has been conversation that he knows they will be proceeding.

Prosecution did not talk about it, but I think the mere fact -- and this was not argued today. They filed a motion, I guess it was late last night, but we got it this morning, of the prosecution wanting to have a judicial order so there is not prejudicial statements given by counsel in regard to the evidence in this case.

That conceivably is a limited gag order. The judge is going to address it on the 2nd. But if you are not proceeding with trial, if your intent is not to go for a retrial, then why do you want this motion? Because there's a potential jury pool here. You don't want it tainted anymore as you proceed conceivably toward another prosecution here.

BLITZER: All right, Jean, stand by.

I want to go back to Elyse right now.

Elyse, Jean just mentioned that prosecutors argued to keep the jury notes that were sent to the court about their deadlock sealed, sealed. Talk a little bit more about how that potentially could impact a new trial, if in fact there is a new trial.

HERSHON: So it certainly would impact where these motions are going, because this -- all of Kevin Reddington's motions -- and he said this in this hearing -- it's not about calling out the holdout juror. It's not about a juror that wouldn't agree with the verdict that he thinks is just for his client.

Kevin Reddington is advocating for a fair trial, according to due process rights, constitutional rights of his client.

If there's a juror there who was biased, who had a protected class bias, was harboring maybe against gender, race, disability or something to that effect, if that's the reason this juror held out, and that was communicated potentially in one of these notes, that's important discovery that the lawyers need access to and Kevin Reddington wants the public to have access to, so he is not continuing to be demonized by some, not here, but some media and some individual media representatives as just going after and calling out and persecuting this juror.

That is not what's going on here. He is seeking the truth. He is seeking transparency. Kevin Reddington is the one that says, we all need to see what was communicated in the juror notes. And if the judge should have inquired further before allowing a mistrial, again, the manifest necessity standard, then that could be the basis for the double jeopardy motion and dismiss that could terminate the case.

[11:10:08]

So this comes down to the notes. This comes down to if the judge had inquired further, again, not about what was discussed in the jury room, but what was going on in terms of procedure, in terms of impropriety, in terms of a potential bias, in terms of a refusal to apply the law.

This is all getting blown out much bigger because this holdout juror is speaking out both directly and through a lawyer, a lawyer who is not licensed to practice in Massachusetts and had to associate with a local lawyer, who appeared today on his behalf. The lawyer that represents this lone juror is not even allowed -- doesn't have jurisdiction to come into a court, file a motion and make an argument.

So, it's a little bit of an anomaly there and a little bit strange why this would be the choice by this juror, but, essentially, they're making accusations, and they're coming out and saying that Lindsay Clancy is a murderer and that she's a demon.

That's advocating for a position. A juror is supposed to be a civil servant. They're supposed to do a job objectively, and he's really just undercutting here the entire system, in my opinion.

BLITZER: Elyse Hershon, thank you very much.

Jean Casarez, as usual, thanks to you as well.

And we will have more news when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:16:04]

BLITZER: And there's more breaking news we're following.

The former special counsel Jack Smith is testifying on camera and under oath up on Capitol Hill right now. He's before the Senate Judiciary Committee defending his historic and highly controversial federal investigations into President Trump.

Those cases involved President Trump's alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and charges that he mishandled classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Both cases were eventually dismissed, and the president denies any, any wrongdoing.

Smith says he stands by his decision to prosecute Trump. Republican lawmakers say he acted politically and should be prosecuted himself. But, this morning, Jack Smith delivered a very defiant message directly to his critics on that Senate Judiciary Committee panel.

And I'm quoting him now. He said, "I will not be silenced" -- end quote.

CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez is watching all of this play out up on Capitol Hill.

Very dramatic stuff, Evan. Republicans have been aggressive in their questioning so far, right?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. They are very aggressive in the questioning.

But I will say, in between the time that they're not -- then, when the Republicans are not speaking, a lot of them have left the room. And that gives you a sense of what the purpose of this hearing is. This is not so much about getting information from Jack Smith. It's about reframing the events of January 6 and those investigations that Jack Smith oversaw.

And part of that, the job of some of the members of Congress, some of these senators is to frame some of the actions by the investigators as targeting Republicans. Listen to this exchange between Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana and Jack Smith about some of the actions taken during this investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): You sought just the records of the Republicans. And you knew that that violated the Speech and Debate Clause, didn't you?

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: That is incorrect. We sought to comply with the...

KENNEDY: Did you take con law?

SMITH: I'm sorry, Senator?

KENNEDY: Were you in the quad playing Frisbee during con law at Harvard Law School?

SMITH: I did take constitutional law, yes.

KENNEDY: Well, then you had to know it violated the Speech and Debate Clause.

In fact, when you -- when you went to Judge Boasberg, you didn't even tell him you were seeking the phone records of members of Congress, did you? Because you knew he wouldn't agree. He would he would say, hey, counselor, anybody who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog knows that this violates the Constitution. But you didn't tell him, did you?

SMITH: We sought nondisclosure orders from...

KENNEDY: You didn't tell him, did you?

SMITH: In seeking nondisclosure orders, we did not disclose...

KENNEDY: Didn't tell him, but you're unbiased. You have no personal feelings. You make me want to throw up in my mouth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREZ: And, Wolf, that gives you a little bit of the flavor of what's going on in the room behind me.

Look, I mean, the investigation that they're talking about, of course, is about the president, the then-president of the United States, Donald Trump, trying to avoid the certification of his losing that election.

And, of course, the -- part of the investigation was looking into whether there were people like Rudy Giuliani calling members of Congress, Republicans, who would have been working with them to try to do that. And so, of course, it would be Republican members of Congress whose phone records, the toll records, that would have been -- would have been subpoenaed.

Democrats were not involved in that. And, of course, that gives you a sense of this investigation. One other thing that happened just a little while ago, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri tried to paint a conspiracy, saying Jack Smith was in cahoots essentially with Fani Willis, the prosecutor down in Atlanta that -- who also did a state investigation of the president and tried to portray that they had met at a game in Atlanta, a basketball game.

[11:20:17]

It turns out Schmitt was wrong. He showed a poster there that attempted to show messages that he thought showed that Smith was down in Atlanta. It turns out he was mistaken, that Smith was actually at a basketball game in Maryland, the game between Maryland and the Iowa Hawkeyes.

So, Schmitt was wrong. And, of course, that was one of the more fiery exchanges that we saw in this room this hour -- Wolf, Pamela.

BLITZER: Yes, a lot of fiery exchanges, there's no doubt about that.

Evan Perez watching all of this unfold. This is historic and important.

Still ahead: taming technology. AI leaders are meeting with President Trump over at the White House, as the industry and Washington are grappling with safety and regulation. We will ask Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace what role Congress should have.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:25:49]

BLITZER: There's more breaking news we're following.

A major White House meeting about AI safety is about to begin. It's coming as warnings about the technology's threat to humanity become more and more dire. President Trump and several top members of his administration will meet with top tech leaders, even as one of those AI companies now says it's stopping plans to release a new AI model due to safety concerns.

Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina is joining us right now. She's a key member of the House AI Caucus.

Congresswoman, thanks very much for joining us.

I know you told me about two weeks ago when you joined me in THE SITUATION ROOM that you don't think Congress should be -- quote -- "regulating American AI into the ground" -- end quote.

So what guardrails would you like to see?

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Well, thank you, Wolf, for having me on today.

I'll say this again. I've said this. We're talking about a body of elected officials that don't even know -- the majority of whom don't even know how to log into Facebook. I don't think this is the group of people that should be telling AI how to operate.

I've said from the beginning that, if there are going to be guardrails, they need to be led by the private sector, led by the AI companies. And if we even take a step back, Wolf, we already have laws on the books in this country that make certain things illegal. Like, random John Doe on the street can't build a nuclear bomb.

Why would AI be allowed to do that or assist somebody in doing that, for example? So we have laws on the books already. I would use those as our guideposts. And I have said previously too that if AI companies said we need to slow down, they have the freedom to hit pause, which is what one AI company is doing this week.

But I also chair a technology committee on House Oversight. I have been complaining for years that we have systems built on COBOL. This is the kind of thing, kind of software that can really hurt critical infrastructure in this country, that can hurt the banking system.

Why we haven't been using the state-of-the-art technology to increase our defenses and potentially use them as offensively against our enemies and those who don't align with us, I think that that's where the real problem is. And I appreciate the president's leadership today on this.

BLITZER: Where should there be, Congresswoman, accountability in all of this?

MACE: Well, we have laws on the books. We have federal laws. There are state laws that handle certain crimes.

I think that that's where states and the federal government should start. President Trump has said previously that whoever wins the AI race basically rules the world. And I don't want to give China a leg up. If our government says, hey, everybody, stop right now, China is not going to stop.

They are going to continue. They're going to continue their advances in AI and they will beat the United States. I want the United States to lead, and that means very little regulation here. I don't think we should be the ones deciding that. I think the companies who know what the technology can do are the best leaders to say, these are the guardrails we all need to abide by.

But some of those companies have already released open-source code that is being used by Iran, that is being used by Russia, by China, by our enemies abroad to do harm to the United States here and overseas. So, some of these companies have already released code that's being used by our enemies.

BLITZER: The Florida attorney general, a Republican, is seeking an emergency injunction against ChatGPT maker OpenAI. Listen to this. I want to get your reaction. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES UTHMEIER (R), FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: They asked the government to tie them to the mast. Well, Florida's answering their cries for help.

Today, we asked the court for a new temporary injunction, no new model development without independent safety guardrails, no more harvesting children's data, no more calling this product safe, accurate, or reliable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you agree with that assessment? Do you agree with what they're doing right now down in Florida?

MACE: No. No, I don't. I don't. That basically means stop what you're doing right now until 10 or 20 years from now, when the government figures it out. Then you can move forward.