Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Judge Declares Mistrial In Clancy Case After Jury Deadlocks; Dark Parallels to Clancy Case From 25 Years Ago; Nepal Rescues; Two Men Pulled Alive From Nepal Hydropower Plant Tunnel; Nepali Army: 58 People Rescued Today, Including 2 Workers In Tunnel; WH Launches Retro Arcade Games Promoting Trump's Agenda; New Government Court Filing On Trump Arch: Will Be "Archeological Survey Work" And "Not Construction"; Trump To Use Qatari-Gifted AF1 On Overseas Trip Despite Security Questions. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired September 04, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE VALERIO, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): ...and they may watch this story and be somewhat concerned about their jobs, that they could be automated in the future. What would you say to anybody like that, watching this story?
YANG HUI, FACTORY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (through translator): We will raise the overall compensation and income level of people working at individual work stations.
VALERIO (voice over): For now, what's happening inside China's dark factories could illuminate where manufacturing is headed next, and whether American workers can find their place in that future.
Mike Valerio, CNN, Ningguo, China.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SARA SIDNER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thank you for joining us. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:39]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Good evening from the Newsroom. We begin tonight with what comes next after a murder trial that drew national attention, divided public opinion, and left 12 men and women unable to reach a verdict. It ended today in a Plymouth, Massachusetts courthouse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. The court declares a mistrial. All prior bail orders remain in full force and effect. This matter is continued to September 29th, 2026 at 9:00 A.M. For status trial assignment in the rule 25 motion in Plymouth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Counsel, thank you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, for the better part of seven days, Lindsay Clancy waited as jurors grappled with whether to hold her criminally responsible for strangling her three young children, the youngest just eight months old, or accept the defense argument that she was driven by postpartum psychosis.
Now, this morning, for a third straight day, they sent a note to Judge William Sullivan saying they remain deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict. He said he intended to declare a mistrial, but then, before the jury returned, the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked for an emergency stay so he could seek relief from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court or SJC.
His argument, Judge Sullivan should have investigated the one holdout juror who Reddington said acknowledged having reasonable doubt but refused to apply it in his words as the law states.
The SJC declined to intervene. Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial and thanked the jurors. All of them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: I watched every day, day after day, week after week all of you performing that duty that you're braced for. And I just kind of wanted to let you know I understood how hard everybody worked in this case. I understood that you all gave you could and probably more than you thought you could. And so, on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much that you should be proud for what you did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: After setting a hearing date for the 29th court was adjourned and the two sides spoke to reporters starting with local district attorney Timothy Cruz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIMOTHY CRUZ, PLYMOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We're here at this courthouse today because those children are not.
Our priority, has always been to fight for Cora, for Dawson and for Callan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Cruz said, a decision has not yet been made on whether to retry Lindsay Clancy. Now, for his part, the defense attorney, Reddington said he wouldn't do it if he were the D.A. because, as he put it, he would lose. And as for his client, here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is Lindsay ready for a second trial?
KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Lindsay is very, very, very strong. She is a very, very intelligent young woman, very emotionally invested and just a tragic -- she's a classic example of a tragic person. Her life is a tragedy. And she was robbed by this man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: This man, being the lone holdout on the jury and when asked what motivated that juror, Reddington replied, I have no idea why he did what he did.
CNN's Jean Casarez is in Plymouth, Massachusetts. She joins us now. What happens now, Jean?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What happens now is we wait and see. There is a status hearing in September, at the end of September to see if, in fact, the prosecution will go forward. But today was filled with so much emotion, depending upon what side you were on and how you felt about all of this.
When the jurors walked in after that fateful note where they said, it is with a heavy heart that we have to tell you, we cannot reach a unanimous decision in this case, and we will not be reaching that.
They had their heads lowered, the jurors did not even look around the courtroom. And when that mistrial was ordered by the judge, jurors just shook their head. The female jurors? No. And when the judge said, you should be so proud of what you've done, the weeks you have spent here, one female juror just was like that, like, no, I'm not proud.
The male jurors just stared straight ahead. But once outside, the focus became that one juror with the defense, that one lone juror that you can call the holdout, or you can say he's one that had his own opinion and did not agree with the 11 others and the defense attorney really, really focused on him.
His identity is not out yet. The judge ordered that all jurors identities will not be released for 14 days. But that person, you could also say, had bravery. And the prosecution, when they for the first time, we heard from the elected district attorney of Plymouth County, and he talked about why this prosecution was brought. And the focus has not been on the victims. Cora five years old, Dawson, three years old, and Callan eight months. Their lives were taken; their lives were gone. And the D.A. said, that is why we brought this prosecution, because they're victims and justice needs to be had for these victims.
[20:05:59]
COOPER: Is there a specific deadline for the Plymouth County D.A. to make a decision on whether or not to try Clancy again? CASAREZ: Well, many times in trials I've covered, the prosecutor stands up in court and says, Your Honor, we will want to go forward with a retrial. Today, it was the defense attorney that stood up in court. The prosecutors were silent and said, I'm ready to retry this case again next week. But the reality is it does take time. There is a jury pool here that is saturated with this case. They know everything. And late today, Patrick Clancy and he cannot be forgotten because he was the father of those three children. He lost everything.
He came out with a statement via his attorney, saying that the loss of the three children that I will never, ever get over. And he also said a statement in regard to the retrial, saying the proposal of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful for Patrick, for his family and for all of us.
So, Anderson, let us see what the prosecution decides to do. They may go forward or they may not.
COOPER: And where will Lindsay Clancy be in this term pending the D.A.'s decision?
CASAREZ: Well, excellent question. She is in a state mental hospital right now. That is where she is. The prosecution did not say it, but at this point she remains in custody because they may be trying this case again. She also is on has been on no bail at all. But if that changes then she would be a private patient and then she would have a couple of decisions to make. But obviously a mental analysis and an assessment of her to see if that mental disease or defect is gone at some point, then she would be released as a free citizen.
COOPER: Jean Casarez, thanks so much, appreciate it.
Joining us right now is former federal prosecutor Berit Berger criminal defense attorney Jeremy Saland, former prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorneys' Office and defense attorney and jury consultant Renato Stabile.
Berit, do you think prosecutors will, what did they take into account about whether to retry something?
BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS OF NY: Yes, there's a lot that's going to have to go into this decision. I mean, you have a situation like this where from at least if were reading things right. There were 11 jurors that did not think the prosecutors had proved their case. Prosecutors have to take that into account. Maybe it's in how they prosecute the case. Maybe they change their strategy, but maybe it's they have to reevaluate the charges. Is this really a case where first-degree murder is appropriate? This jury, at least from what we know now, didn't really seem to think so.
So, yes, I think the prosecutors are probably going to retry this case. It's very hard to walk away from a situation where you have three dead children. It's hard just to say, no, were not going to proceed. But this may be a case where, given what's happened, they say, all right, maybe we just go forward on the second degree, or maybe we even just go forward on manslaughter here.
COOPER: Jeremy, I want to play an exchange between the judge and the Reddington, the defense attorney. When Reddington, he requested the judge to instruct the jurors and he was very specific in wanting them to be instructed more forcefully by the judge and the judge replies that he already did that yesterday. This is what they said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REDDINGTON: You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully and I'm asking you, what do you --
SULLIVAN: What do you want me to do? Get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection. I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I'm just given the instructions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: How unusual is that kind of an exchange?
JEREMY SALAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, sometimes defense attorneys can get a little aggressive. They certainly have to stay within the four corners of the law. And the judge is a little flippant as well, which that sometimes happens too. I think here you also had cameras and there's a little bit of theatrics that are born into this case just by the nature of how it's going and the public is seeing it.
And remember, at the same time, defense counsel Reddington knows that we may be trying this again and I'm going to play with public opinion. But this judge, based on what I saw, didn't do anything wrong. He did the right thing. he read the charge verbatim as required by law. He pulled the jury; he got the answers that were needed. And then what happened next? Reddington went up to the Supreme Court, had that one judge who did not say, I'm going to demand or command the lower court to or the trial court to re handle this, and then re ask those questions or delay deliberations.
She said quite the opposite, move forward, it was done right.
[20:10:46]
COOPER: Renato, as we said, the defense filed an emergency request with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking the court to order the judge in this case to further question the holdout juror, remove the person from the jury saying the juror was biased. Are you surprised that request was denied?
RENATO STABILE, JURY AND TRIAL CONSULTANT: I'm not surprised the request was denied, but I think you saw some really brilliant strategic lawyering from Kevin Reddington today. I think he has set up a great double jeopardy motion. I'm not so sure they can retry this case. He's going to say that the judge should have let this jury returned a verdict, should have removed this juror. And he raised the issue that I raised yesterday, which is the best way to get rid of a juror, is to allege that there was some sort of last night I said racial or gender bias. He took it a step further and cleverly said that this juror was biased because he was biased against Miss Clancy for her mental defect.
That is also a protected class. So, I think we're really overlooking the truly brilliant lawyering that went on today. And I think he has a good double jeopardy motion.
COOPER: Do you do you think there's a double jeopardy motion here.
BERGER: I don't.
SALAND: I don't I agree with you.
BERGER: Yes, I don't think so at all. I mean this situation, even though it is unique because it's one holdout juror and it's gotten so much national attention. This is not a unique situation to have a hung juror, to have to have a mistrial. And what appellate courts are very wary of is going in and second guessing a trial courts discretion. And here the trial court judge did what he needed to do. He followed the rules almost to the letter, read the instructions word for word. He was well within his discretion. There is not going to be an appeal. Theres not going to be a double jeopardy issue.
SALAND: Yes, I agree, and I ask, where is the bias? Where is the evidence of that? When you looked at the application that went to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, it laid out the legal foundation, but what was really lacking was light in weight was the substance to say, this is why these legal principles should apply. That didn't exist. And then when we heard that was not in the four corners of the proceeding afterwards, defense counsel, Reddington, making his arguments it was more of a personal attack on the juror, as opposed to saying there was a bias and here was the bias, and I'm going to explain that.
That doesn't go into an appeal, but it's telling in terms of the lack of that evidence.
COOPER: Renato, the defense attorney, was saying that, you know, this one juror robbed his client. Isn't the whole jury system and isn't it kind of designed for this? I mean, if is it wrong for one holdout juror to stick to whatever it is they believe?
STABILE: Look, it's not wrong and he realizes this. It's a jury of the people, by the people, for the people. And, you know, that's the system we have. But what he realized is that if he alleges bias, that is a reason to remove a juror. If a juror is deciding a case for some improper reason. And I agree with Jeremy, there wasn't sufficient evidence. He may try and develop the evidence now, but there was one really interesting line in the first paragraph of the motion where he said that this juror was identified by the foreperson as biased.
Now, we haven't exactly seen the note. I'm not sure exactly what that means or what the basis of it is, but if he can demonstrate that there was some sort of bias and not just a disagreement about the law or a misunderstanding about what reasonable doubt means, or, you know, just a disagreement about how to apply that standard. If it's truly biased, I think he would have had a really good motion. And, you know, I think there's a lot more that were going to see here.
COOPER: Yes, Renato Stabile, appreciate it, Jeremy Saland, I appreciate it, Berit Berger as well, thank you so much.
Coming up next, in addition to national headlines, this case has also ignited a social media frenzy, instigated online speculation and spurred conspiracy theories. CNN's Tom Foreman has more on that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have to put it all together. And when you do, the questions become very simple. Is Lindsay physically capable of doing what they're accusing her of?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): True crime fans like crime queen, court watchers and amateur sleuths like VSED 19 are flooding social media.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lindsay Clancy did not strangle her kids and we may now have proof of it.
FOREMAN (voice over): With a torrent of commentary on the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. The former nurse who was admitted to strangling her three children even as her lawyer says she is not criminally responsible because she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis.
A top theory she did not kill her children at all. Her then husband, Patrick, did.
Among those who have made that argument, a T.V. actress and reality star who later deleted this post.
[20:15:20]
LISA RINNA, ACTRESS: That isn't what a woman would do, they don't strangle.
FOREMAN (voice over): Testimony and video showed Patrick was not even in the house when the children were killed and his wife tried to kill herself. His attorney issued a statement saying, in part, the facts are indisputable. Patrick Clancy has suffered an unspeakable and unimaginable loss, compounded by patently false, defamatory and injurious public statements.
DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA: There is evidence that she was taking these severe drugs, and she had the psychosis and she had insomnia, and she was crying out for help.
FOREMAN (voice over): Some internet detectives have latched on to the idea of prosecutors or medical professionals hiding information about Lindsays care and mental issues. "The New Yorker's" Erin Obey has an idea about what's driving that.
EREN ORBEY, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, "THE NEW YORKER": The fact that Lindsay was roundly revered as not just a great mother, but an authority on infants, a well-regarded labor and delivery nurse made her a kind of potent symbol for advocacy.
FOREMAN (voice over): And on it goes ideas about outsiders sending secret signals to jurors, theories about inherent sexism against the accused woman's defense, and uproar over the whole notion that Lindsay Clancy just couldn't help herself.
Tom Foreman, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Next for us tonight, the parallels this case has with another notorious one, the capital murder trial of Andrea Yates, charged with drowning her five children 25 years ago.
And later, an incredible story of survival after being trapped nine days underground by the flooding. Nepal, two survivors found alive in a tunnel I visited a couple of days ago with hundreds more people still unaccounted for.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:21:19]
COOPER: Well, the trial of Lindsay Clancy has brought maternal mental health into the national spotlight. While we don't know what is next for her, we do know what has happened in cases like this before.
Twenty-five years ago, another mother, Andrea Yates, drowned her five children in a bathtub while suffering from postpartum psychosis. The same mental illness that Clancy's lawyers have stated she suffered from when she killed her young children. CNN's Randi Kaye has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Houston, Texas, June 2001, a mother calls 911 to report an emergency.
DISPATCHER: Are you having a disturbance? Are you ill or what?
ANDREA YATES: Yes. I'm ill.
DISPATCHER: Do you need an ambulance?
YATES: No, I need a police officer. Yes, send an ambulance.
KAYE (voice over): The caller, Andrea Yates. She calmly tells the 911 operator to send an ambulance after she drowned all five of her children in the bathtub. Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary ages six months to seven years old. Yates later confessed.
POLICE: After you drew the bath water. What was your intent? What were you about to do?
YATES: Drown my children. KAYE (voice over): As with the Lindsay Clancy trial, now, a legal battle ensued about her mental state and whether Yates was not guilty by reason of insanity. This was Yates being interviewed by a forensic psychiatrist weeks after her arrest.
YATES: The cartoon characters were talking to us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The cartoon character --
YATES: The characters saying, hey kids, stop eating so much candy.
KAYE (voice over): Before the murders, Yates had been hospitalized four times, attempted suicide twice, and was on and off psychotic medications. On the day she killed her children, she waited for her husband to leave for work. Then, one by one, drown them in the tub.
Remember, Lindsay Clancy's husband was out running errands she sent him on when she killed her three children. The prosecution argued Andrea Yates was mentally ill, but also that she knew what she was doing was wrong.
Her defense lawyer claimed she was in a psychotic state and believed she was saving her children from Satan and hell. I asked her lawyer about that in 2012.
KAY'S LAWYER: What loving mother would want their children to burn in hell.
KAYE (voice over): At her 2002 trial, the jury found Yates guilty and she was sentenced to life in prison.
KAYE (on camera): Later, it turned out that a key prosecution witness had lied about a non-existent episode of law and order, where a mother killed her children and then claimed insanity. The appeals court ruled that that may have influenced the jury's rejection of Yates insanity defense. And Yates was granted a new trial.
KAYE (voice over): Three years later in 2006, she was tried again. This time, Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity. She was committed to a Texas state psychiatric hospital and remains there today. When I met with her lawyer in 2012, he told me she was being treated for depression and taking medication for her bipolar disorder.
KAYE (on camera): I'm just curious, does she feel any guilt?
KAY'S LAWYER: She mourns and she feels a great deal of remorse, and perhaps she can equate that into guilt.
KAYE (voice over): Randi Kaye, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Joining us now is criminologist, behavioral analyst and attorney Casey Jordan. She teaches classes at Western Connecticut State University on women in the criminal justice system and on the insanity defense. So, I mean, it's -- I remember that case, obviously, so well. What parallels do you see between Clancy and Yates?
CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST AND BEHAVIORAL ANALYST: I mean, it's almost like a carbon copy case. You've got the signs. You've got the time in a mental institution. You've got the suicide attempts. You have all the warning signs.
I mean, Andrea Yates was on Haldol, one of the strongest antipsychotic drugs you could possibly give her. And yet she still had more children, which makes you wonder if she really wanted to have those children. Was she enough conscientious about her choices?
But the point is, Lindsay Clancy by comparison, not only had all the same signs, but was probably not even getting the level of mental health care that Andrea Yates was.
Apart from the fact that she was prescribed 14 drugs by all these different doctors, that whole idea that you can't plan when you're psychotic. Andrea Yates proves that you can. She had actually been drawing bath water a few days before that. Her mother-in-law was to arrive an hour after her husband left for work, and she killed all five of her children in that one-hour window, almost exactly like Lindsay Clancy did with her children.
[20:25:50]
COOPER: What do you make of the insanity defense?
JORDAN: Well, I mean, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, they call it not criminally responsible, but it's essentially an insanity defense. And there's different kinds. I mean, Andrea Yates was under the McNaughton Rule, which is very harsh. It's the right wrong test. Massachusetts, by comparison, puts the burden on the prosecutor to prove she's not insane, to prove she wasn't in a psychotic state.
COOPER: Which is a higher, more difficult bar?
JORDAN: Actually, no, they have to disprove insanity. There's a presumption that if the defense is saying she was in a psychotic state, you have to go with that. Unless they can prove that it really was murder.
So, by all accounts, the 11 jurors who, according to reports, thought she was not criminally responsible because she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis, heard that charge, followed the judge's instructions and said the prosecution did not dissuade them from the idea that she could have been insane.
COOPER: Do you think this could result in in maybe a plea agreement rather than a retrial?
JORDAN: I hope so. I mean, if there's a silver lining today, it's that district attorney Cruz, States Attorney Cruz, came and said he is not going to make commentary on when we will have a retrial. He's kind of holding his cards close to the vest and saying, perhaps we will sit at the table. I think this is what's going to happen.
If they could not win it now, they're not going to win it again in the future. They should sit with the defense and work something out where she goes to a mental hospital and perhaps agrees to X number of years, minimum, five years, whatever, and that she will be reviewed by a panel of psychiatrists before being, you know, ever released.
But Andrea Yates has been eligible to be released for years. Most people say she's perfectly normal now, as long as she's on her medication, but she never goes before the board by her choice because she feels like she's better off in that mental institution.
So just because you have a plea agreement that sends Lindsay Clancy for the mental health she definitely needs doesn't mean shell ever get out. It seems to be the right answer, given this mistrial.
COOPER: Casey Jordan, thank you so much, appreciate it.
JORDAN: Great to be here.
COOPER: Also ahead tonight, what the President said today about why he's building Washington monuments to himself instead of leaving it to others to do it when he's gone.
And next, a live report from Nepal. Two people rescued after being trapped for nine days in a tunnel underground.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO OF TWO PEOPLE RESCUED AFTER BEING TRAPPED FOR NINE DAYS IN A TUNNEL UNDERGROUND.)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:32:22]
COOPER: It is now going on 10 days since massive flooding tore through a river valley in the border between Nepal and China, killing more than 1,300 people, leaving thousands still unaccounted for, including hundreds inside hydropower tunnels throughout the area. This is one I visited near the Trishuli-3A project along the Trishuli River.
Now, when I was there, crews were working around the clock, trying any way they could to gain access to workers trapped in a tunnel. That's an image I took of them actually drilling, trying to drill into the tunnel. It took them a long time to even find the tunnel. It was so buried in mud and debris.
Well, today, they recovered two people alive and hope to find more. CNN's Hanako Montgomery is in Nepal.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HANAKO MONTGOMERY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After days of desperation, cries of joy.
(APPLAUSE)
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): This is the incredible moment two survivors were pulled from a tunnel in Nepal after being trapped for an agonizing nine days. The relief and exhaustion is palpable on 30-year- old Sanjay Sah's face. He was hauled out of the water-filled tunnel along with 45-year-old Kabir Maharjan on Friday morning. Both were rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Kathmandu.
From his hospital bed, Sah, a mechanical foreman, described how he got trapped.
SANJAY SAH, RESCUED FROM TUNNEL (through translation): My responsibility was to save everyone's life. After the accident happened, I could not run by myself. I had to save everyone. In the process of saving everyone, I told them that there was an accident in the big dam. I asked everyone to escape outside. Doing so, I wasted time, and I could not get out. I got trapped.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): When news broke of the rescue, we flew to the site.
MONTGOMERY: Right now, we're flying over Nepal towards the Trishuli-3A tunnel, where authorities believe that there might be still some survivors inside who are alive. They were able to rescue two individuals, and they're hoping the operations can continue and that they will have more luck getting more survivors out.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): As we approached, a deafening sound of heavy machinery drilling grew louder, and with it, a sense of hope. Nepali Army rescuers surrounded a hole where the two survivors were hauled out from earlier in the day. We watched as dozens of workers pulled at a piece of rope.
MONTGOMERY: They tell me that on the other end of this rope is someone who was stuck inside the tunnel. They don't know if this person is alive or is dead, but clearly there are dozens of workers right now trying to get this body out. And these people have been stuck inside for nine days now since that flash flood first hit Nepal.
[20:35:05]
We've spoken to the major general, the head of military operations in Nepal, and he told us that it was really difficult to find signs of life, especially inside this tunnel, which was one of the worst hits.
MONTGOMERY (voice-over): The Trishuli-3A hydropower station has a conduit that's a staggering 26 meters deep, an army general told me Thursday. The rescuers here explained that it's filled with water rather than mud, allowing them to use whitewater rafts to travel down the tunnels.
As we left the scene, oxygen tanks and body bags were being passed towards the opening. Authorities later said a body was extracted from the tunnel. Nepali authorities have previously warned there are more than 900 workers missing at multiple energy projects in the Himalayas after catastrophic flash floods swept through the area. They don't know how many are dead or still alive, but the search goes on with the hope that hundreds more families will be reunited.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Hanako, have they gotten any signs of life at any of the tunnels that they are working on as far as you know?
MONTGOMERY (on-camera): Yes, Anderson, we heard from a commander on the ground that they believe 40 individuals are still stuck inside the tunnel and they have been getting some signs of life. I mean the two men that they rescued earlier on Friday, they heard them speaking inside the tunnel and that's given a lot of rescuers some renewed hope that they might find some more survivors who are alive.
But Anderson, as you saw yourself when you were up at the Trishuli-3A tunnel, I mean these workers are going through really arduous conditions trying to locate these people who are stuck. They're traveling hundreds of meters underground to find these people, having to use whitewater rafts to travel farther down, having to dig through the mud with their hands.
So of course as each day goes on, since that flash flood first hit Nepal, hope does dissipate a bit. But of course, as I heard from rescuers on the ground there as well, they will continue looking for these individuals as much as possible so that more families can be reunited, Anderson.
COOPER: Yes. Hanako Montgomery, thank you so much.
I want to bring in Arnold Dix, he's been advising rescue teams remotely from Australia since the disaster struck. He's just arrived on the ground in Nepal. Arnold, obviously this incredible new about getting these two guys out, what more can you tell us about that rescue and the prospects for saving others?
ARNOLD DIX, DISASTER EXPERT: Yes, Anderson, the 3A, that was the one the government had asked me to focus mostly on remotely. And so, you -- well, you've been there, you've seen it. The fact that we got it right and we've now found it and we've got, if you like, proof of concept, we've got those two people out alive.
What I think is important to understand with that 3A rescue is the area I'm calling the Goldilocks zone, which is where I'm expecting conditions for life to be the best. We haven't got there yet. We're working our way towards the actual cavity where the power station is. And so the fact that we found survivors in the tunnel is really encouraging for us in the rescue.
So I'm heading up there today and also to some other sites to, you know, add my support. But certainly even for me, it's gone from that desktop part role in the team to now moving very much into this hands on role now. And perhaps, as you know, I mean, we did rescue 41 people after 17 days, just a bit further along the range here a couple of years ago. So from my point of view, we've got some really good areas where people could be and we're going to -- if they're there and they're alive, we're going to find them.
COOPER: And is the key to being alive at this stage access to, I mean, obviously oxygen, but water? I mean, is that enough or would they have some kind of food supplies?
DIX: Well, we think that -- I like to think that up in the power station itself in the zone, the Goldilocks zone, that's where their offices were. So if you imagine inside that mountain that you were looking for, there's an 11-storey building. And right at the top above the generators and turbines and everything, there's an area with their offices.
Well that would include like a little kitchenette. Maybe they had their lunches with them. So there might be some at least rations there. Water is not a problem. We've got water coming everywhere. As you know, that's the least of our problems. And we know that human beings can survive a long time if they've got access to water.
But I think there's something else to this, too, and that is the Nepali people have this rare combination of incredible generosity and kindness and yet very tenacious. And my mind goes to, for example, the Gurkhas --
COOPER: Yes.
DIX: -- who are incredibly famous. So the will to survive here is extraordinary in these harsh conditions. So it's that hope that's -- that unwillingness to die prematurely that will be making these men stay alive down there.
[20:40:07]
COOPER: One of the rescuers I was talking to from India was who you and I have talked about before was discussing what it's like for somebody trapped in a tunnel. The darkness that -- and how how panic can set in. These are people, though, who have worked in in these tunnels. Does that help?
DIX: Yes, it does help. So often around the world, when we're selecting people to work underground, we either put them into a simulation or training in absolute darkness to see what their psychological reaction is. And some people, I mean, they don't last 30 seconds and for others, they can do it.
But the challenge, I think, for the human being is -- and I know this is probably going a bit too far, but our eyes are actually part of our brain. So they're actually connected to our brain. They're not like an organ as such. It's actually that is our brain.
And so when you get trapped in the darkness of a tunnel, it's nothing. It's not like there's a little faint star or an LED flashing or anything. There's nothing. And it it causes or can cause quite a reaction psychologically because it's as if -- well, it's as if you're like dead. I mean, there's nothing there. It's like a nothingness like you wouldn't normally get.
So state of mind, state of hope. They have -- they don't know what day and night is. They haven't seen day and night now for a very long time. They -- yes, it's really, really difficult psychologically.
COOPER: So it's just incredible to think. I'm so glad you were there and you're doing just incredible, incredible things.
Arnold Dix, thank you so much. I really appreciate the time I was talking to you.
Up next, is it just fun and games or is cruelty the point? The White House creating a series of video games, including one in which players catch border crossers, another called Build the Wall. Also, the administration backtracks on the President's arch just a day after suggesting it's only a couple of weeks away from breaking ground. We'll explain ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:46:24]
COOPER: A new video game launched on the White House website allows players to capture migrants at the southern border. You can see on the screen there is the crossers appear behind the player in orange jumpsuits. Another game allows them to build the President's border wall, asking users to stack bricks and, quote, "hold the line" against a zombie border siege.
They're part of a series of games inspired by arcade classics like Snake and Tetris that the administration is using to tout its priorities. Other games prompt players to fly a bald eagle along the National Mall or fill their kids' Trump accounts by catching diamonds in cash.
White House official tells CNN, quote, "This is an effort to further contrast between a culture of fun and winning and the dark socialist vision Democrats have for America." Tetris has put up a statement on their Instagram page, writing, "At Tetris we believe in the power of connection and bringing people together, not dividing them." And in the caption they wrote -- they note, "We take copyright infringement very seriously."
Back in the non-virtual world, the administration appears to be backtracking from just 24 hours ago on the President's arch. To refresh your memory, just last night the Interior Secretary posted this, "We are pleased to announce that after a very long wait, over 125 years!, we are preparing to start over the next two-week period the excavation work necessary for the great triumphal arch and military observation deck." That was yesterday.
Late today in a court filing, government lawyers said this wouldn't be a groundbreaking, just an archaeological survey, and quoting now, "This activity is not construction or demolition in preparation for construction of an arch." That filing is part of the administration's answer to opponents of the arch who are seeking a temporary restraining order on the work.
Interior Department has not responded to CNN's questions, including on this digging, whatever it actually is. Then there's this on the President's motivation for all the renovation he's doing around the capital. Talking to New York Magazine, the President agreed that he was building these projects for himself, saying, quote, "Nobody will do it once I'm gone."
Joining us now is New York Times Investigative Reporter David Fahrenthold, whose latest piece details all the President's projects and where they stand. So David, is it clear to you what is happening with this arch, given what Burgum was saying about it on social media and now what the government lawyers are saying in court?
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's not. I mean, it is clear they're going to be building or digging something there, and it is clear that they see the digging as related to the future construction of the arch. The semantic difference here is, you know, Doug Burgum is saying we're starting the project and it's going to continue, and the lawyers in this case are saying, well, we're, you know, we're testing things out.
We're doing some testing to figure out if we could do it later, but we haven't decided if we're going to. The problem here is that they have a huge credibility problem on these projects. There's been so many times in which they've said they would not do something, and that includes demolishing the East Wing of the White House, and they've done it anyway. So I think, you know, judges have found it hard to deal with the administration when they seem to sort of say two things at once and sometimes do the thing that they promised they wouldn't do.
COOPER: Can you just remind people the expected price tag of the triumphal arch and who's footing the bill or, you know, both who the administration says is footing the bill and who may actually foot the bill?
FAHRENTHOLD: Right. I mean, we don't really know because they say they haven't even decided whether they're going to do it yet. I mean, but if you think about the size of this thing, it's 250 feet tall, 25 stories tall. It's huge. It's even bigger than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris or other famous arches it's trying to sort of emulate.
So it would be hundreds of millions of dollars. And the administration said maybe they will gather private donations for that. But remember, that's also what they said about the ballroom, the White House ballroom. And now it turns out the taxpayers would foot in the bill for a lot of that construction.
So, you know, if this project happens, it will be huge. And I don't know of any pool of donated money out there that is ready to start funding it, especially if they want to start building it soon.
[20:50:10]
COOPER: You and several of your colleagues did a deep dive going through a bunch of the President's projects through remaking D.C. in his, you know, golden image. Is there a common denominator in all of them in terms of process?
FAHRENTHOLD: Well, yes. I mean, the process is that the Trump administration's way has been to try to sort of outrun the courts. The courts are really the only bodies that have provided any sort of resistance to this. There are other commissions that are supposed to hold up and scrutinize and delay projects in the monumental core of Washington on the idea that once you change something, it's hard to change it back.
And those have really held up other projects for years in the past. But now Trump has stacked them with loyalists. They're speed, you know, they're speedrunning his projects. The courts are really the only things that have held up these projects. And think about the Kennedy Center, the efforts to close that, things like that.
The problem now is there's this recent Supreme Court decision which says that it basically made it harder for people who are unhappy about these projects to sue and actually win standing, get into court and try to stop them.
COOPER: And if the Supreme Court says he can build the ballroom, which it did, is that really all that matters? I mean, by that logic, is it any surprise that the President kind of burst through norms and does what he wants, assuming it's going to end up at the high court anyway?
FAHRENTHOLD: I think that's right. Either he's calculating that by the time it gets to the Supreme Court, he'll be able to say, well, look, there's no point in litigating this. I already built it. What, are you going to make me tear it down? Or, as you said, when it gets to the Supreme Court, the argument will be basically the same. Who has the right to stop me? You know, who can get into court to tell -- to stop me from -- you know, to basically even open the case to figure out whether I'm obeying the law?
And what the Supreme Court said in this case was this preservation group that was sort of trying to step in and stop him didn't have standing because they weren't directly injured by what President Trump was doing. This may change if the Democrats take Congress in the fall and they say, look, we as Congress are being injured because our powers and rights are being ignored. But until then, I think that these outside groups are going to have a hard time.
COOPER: Yes. David Fahrenthold, as always, thank you. Appreciate it.
Coming up, reaction after a White House official announced President Trump will take the newer Qatari-gifted Air Force One plane on a trip to Ireland later this month, despite previous security concerns with the aircraft.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:57:01]
COOPER: A senior White House official says President Trump's plans to take the Qatari-gifted 747 now used as Air Force One when he heads to Ireland later this month. The official says the aircraft is safe for non-hostile international travel, but leaving the NATO summit in Turkey back in July, as you know, the President seemed to switch to the old Air Force One. Then, we later learned, he ducked off it into a catering truck. You see it spot-shadowed in this video, which took him to a smaller jet.
Today, the President once again praised the new jet and had this to say about the upgrades it's going to get.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It has a lot of stuff, but to max it out, meaning you can go into any territory, it'll take about 60 days, and it's being sent in October.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, joining us now, Retired FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko. So, presumably, flying from D.C. to Ireland, much different threat picture, obviously, than flying from Turkey to England, still, does it make sense that the President's getting back on board the Qatari jet for this trip?
RICHARD KOLKO, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, I kind of agree with what they said here. This is a much less threat environment, and you've got to realize that Turkey, obviously, bordering Iran, very dangerous. The most dangerous evolution of flight is the takeoff, and any shoulder-fired missile from ground level up to 10,000 is a risk. Probably not a real issue that they have to face between the U.S. and Ireland, in this case.
COOPER: The Qatari jet hasn't been fully outfitted. The President said now it's going to take some 60 days. Before he had said that, there had been estimates that it would be much longer. Do you think taking it out on this flight, does that complicate the timeline for getting it up to the standard that would satisfy the Secret Service?
KOLKO: Great question. 60 days, certainly quick. It's taken them more than 10 years to build the other 747. So getting this one outfitted in just 60 days, I think, is very, very difficult. And sure, if it's getting its work done, which I believe is in Texas, any time you take it out and put it back into service, that'll slow down the installation of the new equipment.
But one of the things that made things more complicated here, Anderson, is there were two 747s. One of them was retired back in June. So they're down to one of the older aircraft, and now this new one. So they've got to play a little bit of movement here to keep an airplane ready to go for the President.
COOPER: This -- I mean, do you think this would have been unthinkable in previous administrations, Republican or Democrat, the safety of the President of the United States? I mean, it impacts, obviously, the continuity of government, the world economy, America's military posture. Would national security and law enforcement officials have found it acceptable to put a sitting President on a plane like this?
KOLKO: I think they would be happy if the President, every president would just do their job from the White House all the time. But the President is going to travel domestically and internationally. They've got responsibilities around the planet, as you said, with the diplomatic issues, shoring up the economy and showing the flags.
So they're always going to go. And the military and Secret Service and the intelligence communities can do everything they can to make sure he's as safe as possible everywhere he goes.
COOPER: The -- is it the Secret Service who takes the lead on gathering information about any potential overseas threats?
KOLKO: Well, a lot of that comes through the intelligence community as well. Certainly a lot of it funnels its way to the Secret Service, or all of it does, to see what action needs to be taken. But there are definitely different methods in the United States that gather this information, gather this intelligence, assess those threats, and they all have to be mitigated.
COOPER: Yes.
KOLKO: And they can work with the host countries as well depending on where they are.
COOPER: Richard Kolko, thanks.
That's it for us. The NewsNight with Abby Phillip starts now.
