Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Clancy Defense Attorney: One Juror "Refuses To Listen To the Law"; Vance On When Iran War Might End: "I Wouldn't Call It A War"; Trump Goes To Supreme Court Over Mail Ballot Changes; Feminist Icon & Activist Gloria Steinem Dies At 92. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 03, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:06]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, dramatic moments unfolding right now in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial.
Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.
As we come on the air, stunning developments in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts woman who is charged with strangling her three children to death. Just moments ago, the judge ordered the jury to continue their deliberations and giving them instructions about the meaning of reasonable doubt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH SUPERIOR COURT: It's not enough for the commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence.
This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All right? And with that, I'm going to ask you to resume your deliberations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. This latest development leaving Clancy's defense attorney visibly agitated and leading him to request that a juror be removed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have
further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. CNN's Jean Casarez is outside of court for us, and we are also joined by former federal prosecutors Alyse Adamson and Neama Rahmani, excuse me, and jury and trial consultant Robert Hirschhorn.
So, Jean, let me start with you. What happened there?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It came out of the blue. First, I want to tell everybody that media and the public, they're just lined up next to the courtroom now. Nothing's happening, but everyone wants to be ready. If something does happen, they get a seat in that courtroom.
But the two assistant district attorneys that prosecuted this case have just gone into the courtroom. Doesn't mean anything, but I'm just telling you what happened. Now, what happened earlier, just minutes ago, was extraordinary. The camera did not catch a lot of it because it was at sidebar. But our producer is in the courtroom and caught it all.
And initially, both the attorneys on both sides, defense attorney and the prosecutor, went up to the judge and Keith Reddington, the defense attorney, was absolutely livid. Kevin Reddington was livid up there. He was slamming papers down. He was animated, talking to the judge, the prosecutor demure and just sort of agreeing with the judge. We didn't know what was happening.
So then the jurors, one by one, are brought into the courtroom. They're sworn in, and they just, like, give a one-line answer, it seemed. And then they walk out. All 12 of them did that. And then they were all brought in. And the judge read to them, just as you were saying, the instruction on reasonable doubt.
Still a little mystery. Well, then they go back in to deliberate, and that's what they're doing right now.
Then we heard the truth. Then now we know what is happening. And there's two divergent sides here. The defense argued, our producer is going back into the courtroom right now, so we may be moments away from some action in that courtroom.
But Kevin Reddington stood up in argument outside the presence of the jury saying there is one juror that's a holdout and he or she will not follow the law of reasonable doubt. Prosecutors stood up and said, well, you were asking every juror sworn whether they could follow the law up there at the bench and they're back deliberating right now. So I think we can read that they all said they could follow the law.
So, you have two divergence beliefs here. And the judge said, "I can't do any more than this." But Lindsay Clancy was up at the bench when the jurors were coming in. And our producer says she was inches away from each and every juror. The defendant in this case who has been charged with triple homicide was there right next to the jurors as they were swearing an oath and responding to something the judge was asking them, we believe, can you follow the law?
HUNT: Remarkable. Okay.
[16:05:00]
So, Alyse, can you walk us through the concept of reasonable doubt? I mean, we heard from the judge there explaining what he told the jury. What did you take away from how he framed it and what it means?
ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah, and this really is a stunning development. It is very clear that the defense believes that this jury is really leaning toward an acquittal in their favor. And I know we've just mentioned one holdout. Of course, we don't actually know the split that is in the deliberative process. It seems like it's one person.
I think the judge is correct on his instructions in the law. They read a juror instruction on reasonable doubt, and that is what was communicated to the jury. It's important that it doesn't mean it's against all doubt. It is a doubt based on reason.
I know locally here in the District of Columbia, one of the things that the jury is instructed is that if they firmly believe in all of the evidence, then they can convict. But since it seems like the jury is, the majority of the jury is actually heading toward an acquittal, this individual probably needed to be reminded what the evidentiary burden is of the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution, not on the defense.
If there are evidentiary gaps, if they have not had the linkage, if they have not proven their case, well then, the jury must acquit.
HUNT: So, Neama, the jury coming back into the courtroom, it seemed to leave the defense attorney visibly agitated, and then he called in public for one juror to be removed because he says this person is refusing to follow the law.
How do you interpret that reaction, and what does it say about how you think things might shake out?
NEAMA RAHMANI, PRESIDENT, WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Kasie, Alyse is absolutely right. This is a defense leaning jury. Kevin Reddington smells blood in the water. There's one holdout and it's one holdout for the prosecution.
Just like last Friday when the jurors asked to see the evidence of the pills and the knife, that's evidence of mental illness and suicide that favors the defense. When the jurors come back and they said one juror isn't following the law and reasonable doubt, guess what? That is a defense jury.
So now Reddington sees an opportunity, if he gets this juror removed, he may get an acquittal. We're not talking about a mistrial anymore. An acquittal would be extraordinarily remarkable.
Obviously, it's not criminally responsible. She would go to a mental facility. But when you have your client looking at the very real possibility at first degree murder, life in Massachusetts State Prison, and now you have what seems to be the majority of the jurors frustrated with the minority, maybe it's one, maybe it's more than one.
This is a stunning development for the defense. Judge Sullivan made the right ruling if he removed this juror, just because she couldn't or he couldn't agree with the others that would be highly problematic would be one of the rare grounds for the government to actually potentially appeal. So the judge did the right thing
The question is, are these 11 or are these slightly less than 11 going to be able to convince the holdout juror? How much longer are they going to go because we know Kasie if they come back a third time and they say they hopelessly deadlocked, in Massachusetts, the judge has no choice but to declare a mistrial.
HUNT: All right. So I just want to let everybody know we are watching now live pictures of what is going on right now inside the courtroom, and the jury is being called back into the room.
So, we are going to keep an ear on this here. in what could be a critical moment.
And Robert, you, of course, are a jury consultant. And forgive me if I have to interrupt you because we need to listen to the proceedings. But do you concur with what the other folks have been saying on this panel? What would you add?
ROBERT HIRSCHHORN, JURY CONSULTANT: Yeah, I want to be clear. It's not going to be an outright acquittal. It's going to be based on -- it's not going to --
HUNT: Hold on, Robert. Just pause for a second. Let's listen to the court and I'll have you weigh in.
SULLIVAN: Everybody, what I'm going to do is excuse you until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, all right? And then, I'll speak to you at that point tomorrow morning. So remember the instructions that I've given you over and over again, stay away from any coverage about this, they'll talk about this case, and I will see everybody tomorrow morning. OK?
HUNT: All right. Jean Casarez, let me just bring you in on this briefly before we go back to Robert. Clearly, they said they seem to have dismissed the jury for the day. What does this tell you?
CASAREZ: This tells me they're still deliberating and there has not been another note. They are not saying there is a verdict. They are not saying that that they cannot reach unanimity. And so, they're coming back tomorrow.
It's -- so it doesn't appear that if there is one lone juror, that that lone juror has folded to the side of the other 11.
[16:10:04]
It looks like that hasn't happened at this point or they would have announced a verdict. So, tomorrow morning, new day, they started deliberating a week ago today. And so, we're well over 35 hours, I believe, of deliberation at this point. But they're coming back tomorrow morning.
HUNT: There you have it. So, Robert, I'm sorry. I interrupted you so that we could listen to court. Please do continue. And I'm curious to know if you think that the defense attorney will get what he's asking for, which is for this one juror to be removed.
HIRSCHHORN: No, I don't -- because the juror said they can follow the law or they understood the law.
Here's the thing. Your audience has got to be wondering, how could this happen? How does a juror like this get on? And the answer is really simple. There's two ways. Either it's a stealth juror, that's a juror that comes in with an agenda, or it's a juror that wasn't adequately questioned during the jury selection or the voir dire, the questioning process.
You've got somebody on there that's a problem. We've all heard of the movie "12 Angry Men". Well, this is 12 pissed off jurors because they're coming back tomorrow.
They're hoping tonight the juror will reconsider and change their mind. I've never -- I rarely see that happen. I don't think it's going to happen here.
HUNT: Robert, when you hear him say there's a juror that's not following the law, what does that mean to you? I mean, for those of us who are not attorneys, it's a little confusing.
HIRSCHHORN: Yeah, it's easy. What's going on is the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They not only have to prove the charge, they also have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the affirmative defense of the mental illness, all right, the not guilty by reason of insanity. And if they cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, and what's going on is there are jurors telling this one juror, here's what my reasonable doubt is. If I have a reasonable doubt, I can't vote. any way except not guilty. That's what's going on in this jury room.
HUNT: All right. So, Alyse, if this does end up being a mistrial, how likely is it that the state retries it? And what does -- what does that look like in terms of difficulties for the prosecutors, considering how high profile and emotional and lengthy this trial has been?
ADAMSON: Yeah, Kasie, that's a wonderful question. I mean, if I was the prosecution, I would be asking myself a lot of hard questions right now, especially with these representations. If the split and in the likelihood, in the event of a mistrial, you would learn the split, you'd go back and talk to the jury.
If it really is 11 to one in favor of an acquittal or not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth is going to have to really ask whether or not they can try this case again on this first- degree murder They would have to ask whether or not they want to present the case in the same way.
Now, if you look at other high profile Massachusetts cases like Karen Reed, they do tend to retry cases after mistrial. I say that, but if the split is 11 to one, that's a little bit of a different circumstance because this jury really had a reasonable doubt.
So, do they believe they can firm it up with new expert testimony? Could they present it in a different way? I think a likely scenario was perhaps a plea offer would be extended. that there was not a favorable plea offer extended at the beginning of this case. Maybe that is how it would resolve.
But I don't think that the prosecution would retry the case in the manner in which they have here. And if I was the defense, I would be feeling very good right now about my chances going forward.
HUNT: So, Neama, can I get you to weigh in on that, too? I mean, are retrials, do they typically benefit one side or the other, defense or prosecution, and obviously this one is unique.
RAHMANI: Well, the retrial, the conventional wisdom is that it benefits the prosecution. It certainly can't get much worse than 11-1 in favor of not criminally responsible. That's where we're at.
I can tell you what should happen and what will happen. What should happen is if it's 11-1, they should walk away. What will happen is they absolutely will not.
There's too much political pressure. You have three dead children. There's no world where the D.A. here doesn't retry this case offers a deal because this is how you get vote out of office if you're a district attorney.
And by the way, a week ago, six days ago, I went on X and I predicted a not criminally responsible or a mistrial overwhelmingly in favor of the defense, and that's what we have. But there's just too much political pressure there's too much attention on this case everyone in the world is talking about this, Kasie, on social media, on traditional media, this case will absolutely be retried.
I think the prosecution will do better. I think they learn from their mistakes they continue to get better, the commonwealth, throughout the course of the trial. But I can't see any world where they don't retry the case because then we're not talking about a mental institution, we are talking about Lindsay Clancy walking out of that courtroom or wheeling herself out of that courtroom a free woman. That is not going to happen. There's no world where any prosecutor is going to allow that.
HUNT: All right. Thanks to all of you for joining us today on this breaking news. Obviously, this story's going to continue for at least another day or so.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the new midterm messaging from the White House. Vice President J.D. Vance on defense today, blaming Democrats for the rising cost of living and refusing to give a timeline on when Americans might again see lower gas prices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Gas, frankly, could have been much, much higher were it not for our efforts. But I'm not going to make a promise about when it's going to return to $3.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:00]
(BEGN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: So, when you're running a congressional race, especially in a very tight race, you have so many things that are local that you're focused on. We can make the argument as much as possible that if you elect congressional Democrats, you're going to see higher prices, worse energy, higher taxes, and more fraud.
The president and I can go and make that argument on national TV. We don't need a congressman in a tight race to be there in all cases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Vice President J.D. Vance today insisting he's not concerned that a number of Republican candidates say they may skip next week's unusual midterm convention. That may be in part because the administration's war with Iran has made this election tougher for many Republicans, especially those in battleground districts.
Today, however, the Vice President insisted that the Iran war is over, but also somehow that he can't say when it will end.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Will this war be over by the time of the midterm elections?
VANCE: Well, Kaitlan, again, I wouldn't call it a war. Right now, there is no active shooting. I recognize there have been places where this has flared up. Major combat operations, again, major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.
When you ask when will this end, you're asking me a question like, when will the Iranians stop shooting at ships? I think the reality is I don't know the answer to that question. You would have to ask the Iranians.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
CNN contributor and host of "The New York Times'" "The Interview", Lulu Garcia Navarro; CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg; CNN political commentator and former Biden White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield; and former Republican congressman from Michigan, Peter Meijer.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
So, Congressman, were it you? You had a tough race in a swing district. You're a politician. If you're in that situation today, do you show up to this thing in Dallas?
PETER MEIJER, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM MICHIGAN: I probably keep my power dry in terms of the funds that would otherwise be expended. There are definitely a lot of folks who are in safe seats who the $25,000 in their leadership packs is probably better spent going to folks who are in those tough seats.
But I think it really depends on what type of seat you're in, because there are some folks who are in swing seats where the swing variable are squishy moderates and independents, college educated suburbanites. And then there are folks in seats where the squishy folks or sorry, the swing variable are going to be hardcore Trump voters that you need to have show up.
And so, you want to be on a stage. You want to be close to the president to get that latter category out. That makes a ton of sense.
HUNT: Yeah. Jonah Goldberg, I mean, what does it say to you that there's a lot of people looking at what's going on in Dallas, president saying, you know what, I'm out? And when you listen to J.D. Vance try to explain himself on Iran, it's hard to understand?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I mean, what we're going to see with Trump going around for rallies as well, it's going to be very interesting to see where people want him there and where they think Trump can help and where he stays away because he can't help. And in terms of -- and it's the same thing with the weird midterm convention thing.
On the war thing, I'm fastidious about this. we're at war whether or not he says he likes the word or not because we're doing a naval blockade of Iran and that is an act of war. One of the games they play is they like to say it's not a war, the war is over in part because they want the narrative to go away and for people to talk about other things, but in part because there's this messy stuff about the war powers resolution and all that kind of stuff, and if you say it's a war for longer than X amount of time, then you have constitutional obligations that they're just trying to skirt.
I don't know which narrative is more important to J.D. Vance, but both are false because we're at war with Iran. KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's also striking to me it was, especially for an administration that so prides itself on delivering a message of strength and asserting American strength around the world. It's a very weak frame there for him to say that it's up to the Iranians to decide when a conflict that the United States initiated and the United States shot first in to say, look, I have no idea when the Iranians are going to stop. And well, of course, I would never trust them. But ultimately, they make the decisions about whether they're shooting at ships or not.
If I'm -- again, if I'm the average voter, if I'm a squishy middle voter, as the congressman was talking about, and I'm already mad about the war in Iran because I'm paying for it at the gas pump, I don't understand why we're doing it, and the administration's not clear about what their goals are, and their story keeps shifting -- if I hear that, I say, you ran on saying we weren't going to do this kind of thing. Now you're telling me that we don't even have the wherewithal to finish what we started? It's weak.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know how we know we're at war? You see the gas prices ticking up. That's how people understand it.
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah, certainly.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Whatever J.D. Vance does say or doesn't say, whatever we say here, it really doesn't matter. They understand cause and effect. And so, the fact of the matter is, whether the administration likes it or not, we are at war, and it's a war we're not winning right now.
MEIJER: Gas prices are back to kind of the median where they were in 2022, which is too high.
[16:25:02]
It shouldn't be that high.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But aren't you guys always complaining about what happened under Biden in 2022? So, I mean, I wouldn't say that that's like a benchmark --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: I will say it is a little rich when Democrats complain about gas prices given so much of their party platform is committed to essentially destroying the oil and gas industry and making it so highly taxed that it is unaffordable.
BEDINGFIELD: We pumped more oil on the Biden administration than we had under any --
MEIJER: Very grudgingly.
Obama later on came to tout the wonderful shale revolution, but he only took credit in hindsight. BEDINGFIELD: Well, we certainly support clean energy, and we do support alternative methods, which will help bring prices down.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And also, have you noticed how hot the summer is? I don't know if anyone noticed how hot the summer's been, but I certainly haven't. I don't know that is, could it be climate change? Wouldn't it be nice if we had solar and wind energy? The president doesn't like windmills.
MEIJER: Solve climate change. We might need China to kind of get their act together. But there's a bigger question here on kind of the war -- the endless war argument that is always thrown back at this administration, that you ran on ending the endless wars, no more forever wars.
I think that's one of the reasons why the vice president, when he hears the word war, it's too attached to that. The reality is the downside of the endless war is occupation. It is us being stuck. It's us in a position where the strategic benefit has been way, way, way, way outweighed by the strategic cost in terms of American lives, treasure, and overall strategic failure that we saw with both Iraq and Afghanistan.
With Iran, this is where, yes, there is a short-term cost in terms of higher gas prices, apart from gas being probably anywhere from $75 to $1.25 more than it would have been under sort of the status quo.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Peter, you and I, you served in Iraq, and I covered it, and you know, you and I know, you and I know --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: That is my biggest problem, is that it changes the outcome of the Middle East together.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: You and I both know, the wars don't start --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: I didn't interrupt you, Lulu. I'm trying to finish my argument here, that if this changes that calculus in the direction of that region for, if not forever, at least for the short to near term, that will be a massive win to the U.S., it'll change the global order, it will be more than worth a dollar more for --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The concern here is and you and I both know having been part of the conflicts in the Middle East and beyond, that we are six months into something that was meant to last weeks, and every war starts with very narrow and specific aims. And the problem is they did not know how they were going to get out of it, and here we are. And so, the issue here is to pretend that somehow this is a better war or a different war or they're not boots on the ground or et cetera, et cetera. The fact is that we are in a conflict that we do not know how to get out of.
MEIJER: It's a simple way to get out of this. Right now, we're not really in it. We are surrounding that region. The Iranians can choose to blockade and we will continue to have our shadow fleet kind of going around protecting and getting, you know, basically close to 70 to 80 percent of the prewar flow of oil through the straits. That blockade has been economically ruinous through a country that's already suffered a trillion dollars worth of economic damage over this conflict.
I mean, we are not in -- the framing of us having the weaker hand is great to give the Iranians the cover to actually make concessions, but it's just not reality.
BEDINGFIELD: But what strategic aim has the second phase of this achieved, to your kind of --
MEIJER: The second phase being this last six months.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, being last six months. The first phase, Operation Midnight Hammer, the argument that they've obliterated their nuclear program, which clearly was not true because then one of the reasons for entering into this second phase was, well, we got to continue to ensure that they don't have a nuclear weapon.
So, clearly, that wasn't true. But even if I grant you that, to your point about if this conflict tips the region in favor -- it has strengthened the hand of the regime in Iran because it showed them that they have leverage in the strait that they didn't have before the conflict.
HUNT: We're way down in the strategic weeds on this right now, which I think underscores why this is such a political problem for Donald Trump in the midterm elections, because usually if you're explaining things in a campaign, you're losing, to be clear. I think somebody very smart gave us that adage.
I want to talk for a second about J.D. Vance, OK, and because we saw him this was the first press briefing since Karoline Leavitt stepped down 40 days or so. They put him in front of the podium.
He was asked about his own presidential aspirations. He was asked about some of the other candidates as well. He dodged them fairly artfully.
But the vice president has, in recent days, he appeared on the Bryce Crawford podcast. And it's a contrast between the person we saw at the podium today and what we saw on the podcast. And I think it's relevant to the way J.D. Vance might pan out as a presidential candidate.
Let's watch that. And then I'm interested in Jonah's reaction.
[16:30:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I tend to think, like, while I wouldn't be shocked if we are living in the end times, what I'm trying to focus on is doing as much of God's work as possible right now. And if that leads to the end times, okay. And if that leads to, you know, us building a better world that thrives and survives for a very long time after I'm gone, that's great too. I just think you've got to kind of try to have an attitude of the end times may be coming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jonah, what does this say about the kind of candidate J.D. Vance would be?
GOLDBERG: It says that he has -- he has a theory of a faction of the GOP that he can ride to get the nomination. And I've seen theological defenses of what he was saying, and I've seen theological condemnations of what he was saying. I'm not going to -- last name's Goldberg. I don't want to parse it too closely. I'm against immanentizing the eschaton, and I'll explain that after we turn off the cameras.
That said, the more related to this question is he was asked about his relationship with Tucker Carlson. And Tucker Carlson has been saying virulently grotesque anti-Semitic things for months now. And he says, I'm not going to distance myself from my friend. I have my disagreements.
Tucker has actually called Trump the Antichrist because of coming on Israel's side and all of this stuff. And I take backseat to no one on how I think Abdul Sayed should have to explain his relationship to Hasan Piker and it's completely fair to ask him about it. It's also completely fair to ask J.D. Vance about a guy I've known for 30 years who's turned into a virulent anti-Semite that he refuses to renounce or really criticize other than the sort of boilerplate we disagree on a few things.
HUNT: All right. Well, it's going to be an interesting primary no matter what.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, we've got breaking news from the Supreme Court. What the president is asking the justices to let him do as we get closer to the midterms.
Plus, we'll talk to Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam as a key witness in the Oversight Committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation is a no-show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I would hold him in contempt right now. This is the first time, of all the people we've brought in, of all the powerful billionaires and political people we brought in for interviews and depositions, this is the first time anyone's filed suit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:53] HUNT: All right, breaking news. The Trump administration has filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court asking the justices to give the Postal Service sweeping power to withhold the delivery of mail-in ballots. This sets up a major showdown at the nation's highest court two months out from election day and just one day before North Carolina sends out the first absentee ballots in the nation.
Joining me now in THE ARENA, Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyan from Virginia. He sits on the House Oversight Committee.
Congressman, thank you so much for being here.
And of course, the Oversight Committee this week spoke to a whistleblower at the USPS about some of what's been going on behind the scenes there around the president's executive order. Considering what the Trump administration is asking for from the Supreme Court here, what is your reaction, especially based on what you know from that whistleblower?
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): We're so glad that whistleblower came forward. We're not surprised, right? Trump has been saying that he's going to try to undermine this election because he's worried about losing control of Congress in the midterms because if we have a free and fair election, he will.
And so, we've launched an investigation in the Oversight Committee. If the courts do the right thing, they will reject. Trump's petition there. And the reality is the reason why he's trying to make voting by mail harder, even though he does it himself, is because -- well, he doesn't want people to vote in this election. He wants to make sure there's as little participation as possible because the more participation there is, the worse it is for him.
HUNT: What is your understanding, based on what you've heard from this whistleblower, of what sort of apparatus may now exist at the Postal Service that didn't previously, that could potentially cause interference with ballots?
SUBRAMANYAM: Well, the reality is they want to implement new systems there that are unnecessary and don't work right now. And so, the USPS doesn't have the ability to implement them. The current systems we have work. They sent out ballots on time the last couple of elections.
We had an election in Virginia last year, and everything went right. Even many, many Republicans voted in that election. We also had a referendum vote in April. And many, many Republicans voted in that and everything went fine.
And so don't fix what's broken. And the reality is, I don't, you know, what I'm talking about. The reality is that we need to stop Trump from interfering in these elections.
HUNT: Let's talk a little bit about the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, which of course is in the purview of the Oversight Committee. And earlier in the show, we showed James Comer, the chairman of the committee, very angry that Leon Black, the financier, the billionaire investor, declined and has sued, in fact.
Can you explain who Leon Black is in the context of this investigation and why he did what he did and why you want to hear from him?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, Leon Black is a powerful billionaire. and he was good friends with Jeffrey Epstein. He funded Jeffrey Epstein to the tune of $180 million, right? And survivors have said that Leon Black was particularly brutal with women.
[16:40:00]
And so, this is a guy who has a lot of questions to answer, and so he was supposed to show up today. We had a subpoena issued to him to show up today and provide documents. He did neither of those things and said he sued our committee because he thinks that we're just another company that he can buy, but we're the United States Congress and so, we will hold him in criminal contempt and he is violating the law right now.
HUNT: When do you anticipate you'll take mixed steps? And we heard Comer say there that this contempt will go forward. You expect what timeline?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, I heard him say that. I thought we should have had the vote today. I mean, we're all here today. People are flying out today. We should have had the vote the second Leon Black didn't show up.
But I want us to have that vote as soon as possible. I think the next opportunity would be when we're back in a couple of weeks. But if we're going to hold the Clintons in contempt, right, for far less, then we should be holding Leon Black in contempt of Congress.
HUNT: One other thing I wanted to ask you about, your office has said that you received a letter indicating that at some point the FBI was listening in to phone conversations that you had, not because they were investigating you, but as part of something bigger. Can you explain exactly why this is occurring and what concerns you may have?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, the FBI started investigating Senator Louise Lucas because she was one of the spearheading people of the referendum vote that we had in April, the redistricting referendum in Virginia. And so, leading up to that, they started wiretapping all of her conversations.
And I have no trust in the FBI or the DOJ right now. They are politically motivated, and they say that they work for the president, right? And so, they're wiretapping her conversations. And so, when I called her the few times that she and I talked, they were listening in on those conversations.
So, I have a lot of questions about why they were doing that and was it politically motivated, given the timing, the few months before a referendum election on redistricting that Republicans didn't want. They have a lot of questions to answer. HUNT: How exactly do you think -- or what might their political concerns have been that might have motivated them to do this, in your view?
SUBRAMANYAM: Well, they have questioned, they have investigated her for a variety of reasons that they claim are not politically motivated. I believe they are. The timing of them is very suspicious.
And again, my conversations with her were very simple, but they were listening in on them. They sent me a letter in the mail after the fact saying that they were doing that. But to me, we saw what Republicans did when they found out that people were listening in on their conversations, right, they wanted millions of dollars in restitution.
Well, I'm not asking for that, but what I am asking is for this FBI and DOJ to stop making politically motivated investigations and also explain to me why they're listening in on my conversations with state senators in Virginia.
HUNT: All right. And finally, before I let you go, you, of course, represent Loudoun County, which has become known as Data Center Alley at a time when this is exploding as an issue across the country. Was it a mistake to let so many be built in your district, and what should Democrats be doing about it now?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, if my congressional district were a country, it'd be top five in the world for number of data centers, and that's created a power crisis. They're building power lines through schools and homes. We have to pay the bills as ratepayers, and so our utility bills have skyrocketed, and the backup diesel generators cause pollution.
There's so many things happening that are causing a lot of pain for our community, and so, enough is enough. They want it to stop, and we should be the reason why other communities should be suspicious of data centers and be working with them on making sure that if they're going to build a data center there, they better pay for their own power and they better put the community first.
HUNT: All right, Congressman Suha Subramanyam, thank you very much for joining us. Really appreciate it.
SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA remembering an icon of the feminist movement as tributes continue to pour in for activist Gloria Steinem.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:13]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLORIA STEINEM, FEMINIST ICON & ACTIVIST: Because I'm recognizable, I get this great, enormous reward of hearing stories of how people's lives have changed. And at that moment, when I'm listening to that person tell me that, I often think to myself, if only this, it would have been enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The face of women's rights for more than half a century, Gloria Steinem has passed away at the age of 92.
Through her relentless advocacy, Steinem transformed American culture from the boardroom to the bedroom. She coined the phase "reproductive freedom", and she created "Ms. Magazine" in the 1970s, a magazine by, for, and about women that put abortion, sexual harassment, and domestic violence on its front cover.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: Ten years the magazine has been in publication, huh?
STEINEM: Right.
LETTERMAN: Is that a surprise to you?
STEINEM: Yes, it's a big surprise because when we started, everybody said, "Oh, we'll give it six months."
LETTERMAN: Yeah, because not only a magazine dealing solely with women probably was risky in those days, new magazines, period, come and go, don't they?
STEINEM: No, that's right. The mortality rate on new magazines is pretty high. And the idea of a feminist magazine was really unheard of. People kept saying, well, maybe there are 10 crazy folks on the West Coast and 12 more on the East Coast.
LETTERMAN: Yeah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Well, that magazine is still publishing all these years later. And the executive editor of "Ms. Magazine", Kathy Spillar, joins our panel.
Kathy, what a legacy. How are you remembering Gloria today?
KATHY SPILLAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS. MAGAZINE: For her kindness, for her brilliance, for her generosity of spirit, and really for making sure that everyone knew, especially feminists across the country and around the world, that despite the setbacks, you don't give up.
[16:50:03]
You keep fighting forward, which is what she did for all of this time. She never got discouraged. She always saw each attack on our fundamental rights and each setback as just another challenge. and is indicative of the progress we made.
She kept saying, you know, there wouldn't be a back clash if we hadn't made progress. So her optimism and her hope and really her generosity of spirit.
HUNT: So tributes have obviously been pouring in to her from all sorts of figures, including Hillary Clinton, who said one of her greatest gifts was her ability to listen. And I know you've said something similar. Why was that her greatest gift?
SPILLAR: Because she really heard people when she listened, and she taught all of us to listen to stories and to the problems that people were encountering, and especially women and girls, to be sure that we were reflecting these challenges and these problems in the coverage that "Ms." was providing.
So many women have told me over time, and I know they did, Gloria, as well, that picking up that first issue of "Ms." for them made them realize they weren't alone, that it wasn't just them feeling sort of out of place and why the world wasn't working for them like it was for their older brother or for a man in the workplace who got promoted when she got left behind.
But understanding that it isn't them, it is society the way it's structured. It's where institutions are structured. It really did change women's lives. There's just no question. And that goes on because we keep bringing out yet new ideas, new -- confronting new problems. and helping feminists figure out what's got to be done to keep going forward.
HUNT: Yeah. Kathy, stand by for me. I want to expand our conversation to include our panel here.
And, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, how are you remembering Gloria Steinem today? Because a lot has changed, and some of it changed again since she founded this magazine.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah. I had the pleasure of sitting with her for a little bit at an event a few years ago, and she still had sort of moral and righteous anger. And my favorite quote of hers is the very famous one, The truth will set you free, but first it piss you off.
And that is the rallying cry, I got to tell you, of every woman.
(LAUGHTER)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And she really embodied that, which is that all the things that she thought were unjust and unfair, she was able to channel that into a movement that brought in everybody. It wasn't just about a certain section of womanhood. It was about all women.
And she wanted to bring everyone into that movement, and I think that is her most powerful legacy. When she started, I wouldn't be able to start a business by myself without my husband signing for it. I wouldn't be able to -- we've got a --
HUNT: Forget a business, you wouldn't be able to take a credit card out.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Get a credit card or a bank loan. I mean, this is how far we've come, but also, at the end of her life, she knew that the progress is -- you know, cyclical things move forward and they move back. And of course, she fought so hard for reproductive rights only to see them dismantled.
HUNT: The jobs decision.
Kate?
BEDINGFIELD: She fought to give women choice. She fought to give women choice in the way that they were able to live their lives, not just in terms of reproductive health, although certainly that, but in terms of professional options, in terms of not always having to be subjugated to the opinion or the requirements of men in the workplace.
She took on at a time when women were prevented from making these choices. She stood up and said I am going to bring as Lulu said I'm going to bring women together, I'm going to be inclusive and we're going to channel that power into making change.
And women of my generation stand on her shoulders absolutely in being able to have the choices that we have and she -- I think another thing that's really powerful about her just personally I mean there was such a fearlessness to her activism but you know she was also somebody who personally hated public speaking and didn't feel particularly comfortable in front of a crowd and really had to push herself to do it and wound up becoming one of the iconic speakers, leaders, political activists of her generation and mine, frankly, and I think overcoming that fear, there's real motivation in that. That's a really powerful thing to be able to do.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And her rise, if you think about when it happened, it happened as women were going into the workplace in huge numbers for the first time. And so, her movement really was so important to the -- all the way that we now inhabit our working lives.
So, Gloria Steinem, rest in power, yes.
[16:55:03]
HUNT: All right, Kathy Spillar, thank you very much for bringing your perspective to us. Very grateful to have you on the show.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Thanks, my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here today. Thanks to all of you at home for joining us as well.
Don't forget, you can always stream THE ARENA Live. Catch up whenever you want to. It's all in the CNN app. Just scan the QR code below.
You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. Follow us on X and Instagram. We are @TheArenaCNN.
Of course, don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD", anchored by Phil Mattingly, starts right now.
