Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Defense Calls Lindsay Clancy's Sister, Mom as First Witnesses; Rep. Jeffries: I Don't Support the DSA Agenda; Democratic Party Tries to Navigate Surge of Progressive Left Wins; Meta Heads Back to Court in Landmark Multi-State Trial. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired August 17, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: It's now the defense's turn to present its case in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. She's the Massachusetts mom accused of killing her three young kids. And for the first time, we're hearing from her family, including her mom, who described a moment that she says was especially troubling.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA MUSGROVE, LINDSAY CLANCY'S MOTHER: One particular evening that was disturbing to me was that, I mean, she was afraid, she was afraid to be alone. And she actually asked if she could sleep with me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When was that?

MUSGROVE: That was late November, early December.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did she indeed sleep with you on that occasion?

SANCHEZ: She did.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: CNN's Brynn Gingras has been following this case. Brynn, what more can you tell us?

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, so this is the defense's first witnesses. Like you said, we're hearing from the mother of Lindsay Clancy, her sister, people she worked with at the hospital, and all have been describing how Lindsay Clancy's condition really just deteriorated when she was being put on medication after the birth of her third child, before the killings of their three children. And you saw that moment there.

The mother, you know, at one point having a really emotional moment on the stand when she just talked about her three grandchildren, of course, that are all now gone. But talked about how she often would have to visit the Clancy family and help take care of the kids because Lindsay was really not doing well. And these, again, are the first witnesses that we're starting to hear from the defense's side of this case, which just got started really a couple hours ago. I wanted you to hear one exchange between Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney and her mother on the stand right before the jury took a lunch break.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUSGROVE: I remember her being very nervous. I remember her saying, I just have to tell you guys something. And then she told us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did she tell you?

MUSGROVE: She told us that she had thoughts of harming the children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRAS: And again, a lot of them just describing how her condition was deteriorating, how she was getting thinner, how she wasn't wanting to drive anymore, how she felt like she couldn't take care of her kids. These defense witnesses being called at this point, she is now back on the stand in cross-examination. But this is before the prosecution rested its case, Boris.

Calling more than 70 witnesses over the last several weeks. Of course, that all started off with the ex-husband of Lindsay Clancy, Patrick Clancy. And then we heard from medical professionals, members from law enforcement, them building their case, essentially saying that Lindsay Clancy killed -- deliberately killed her three children, whereas the defense argues that she was in a moment of postpartum psychosis.

[14:35:00]

So again, we'll hear from more defense witnesses as the case continues to pick up this afternoon.

SANCHEZ: To that point, Brynn, is there any indication that Lindsay Clancy is going to take the stand herself?

GINGRAS: You know, we don't quite know yet what harm could it possibly do to her or not do to her if she actually did get on the stand to answer questions from both sides. We're definitely hearing as we hear from the sister, we hear from the mother, these conversations that Lindsay would have with both of them in private, either through text messages or phone calls or in person, trying to get a sense of Lindsay's mind from these people who had direct communications with her, as we often did hear from Patrick Clancy when he was on the stand. So we are waiting to see if she will take the stand.

We're waiting to see if Patrick Clancy will be called back to the stand for the defense. All to come, of course -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Brynn Gingras, thank you so much for that update.

Still to come, intra-party infighting. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries rejecting the Democratic Socialist agenda, saying its members would have a place in his caucus, though. How is he navigating his party's ideological divide when we come back?

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Tomorrow's California primary will be the latest race to pit a further left candidate against an establishment Democrat. Progressive state Senator Ayesha Wahba is currently running, Wahab, excuse me, is currently running against local politician Melissa Hernandez for the congressional seat left vacant after Eric Swalwell abruptly resigned amid a sex scandal.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: So that race, of course, comes as Democrats test just how much support there is for the party's left flank. All of this is the House Democratic leader said he is not backing the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here is Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Meet the Press this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: I don't support the DSA agenda, as has been articulated by the DSA itself. Now, you're going to have individual members who have been elected in Democratic primaries. And if they are elected in the general in November will be part of the House Democratic caucus.

It's going to be a broad caucus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining us now to discuss Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett and Charlie Dent, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania. Nice to see you both this afternoon. So, Sawyer, why do you think now Jeffries is denouncing the DSA agenda?

SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Honestly, I think that that was that was a mistake with his messaging. I think, first of all, part of that answer was responding to an assessment, by Rahm Emanuel, of the DSA, not specifically of Democratic Socialists. But that being said, you know, I'm not sure why that he jumped into kind of attacking all of these positions and attacking the DSA when that wasn't really the question.

The question was, do Democratic Socialists belong in the Democratic Party? And the answer to that question should be, yes, absolutely. Anybody who considers themselves part of our coalition is part of the Democratic Party.

And that doesn't mean we endorse every one of their positions. It doesn't mean, you know, that we've adopted the Democratic Socialist agenda. But I think it's a mistake to kind of lean with that messaging instead of defending the big tent coalition that the Democratic Party is.

SANCHEZ: He did say, Charlie, that DSA members who win in November will be part of a broad caucus in the House of Representatives. I wonder how difficult that might make his job balancing between not endorsing all of their positions, now having denounced the DSA and then saying that actually, you know, they're part of this coalition.

CHARLIE DENT, (R) FORMER CONGRESSMAN FOR PENNSYLVANIA: Well, the Democrats are experiencing their Tea Party moment. You remember John Boehner had to deal with this, too, when numerous Tea Party folks were elected in the 2010 election. Those folks, you know, they became part of the coalition.

But there were certain positions that they were taking that could not be embraced by the party writ large. I think it was smart for Leader Jeffries to stand up and say he's not for abolishing prisons. He's not for abolishing for abolishing the Senate and other absurd positions that the DSA has taken.

I mean, these are crazy positions. And I think it's smart for him to say -- that for Jeffries to say that because numerous Democrats running in competitive seats must distance themselves from those extreme positions of the DSA. I get it that they're going to be part of the Democratic coalition.

But some of those positions are so far out the mainstream outside the mainstream. And Republicans are going to use the DSA to bludgeon Democrats writ large because of those types of positions that they have publicly announced.

HILL: You know, to Charlie's point, the fact that Republicans are very happy to use the DSA, right, heading into November. You said it was a mistake for the minority leader to say that. But knowing that he doesn't have a lot of support among some of these candidates that we've seen, they've been very clear, some of them wouldn't vote for him as speaker.

Could this actually help Democrats?

HACKETT: Well, I would agree with Charlie that he should distance himself from those specific positions. But those are not positions that Democratic Socialist candidates have adopted. Those are positions of the Democratic Socialist of America organization, which is not a political party.

It's a political organization. And so, you know, first of all, the Republicans are going to call a socialist no matter what we run on. You know, I worked for a 30 year member of Congress who, you know, was kind of right down the middle in terms of his ideology, and they would have called him a socialist too. The Republicans have no ideas.

They have no ideas for the future. They have no ideas for the president. And so they revert back to this kind of name calling to fearmonger and scare voters about what it is that Democrats represent.

And, you know, as it stands right now, there are three Democratic Socialists currently in the U.S. Congress. There are five Democratic Socialists who have won their seats and are headed for a general election. That is not a Tea Party moment for our party.

SANCHEZ: Charlie, I wonder how you would respond to that argument that it's the best one that Republicans have as they try to avoid catastrophe in the midterms.

[14:45:00]

You do have President Trump suggesting that some Democrats and DSA members are communists, even jihadists.

DENT: Well, again, you know, Donald Trump, you know, he'll take a very extreme position, as he always does. But I would argue that the Democratic Socialists at the far left of the Democratic movement is ascendant in the party. Look, they just won a race in Michigan.

They nearly won a governor's race in Wisconsin. They certainly won in some very deep blue areas like Mamdani in New York City and elsewhere. I'm not saying that the more mainstream Democrats are failing, but they've got a real battle on their hands, and they know the energy is on the other side.

In fact, you know, I think the third-way organization, a more centrist Democratic group, has declared war on the DSA because they're fearful. And I think mainstream Democrats have to be concerned that they not be co-opted by the DSA on some policy positions, whether it's Medicare for all or others that don't have, I think, broad appeal. That's the fear that I had with the Tea Party back in the day.

It's one thing to let them into the coalition. It's another thing to start adopting their policy positions. And I think Democrats are going to have to be very vigilant that they don't move too far in the direction of the DSA.

HILL: Before I let you both go, sir, the DNC Democrats just adopting their new 2028 presidential primary schedule. New Hampshire getting pushed to the back. Iowa as well.

South Carolina is where things will begin. What does this actually change? Will it actually make races more competitive?

HACKETT: I think it makes races more competitive, and I think, honestly, it helps prepare the eventual Democratic nominee for a contest that kind of looks like America. You have those first four or five states that represent completely different demographics within the country. And I think put together, of course, we start with South Carolina, where I think Black voters in particular are going to be an important benchmark for Democratic candidates to perform well.

Then you head to Nevada. You head to other states where, you know, Latino voters are very important. Working class voters are very important.

And so I think in the total tonnage of that map, you know, it represents what the country is going to look like. And that's important for a test for a Democratic nominee.

SANCHEZ: And Charlie, before we go, I want to ask you about the way that the RNC chair described the upcoming midterm convention that Republicans are planning to hold. This is what he shared with Fox News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE GRUTERS, CHAIR, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: We're going to put the president front and center. It's going to be a Trumpapalooza. It's going to be an amazing opportunity for us to basically go out there and tell the American people all the great things that this president has done and all the great things that we're going to continue to do over the final two years of his administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Is Trumpapalooza enough to buck history and keep the incumbent party in power in Congress through the midterms, Charlie?

DENT: No. But just to put it this way, look, I don't have any problem in doing this mini convention. But the problem is if they're just going to turn this into a big party and celebrate Donald Trump, whose approval rating is down in the low 30s, well, that's a mistake.

Any Republican running for office in anything remotely competitive type of a district or state needs to be a million miles away from that convening. No good will come of it. I mean, the problem right now is that Donald Trump is at 30-some percent and just having a party to say that he's terrific, I think, is really misguided.

They're going to need to talk about something more substantive than their loyalty to the president because that's what's getting them in trouble. The voters are wanting a check and a balance in this midterm election. That's what a midterm is always about, putting a check on the president.

So I'm not sure that their strategy is smart, although it's a good idea to have a mini convention.

HILL: We will see as it all plays out.

SANCHEZ: Charlie, you got to let us know how you got that Kool-Aid sponsorship, man. That looks pretty cool behind you.

DENT: Oh, that's my wife painted that. And that's her. She does all kinds of pop art.

So that's what it's all about. I'm not drinking Kool-Aid, though. I want you to know that.

HILL: That's an important clarification. And we may need to talk about some, you know, custom pieces, right?

SANCHEZ: Yes, fair enough. Fair enough. Sawyer Hackett, Charlie Dent, thank you.

HILL: Thank you both.

Still ahead here, a social media lawsuit seeking more than a trillion dollars in damages. Heading to court this week, Meta once again accused of failing to protect children and breaking a number of laws in the process. Those details are next.

[14:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: A major social media addiction trial is kicking off this week in California. So a number of states are actually suing Meta, claiming that the company deliberately designed its platforms to keep young users' attention for as long as possible. Those states are seeking $1.4 trillion in damages. They claim that Meta broke numerous state laws concerning child safety and consumer protection. And they're also demanding changes to Meta's platforms.

CNN Tech reporter Clare Duffy is following this for us. So what are we expecting? I would imagine some fireworks are probably expected.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes, Erica, tomorrow, opening statements will kick off in this trial in federal court in Oakland. And this case, you've got 29 state attorneys general who have sued the company. The case will be argued by four of those states, California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey.

And they allege that Meta intentionally designed its platforms to be addictive, creating this mental health crisis among young people in their states. They also claim that Meta misled the public about the risks from its platforms and that it illegally gathered data on children.

We could hear during this trial from Meta executives, as well as former Meta employees turned whistleblowers and potentially researchers who study social media's impact on young people's mental health. And this is, of course, just one of thousands of cases that Meta is facing over these claims of social media addiction. The company has already lost two of those cases this year, putting it on the hook for nearly $1 billion in damages.

[14:55:00]

But in this state attorney's general case, the states are seeking as much as $1.4 trillion in damages. That is about as much as Meta's market value on Wall Street. They're also seeking changes to how the platforms operate. That means that if Meta loses this case, we could fundamentally see significant changes to our social media experience.

Now, Meta has called the claims in this case unsubstantiated. A spokesperson for the company told us, "The AGs offer no proof that anyone in their states was misled, claimed benign features like having additional Instagram accounts somehow harmed their residents, and attempts to penalize Meta for industry-wide challenges like age verification. Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout."

Now, Erica, a jury will have a chance to hear those arguments in this trial that is expected to last about seven weeks.

HILL: Wow, seven weeks. All right, Clare, appreciate the preview. Thank you.

Another hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL begins after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END