Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Closing Arguments Expected this Week in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial; Trump Threatens Think tank with $5 Billion Lawsuit Over National Guard Report; New Channel on Roku Features AI-Created Shows. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired August 24, 2026 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The final days of Lindsay Clancy's murder trial are underway in a Massachusetts courtroom. The prosecution is presenting rebuttal witnesses after the defense rested its case last week. Moments ago, a psychologist who examined Clancy testified, telling the court this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. KIRK HILBRUN PSYCHOLOGIST: So there ended up being, in my mind, two possible explanations for why she did what she did. The first being the acute psychosis with command hallucinations, and the second being this was a serious suicide attempt, and she wanted the children to be with her so she wouldn't be separated from them, and so they wouldn't have to suffer after she was gone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: This is testimony that could be key as the prosecution pushes back on the defense argument that Clancy was suffering psychosis when she strangled her kids and tried to take her own life. Let's bring in former prosecutor and former registered nurse Maria Pereira, also former defense attorney, so you have a lot of different perspectives that you're bringing to watching this case. Thank you for being with us.

And I just wonder, as you have heard from these patchwork of medical providers about their assessments of Clancy and the many different, constantly changing medications she was on, how are you hearing this testimony, especially with your nursing background?

MARIE PEREIRA, FORMER PROSECUTOR AND FORMER REGISTERED NURSE: Thank you so much for having me. I'm hearing it from the lens of a person who's both a nurse and a former prosecutor in criminal defense, like you said, and for me, I'm looking at the jurisdiction and what is their legal standard, and basically what they have to prove on behalf of Lindsay Clancy is that she lacked criminal responsibility because of mental disease, and I think the defense has done an amazing job, more than competent, at showing that at the time she committed the acts, she did not have intent to do it because she was suffering from acute postpartum psychosis.

[15:35:00]

I think if you look at the totality of the circumstances, the outcry, the fact that she saw so many mental health professionals explaining she was having intrusive thoughts, thoughts about hurting herself and the children. That she checked herself into a lockdown facility, took the medications and realized she was getting worse. I could go on and on about the precursors that we saw that justifies her not being responsible because the responsibility is not there.

The mens rea is not there. The intent is not there because she couldn't appreciate right from wrong because of the psychosis, which she talked about for months prior to the acute break and her ability to appreciate what is reality and what is not. So when she heard those delusional thoughts and the commands to kill herself, to kill the children, she had no way of fighting back that type of desire to do it.

She had no connection with reality at the time.

KEILAR: Marie, what do you make of the prosecution argument? And there even seems to be disagreement among the medical, psychological, psychiatric professionals on this. But the prosecution says there was planning.

She sent her husband out on errands. He was going to the CVS to get a medication for one of the kids. He was going out to get dinner.

That is indicative of calculation, not of someone who is suffering from postpartum psychosis. What do you say to that?

PEREIRA: I say that the prosecution needs a continuing education class on what is acute sudden psychosis because psychosis is not synonymous with chaos and confusion. You can be psychotic and plan and plot. It doesn't affect your cognition.

So the fact that she did Google searches, the fact that she waited until her husband left the house doesn't mean that criminally she's responsible. She had a break from reality because she believed the delusional commands in her head were real. So you can't say because she plotted and planned, she did it on purpose and she knew what she was doing.

Psychosis is not something that takes away your ability to have cognitive thoughts and ability to plan and execute. The two don't match. And the prosecution needed to do more research on that.

KEILAR: There are people who are supporting Lindsay Clancy outside of this courthouse. There is so much discussion online. I think this is such a water cooler topic for people.

I went somewhere this weekend, and this is what people were talking about just in casual conversation. And a lot of people brought personal experiences. They had different perspectives about this.

There has been so much attention. There's been a lot of, yes, public support for Clancy. And I wonder how does that play into this trial? PEREIRA: You know, it's alarming because I think the jurors are people just like people. They just weren't, you know, they were chosen for this case. So all of these people online who believe in conspiracy theory, who believes that she wasn't suffering from any type of psychosis, she did it on purpose.

And if she was suffering from psychosis, why was she able to coherently Google and search and plan to do it when her husband was out? Again, I say that it's an ignorance to the disease process because people believe mental health and physical health are different. You could be going through psychosis and still function like a normal person and not even be able to control yourself from committing a heinous act like this.

I've watched what's going on just like you have. And it is such a divisive case that some people believe in mental health disease and some people do not. And I think that's where you draw the line.

If you don't do your homework, and even if you do your homework, you simply don't believe, then you're going to believe that she needs to be punished, maybe because of what I call PTO. It's a type of prosecution to appease because what happened was so heinous that I think some of the public believes somebody has to pay for this and some really do their research and do their homework and understand mental health disease is a real thing.

[15:40:00]

KEILAR: It is certainly prompting a lot of conversations and certainly a lot of productive conversations, even as there are those conspiracy theories, as you mentioned. Marie Pereira, thanks so much for being with us. We really appreciate your insights and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Today, the Center for American Progress is standing by its report about the DC National Guard despite President Trump's threat of a $5 billion lawsuit. Last week, the president's personal attorney demanded the left-leaning think tank retract its report that found the deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers to American streets has had almost zero impact on bringing down violent crime. The Trump attorney said they had until last Friday to take the report down or face a lawsuit.

Today, that report is still on the group's website. And it's not the only one questioning the impact of these deployments. A Reuters report citing every publicly available charging document filed in Superior Court in Washington, D.C., found that Guard members were only mentioned in about 1 percent of criminal prosecutions during their year-long assignment.

[15:45:00]

And they typically responded to minor incidents in neighborhoods generally wealthier, wider, and less dangerous than other parts of the nation's capital. Reuters says it found no records of soldiers doing any kind of law enforcement in the neighborhoods where about 82 percent of the city's murders occurred within the past five years.

With me now to discuss is Neera Tanden. She's the president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, the group being threatened with this lawsuit. Neera, thank you so much for being with us. So, this letter from President Trump's attorney gave cap until last Friday to rescind this report or face that $5 billion lawsuit.

Did you give any thought at any point to retracting it?

NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: No, we didn't. And that's because the report itself is based on crime statistics. And it found, it looked at the rate of crime reduction and found that there was no discernible impact.

Crime has come down. But crime was coming down before the National Guard deployments. And what we found is, this is a very expensive deployment.

By extrapolating from CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, we found that it's likely to cost as much as $1.7 billion. And to have no discernible impact on the rate of crime, violent crime, you know, it seems to me it's pretty quite expensive. And apparently the president didn't like the facts that we put forward.

SANCHEZ: So, when you hear the president's attorney claim that the report contains false, malicious, and defamatory statements made about President Trump himself, who claims, we should note, that some of those crime statistics from earlier years had been doctored, what is your response?

TANDEN: I mean, it's outrageous that the president of the United States is suing a research institution. He's suing, in his personal capacity at research, or he's threatening a lawsuit, I should say, against a research institution that is simply criticizing, critiquing a federal policy. You know, CAPA's been around for 20 years.

We've looked at policies under Democratic and Republican administrations. It is a basic core element of a democracy that a research institution should be able to evaluate federal government policies. He's not really disputing any of the facts that we have.

He's just saying he's being defamed by them. Facts are not defamation. And so I think this is really a pretty brazen attack on the First Amendment.

SANCHEZ: On the substance of the findings in the report, I wonder what you make of the argument that perhaps these National Guard members aren't doing law enforcement in the sense that they're not going out there and arresting people or doing sting operations or anything like that, but just their presence deters crime. Do you believe that?

TANDEN: I think the question we have to evaluate, or the thing we have to evaluate here is what is the impact? And this report looked at National Guard deployments. It looked at cities that had National Guard deployments and cities that don't have National Guard deployments. And we find really a similar rate of decline in violent crime. And so I think the question one really has to ask is given the expense of the National Guard, which we're all paying for, is it really worth it to people? Or is there some other reason and that has nothing to do with violent crime that they've actually done this in cities like Washington, D.C. and Memphis and other places? So we're asking the questions. It's up to other people to evaluate. But I think you can look at it and say, given that there isn't a big impact, there isn't really an impact on the rate of violent crime, is that $1.7 billion cost worth it?

And you know, to us, the fact that this report is inconvenient to the president should not subject us to a $5 billion possible lawsuit from him.

SANCHEZ: So if this winds up actually going to court and you wind up having to defend these arguments in court, how likely do you think you will prevail?

TANDEN: I mean, I believe in courts that are actually analyzing the law. They know that, very basically, that truth cannot be defamation, crime statistics cannot be defamation. Also, the report is about the administration's policies.

It's not about Donald Trump himself. So I think this is, frankly, an absurd abuse of the legal system. But, you know, people can forum shop.

This is the president's lawyers. We are not the first people they've sued. They're suing a lot of people.

I will note these lawyers have been sanctioned by some courts, so, you know, I feel confident that we'll be successful at the end of the day.

SANCHEZ: When you say that you are not the first to be targeted by the president's attorneys, is it your view that lawsuits like this one are an effort to stifle free speech?

[15:50:00]

TANDEN: I think the pattern of the president's threatening massive defamation cases against a series of media institutions, and now, for the first time, a research institution for facts he does not like, is part of a pattern of essentially trying to stifle critique and opposition to the president.

SANCHEZ: Neera Tanden, thanks so much for joining us.

TANDEN: Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate you sharing your perspective.

Still plenty more to come. There's a new free Roku TV channel that is only showing AI-generated content. It's kind of a weird look into the future. Could it be the future of entertainment? We'll discuss and show you some clips when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: The AI revolution will not be televised, even though you can actually watch it on TV right now. It's being broadcast on a channel called Fairground AI Creator TV.

KEILAR: It's a new channel on Roku's free ad-supported streaming television service, also known as Fast, and it showcases AI-generated short films 24 hours a day. Among the offerings is a talk show called Paws for Thought. It's Boris' favorite.

[15:55:00]

SANCHEZ: It's pretty good.

SANCHEZ: It's hosted by a dog and a cat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAT: Welcome back to Paws for Thought. I was away last week as most of you know. I attended the annual Rats and Cats Convention in New York City.

I must admit it was quite cheesy. However, I learned a lot about rats that I didn't know. Our guest today is Jerry, who was one of the featured speakers.

He's here to help us answer a surprising question. What good are rats? Welcome, Jerry.

RAT: Thanks, Annabelle. Rats may not be everyone's favorite animal, but they're more important than most people realize.

CAT: I'm intrigued already.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: I bet you're intrigued already at home, too. Charlie Worzel is a writer for The Atlantic who watched eight hours of this content for his brilliantly titled article, The Home Slopping Network. He joins us now.

Charlie, you said that Paws for Thought made you question your sanity. Is this what the future of entertainment, what the future of TV looks like?

CHARLIE WARZEL, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I sure hope not, honestly. That one was a little mind-boggling. A lot of the stuff that I watched over the eight hours that I tuned into this, it's a little disjointed.

It's a little weird. It's a little uncanny. Some of it is, you know, interesting, and it's all sort of academically interesting, right, as a phenomenon, but there are things like the Paws for Thought that I think are truly lowest common denominator, mind-numbing, sort of what or who is this for?

And the answer is probably nobody, right?

KEILAR: Yes. Oh, it's for people who like weird-looking rats. Cuter than a normal rat, I'll give it that.

It's the voices. It's the voices, Charlie, that I have a hard time with, I'm going to be honest. That's the kind of truly numbing aspect of this.

So then why do this? Does it make money? Does it make money for the creators or the network?

WARZEL: So the people I talked to, including the person who runs Fairground, the AI company that is doing the channel, they all told me that there's a lot of interest from TV executives in this generative AI movement, right? This idea that anyone can use these programs and just like gin up whatever is in their brain and put it out there, that they feel that there is the possibility maybe down the line to crack open a new form of content, right? Like personalized types of TV shows or game shows or full fantasy series that leap out of somebody's head and onto the screen.

And so there's a real interest in trying to hone this, to trying to get the IP while they can. And I look at this as sort of a proof of concept thing for a lot of these networks, but also a little bit of a land grab, right? People wanting to plant their flag in the ground and say, OK, we want to be able to have a beachhead in case this stuff really does take off or someone stumbles upon something amazing.

SANCHEZ: Some of this footage, I feel like you like slipped something in my water over there.

KEILAR: I know.

SANCHEZ: It's so odd, Charlie. Do we know who is coming up with this stuff, what the prompts are? Like where do these ideas originate as we look at a moose sheriff?

WARZEL: Well, I think it's really, it's like the magic of the internet and the terror of the internet is that anyone can do whatever they want, right? And you see that on display here. I mean, there are some folks who are using dozens of generative AI tools and string them together.

They're using the AI voice simulation software. They're using the visual effects stuff. They're using the video generators to make the actual people and characters and they're stitching it all to make something.

But you know, some of these creators, there are a lot of people in Europe who have reasonably sized social media followings who make this stuff. There are people that really like it, that really think it's fascinating, that it's interesting to watch. And then there are people, self kind of included, who really dislike it and who just feel like it's really, it's lacking the human quality.

There's no pop or sparkle or connection behind the eyes when you look at any of this stuff.

KEILAR: And what does it do to jobs? And what's the fear of what else it'll do to that, Charlie?

WARZEL: Well, I think what's really concerning when you think about this in the long term and when you think about TV executives and people who, you know, have the money to put this on regular or linear or streaming television, what's a little concerning is they see bottom lines, right? They see that this is a -- there is a kid who may live in Senegal who lives on top of his mom and dad's fish and chip shop and he can make videos out of nowhere, right? There's no overhead to that.

There's no teams of producers. There's no animators. There's no union jobs, things like that.

So I think what is scary about this if you project it too far forward is the idea that the industries can shrink, that all they need to do is share some revenue with a single creator and not have to worry about, you know, the messy humanness of studios.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

KEILAR: Fascinating stuff. Charlie, thank you so much for watching it so that we didn't have to. Thanks for being with us.

SANCHEZ: How long before this peyote you fed me yourself?

KEILAR: I was going to say the proper response to what you said earlier was no, I did not slip something in your water.

"THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

END