Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Now: Trump, A.I. Execs Meeting After Leaked Anthropic Warning; Now: Trump Meeting with Top A.I. Execs Amid Safety, Regulation Debate; Former Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies About Trump Probes; Smith: Lindsey Graham was "Likely" a Witness in Trump Probe; Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin to Restart Controversial Deportations to Countries They Have No Connection To; Children in U.S. Immigration Courts Alone as They Fight Deportation; Defense: Prosecutors Did Not Prove Clancy Actually Killed Children. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 29, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The company says it consistently passed safety tests but will shut down because it's the right thing to do and because declining guest confidence must be taken seriously. CNN documented more than a dozen serious injuries and hospitalizations linked to X2 including at least two deaths. The ride known for its rotating seats and speeds approaching 80 miles per hour has been closed since July.

The new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Right now, top tech executives are meeting with President Trump just as reports as a leading A.I. company acknowledged an elite document that its models could pose a catastrophic or existential risk to humanity.

Plus, Lindsay Clancy back in court for the first time since her murder trial ended in a hung jury. The judge now considering several defense motions including one asking him to dismiss the case.

And later, facing immigration court alone. Exclusive CNN reporting on how some unaccompanied migrant children some as young as three years old are forced to fight deportation without help or representation.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

This hour, the nation's top tech titans are meeting with President Trump behind closed doors at the White House. The talks are happening as the President for weeks has been downplaying safety and regulation concerns that some of those leaders have been raising.

Just moments ago the President let reporters in for a brief photo op and said this before asking cameras to leave.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's a belief that there should be tremendous self-regulation and we automatically have regulation with the Department of Justice, the FBI, all of that. But the self-regulation is very important. There's an unbelievable feeling in this room. It's sort of a feeling of love for our country and they want to do the right things. These are people that love our country I can tell you that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Today two big A.I. red flags. In a leaked IPO filing, Anthropic warned of the catastrophic risks its technology could pose to humanity and OpenAI halted the release of its latest A.I. model, the company citing safety concerns. We're joined now by CNN Contributor Jacob Ward. He's a technology journalist and host of "The Rip Current" podcast.

Jacob some very different approaches to A.I. in the room today with President Trump who has had a -- a hands-off approach to regulation. I wonder what you're watching for out of that meeting.

JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think it is a very motley crew Boris, you're absolutely right about that. You've got, you know, Jensen Huang and Mark Zuckerberg who have both said that we don't need more regulation. You'll recall that -- that Huang the NVIDIA CEO told Anderson Cooper that he thought that more technology, not more regulation was what was required.

Meanwhile, you've got Dario Amodei who's in there as the -- the representative, I'm sure, of a whole faction of them saying please regulate us. We do need regulations. And he's, of course, the one who butted heads with President Trump and the Department of War when he refused to allow his technology to be used in certain ways for the military.

You know, there's a wide variety of perspectives in there, but what they all, I think, recognize is they need the buy-in of President Trump. They need his support because as he's shown time and again he can wreak havoc in the businesses of the tech industry if he chooses to. I think in this case what I -- I would be so curious to know is how they came together to present any sort of united front to him considering that literally their -- their perspectives on this stuff seem to be so opposite.

And I would think I -- I would just point out here, Boris, that it's also I think a pretty damning I think of the moment we are in that, you and I don't get to know anything about what was said in there. We don't have any vote in it and yet these are the people who could very well control how we work, how we relate to one another, how we even make decisions in our own lives in the coming years.

SANCHEZ: That is a really good point. It -- we should also note that some of the folks in that room have acknowledged that even within their companies even some of the models that they are running, they don't know why some of these rogue A.I. agents have gone rogue to begin with. To that point how do you read OpenAI holding back its latest A.I. model Astra. Do you see that as earnest or are you cynical like me in thinking that they're just trying to indicate that they can regulate themselves? WARD: I think that it is important to remember that no tech CEO ever does any one thing for one purpose. You don't get to run one of those companies unless you're able to achieve many, many things with one strategic move. And so, I think there probably is an earnest desire for deeper safety research, I'm sure, as we've seen from people inside that company speaking out in some cases anonymously they are being as surprised by the behavior of their product as the rest of us.

[15:05:07]

And so, I think there's some earnest concern there. And at the same time there's a kind of bragging rights that goes with saying how dangerous your -- your product can be. There's also a -- you know, you -- you don't want to not be in that room if everyone's going to get invited to the White House. You want to be one of those people as well. So, lots and lots of things there.

I think the thing that I am most struck by at this moment Boris is the gap between how these folks are talking about the need to embed some sort of human values and we've heard this also from -- from people in Washington. And -- and at the same time, they've made this incredibly Machiavellian creation, this thing that is all about the output.

And what we've heard time and again in these stories of these things breaking loose is they were just trying to get the job done. They're not trying to do harm they're just trying to get things done efficiently and as a result they wind up doing some things that nobody knew in advance and it's that out-of-control quality I think that -- that has us all, of course, so worried right now.

SANCHEZ: Jacob Ward, always appreciate the conversation.

WARD: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Brianna.

KEILAR: Turning to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, former special counsel Jack Smith spent several hours today testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And while a lot of the hearing was on Smith's past indictments of Donald Trump, the former special counsel also took aim at the recent mass firings at the Justice Department. Here's that moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: If you fire people who have the expertise to conduct investigations properly and to represent the United States in court properly, you are making our country less safe. If you drive those people out of public service, the institutions we -- we were we rely on for justice, for protecting our country, those institutions are weakened. We have seen this with courts across the country losing credibility in the department because the department is no longer credible in their eyes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Evan Perez joins us now.

And Evan, there were lots of tense moments during this hearing. What stood out to you?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you know, there was about four and a half hours of questioning for Jack Smith and a lot of this was an effort by Republican members on the Senate panel to essentially put him on trial. We never got to see Donald Trump on trial for those two cases that Jack Smith was pursuing, but it was very much about what Jack Smith was doing during those investigations, what the FBI was doing and whether they were unfairly targeting members -- Republican members of Congress.

Here's a key exchange between Darline Graham, a senator from -- from South Carolina who's about to -- who's running as a Republican to replace her brother who died earlier this year about some of the aspects of that investigation. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DARLINE GRAHAM (R-SC): Mr. Smith, do you really believe that Lindsey was going to destroy evidence that was not even in his possession?

SMITH: No. I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. He was not a target of our investigation and, in fact, he likely would have been a witness in our case. Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making. He found them to be false. He said so on the House floor ...

GRAHAM: But I have another ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREZ: And -- and, you know, Brianna, that -- that exchange there to me kind of sums up how today went. I think Republicans were really trying to try to emphasize that that Jack Smith was a partisan actor in -- in those investigations. And I think what he turned around, a lot of what was going on there, he turned around to his advantage to portray that he was actually trying to do the right thing, and in this case so was Lindsey Graham. It turned -- turned Lindsey Graham into essentially a -- a potential star witness if he had ever been able to put Donald Trump on trial. A lot of the -- today's hearing went along these lines today, Brianna.

KEILAR: Very interesting. Evan, thank you so much for taking us through that.

And still to come, prosecutors say they haven't yet decided if they will retry Lindsay Clancy. What we learned from today's hearing and what comes next in the case.

Plus, exclusive CNN reporting on how migrant children as young as two years old are showing up in immigration courts often without attorneys with deportation on the line. And then, later, FBI leadership facing internal criticism after the bureau suffered one of the most serious data breaches in years. That and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:14:06]

SANCHEZ: Breaking news to CNN, the Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to restart its program of removing migrants to countries other than their homeland without giving them an opportunity to raise human rights concerns. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez joins us now.

Priscilla, what are you learning?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Boris, this is a big win for the Trump administration and its pledge to deport undocumented immigrants from the United States. This, in particular, sending migrants to countries other than -- other than their own has been a critical part of the administration's immigration crackdown strategy.

And now the Supreme Court is yet again allowing them to move forward with that, importantly, without giving migrants an opportunity to raise those human right concerns.

Now, again, Boris it's worth underscoring that the administration sees this as really important to deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. The reason why is because it has historically been difficult to do so particularly with some countries.

[15:15:04]

And this has been the workaround for the administration to send migrants to countries other than their own when their home country won't -- won't accept them.

Now, immigrant advocates and attorneys have raised major concerns with this, especially when they cannot contest going to one of these countries where they're not given a heads-up. Well, the Supreme Court says the Trump administration can continue to do this.

Importantly, Boris, three liberal justices dissented from this decision and they are going to hear arguments in December. So, while the administration will continue this now on this temporary basis, it is certainly not over. There is more to come, again, with those arguments scheduled for later this year.

SANCHEZ: Separately, Priscilla, you have some disturbing new details on unaccompanied migrant children appearing in a Texas immigration court without attorneys to represent them and your reporting indicates that some of these kids were as young as three -- three years old.

ALVAREZ: This is something that has been happening nationwide, Boris. This being migrant children appearing for immigration court. The place where an immigration judge will decide if they stay in the United States or they're deported often without attorneys. And we saw that play out at this Texas immigration court. Our producer, Norma Galeana, was there along with a sketch artist. You can see these images here. You can see how young the children are. You can barely see this little kid's head there in the middle.

Now, you may see some adults in these photos, the immigration judge of course. But the others are caseworkers. They are there only to supervise the children, not to provide them legal representation.

Yesterday, these 25 kids many of them without attorneys, including a 13 -year-old who was ordered removed by the immigration judge. He burst into tears. He did not have an attorney. And he said quote, "I have no one. I have nothing," talking about Honduras.

An eight-year-old, also without an attorney -- a nine-year-old, without an attorney, she rested her head on the table as the immigration judge talked her through the process.

Now, again, we are talking about unaccompanied migrant children. Those are kids who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border alone or had family members detained in the U.S. and were brought into custody. Now, historically, not all of them have had legal representation, but they have had attorneys at the most pivotal point in their hearings which is when an immigration judge decides that they're deported. That was not the case yesterday.

The Trump administration told me this in a statement, quote, "Under the Trump administration, ORR," that's the federal agency charged with the care of these children, "remains committed to ensuring that every unaccompanied illegal alien child has legal representation in immigration court."

And the administration did strike a contract to do that, but another contract with hundreds more attorneys lapsed this summer. And that is the divide that is happening now when I talked to my sources which is that there just aren't enough attorneys that are able to represent these children with this new contract. Meaning, that many, many children are showing up to immigration court consequential hearings and having to fend for themselves when an immigration judge decides whether they should be deported.

SANCHEZ: Priscilla Alvarez appreciate you bringing that story to us.

Still ahead, Lindsay Clancy returning to the courtroom today. Her lawyers saying she -- saying she should be acquitted because the prosecution could not prove that she killed her three kids. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:59]

KEILAR: Lindsay Clancy was back in court for the first time since her mistrial about three weeks ago on charges that she murdered her three young children. And today, her attorney appeared to contradict his arguments during the trial when he said his client was in postpartum psychosis when she strangled her kids. He now says prosecutors did not prove Clancy actually killed her children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S ATTORNEY: ... beings, why would this woman, who the evidence shows clearly and unequivocally was a nurse, a mother, a friend did nothing wrong in her life, why would she kill those three children? All five of the doctors -- six of the doctors indicate that she was suffering from a mental disease or defect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Prosecutors hit back saying claims of a lack of evidence or a, quote, "laughable argument." The judge did not rule on that or other key motions today, but he did set another hearing date to discuss the possibility of a second trial. So, let's get some legal expertise on this from attorney Areva Martin.

Areva, what did you think there about what Reddington said what is he signaling about the route that he may consider going if this is retried.

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Brianna what we know is that Kevin Reddington is making every possible argument he can to try to prevent there from being a second trial including as you said now arguing that there's some doubt about whether Clancy even killed her three kids. We know during the trial that was presumed factual. There was no dispute about that. The issue was whether she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and that she was not criminally responsible, because of her mental condition.

So, now to show up in court a month after this trial and raise questions about the legitimacy of the central evidence that she did in fact kill her children was a little bizarre.

[15:25:06]

We also know that the signals from the judge suggested he was not buying these arguments even though he didn't make a formal ruling, he did tell the parties to start thinking about and being prepared for a second trial. Look, I suspect that when they go back to court in November, the motion filed by Reddington to dismiss this case, his motion to dig deeper into the cell phone of the so called holdout juror that all those motions are going to be denied and it's really up to the prosecutors to decide if they want to retry this case or enter into some kind of plea deal with Clancy.

KEILAR: Okay. Do you think jurors in another trial -- one, do you think he would really go this route if this is retried? Because, I mean, just to be clear for our viewers who didn't follow this super closely, it was stipulated, right, that she killed the children. One, does he have a do-over on that. If there is another trial, he doesn't have to agree to that being stipulated, right? And do you think, he would actually have a shot at proving that? MARTIN: You're right. The second trial, everything gets wiped clean they start over. So, whatever his theory is he gets to introduce that new theory at this second trial, so that stipulation that they entered into, that's a voluntary agreement between the prosecution and the defense. That doesn't carry over to trial two. And he very well may try to prove that she didn't do it.

You know, Brianna, there are all kinds of conspiracy theories online that the husband did it and that someone else was involved in the murder of these children other than Clancy. Now, I don't think that Reddington is going to try to prove that. His strongest case which is evident by some of the jurors that have been speaking out is that she did suffer from some kind of psychosis after having postpartum and that she lacked the ability to appreciate right from wrong and that's why she killed her children.

I think if a trial goes forward a second trial we're going to see that same theory being advanced by her defense team.

KEILAR: Okay. So, the judge told both parties to be ready to discuss a new drink new date for a trial at the next hearing. That's going to be November 2nd. What do you think we're going to hear then.

MARTIN: Well, one thing that we haven't heard from the prosecutors is whether if they are going to move forward with the second trial might they dismiss the murder charge and just try to try this case on the basis of a manslaughter charge. They've got to learn something from what we now know where 11 jurors who might have been prepared to acquit her. I -- I think the prosecution has to look at that and determine if they can put on a case that's so persuasive that another set of 12 jurors will find her guilty of the most serious charge of first-degree murder.

No indication from the prosecutor as of yet whether they are going to move forward with trying the case, which is a little bizarre at this point I think. I think, they have had enough time. You would suspect after 30 days or so to have made that decision, which tells me there may be some behind-the-scenes conversations that are taking place between the prosecutor and the defense.

KEILAR: Yes, interesting. So, in the hearing today, Clancy's defense team said they want access to jurors questionnaires from the mistrial. They're asking the judge not to impound jury notes and transcripts of related sidebar discussions. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg said two jury notes are central to the court's determination to call a mistrial. What's the precedent for something like that? Do they have a good case?

MARTIN: Well, we know that the jury process is a private a -- a secreted process. So, even all the attention that this holdout juror is getting is really unusual, we -- we haven't seen in recent times of one juror singled out in the way that this juror has been. And I have some concerns about this, because we've also heard now from a second juror one of the female jurors saying that allegedly she may have been using social media during the point -- during the trial period. So, if there's going to be this deep dive into the holdout juror, we know there's some talk about investigating whether he had a restraining order from a nephew resulted to some -- related to some kind of assault charge. If you're going to do that kind of forensic examination on that juror, do you have to do it on this juror that also may have had a criminal background and was engaged in social media? Do you do it for all 12 jurors?

Again, I think the judge is going to shut all of this down and the decision is going to be is there a trial, does the prosecution want to move forward with the second trial or not. That's going to be the central issue on November 2nd.

KEILAR: All right. Areva, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

MARTIN: Thanks, Brianna.

KEILAR: Coming up, new details on the data hack at the FBI and how the agency's leadership is facing internal criticism about how it's handling the incident.

[15:30:00]