Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Judge Declares Mistrial After Jury Deadlocked In Triple-Murder Case; WSJ Report Raises Questions About Sen. Fetterman's Fitness For Office; GOP Grapples With Distancing From Trump On The Trail; Patagonia Sues Trump. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 04, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN, JURIST AND LAWYER, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: Members of the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Whatever you think of the Lindsay Clancy trial, the end of it today was difficult for everyone involved because after 38 hours of jury deliberations, five weeks of gut-wrenching testimony, and a debate that has divided people across the country, there was no verdict. A judge there declared a mistrial.

Good evening. I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura Coates tonight. In just a moment, I'll unpack with our reporters and our legal experts everything that happened in court and what happens next. And today's ending was a dramatic ending that really was as dramatic as the days led up to it. The defense says it came down to one juror, a lone holdout they claim was biased and refused to follow the court's instructions on reasonable doubt.

Now, we don't know exactly what happened behind those closed doors or what each juror actually believed, but the deadlock inside the jury room may have echoed what was happening across the country, an argument over murder, mental illness, and criminal responsibility. Was this the deliberate killing of three young children by their mother or, as the defense argued, the actions of a woman in the grip of postpartum psychosis, failed by the system she turned to for help?

Well, now, the question is, what happens next? Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington is making it clear what he thinks. He says his team won the case and that finding an impartial jury for another trial could be impossible.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Where do I begin to thank these juries? Minus one. Obviously, if we didn't have that one individual, we would have had a verdict and we would be out of here. But I don't know if we will ever be able to get jurors that aren't aware of this case anywhere, New York, Washington, Georgia, Japan. Absolutely.

UNKNOWN: And you feel there is something you would do differently with the second trial?

REDDINGTON: Why would I? I won the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: The district attorney says he'll decide soon whether to retry Lindsay Clancy, but he reminded everyone what he believes this case is ultimately about, justice for the three children who were strangled and killed, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIMOTHY CRUZ, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PLYMOUTH COUNTY: The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecutions in our county, but we have treated it the same as any other case. Children were murdered, and it's our job to seek justice because this case is not about a health care system or about how women are treated in it or what diagnoses there are in the DSM or what there are not. In this job, it is the facts ultimately decide how you act, not the opinions of observers several steps removed from our court proceedings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Clancy's lawyer says she will remain in custody at a psychiatric hospital. The judge set a hearing for the next steps on September 29th.

Let's bring in now CNN correspondent Jean Casarez. She has been following this trial from the very beginning. She is in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Jean, prosecutors trying to figure out if they're going to do this all over again, but the immediate fallout outside that courtroom, incredibly tense. Set the scene for us.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And I don't think we expected that. But once the judge declared and ordered a mistrial, then, for the first time, players came out. Mr. Redington has been talking a lot, but for the first time heard the district attorney, Mr. Cruz, of Plymouth County, Massachusetts, and he was talking about that the reason they brought this prosecution was because there were three young children that were killed in a very, very atrocious manner.

And while he was talking, the camera was catching some people that were right there, and they were shaking their head no as he's talking about Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Now, maybe the ladies did not hear what he was saying, but then he goes to a point where he's going to have questions and answers. He got some vicious attacks as the district attorney is trying to answer questions, so he finally decided, you know, thank you very much, and he left.

Well, then, Mr. Redington came on. And Kevin Redington, always talking, off the cuff, no filter, but his focus was on this one unknown male juror that held firm, and the court determined he was just deliberating, and he really focused in and zeroed in on him. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REDDINGTON: They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was, who stalled seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful, and listen to this evidence. And you could see how defeated they were sitting there.

[23:05:00]

And I got a funny feeling that they were to go on for another week if they had to. So, I hope that guy can sleep well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: That's highly unusual because jurors are held with such esteem in this country no matter which way they veer toward because they are doing their civic duty and their service by taking their time. In this trial, four weeks of testimony, one week of jury selection, a lot of time in that courtroom. But Mr. Reddington wanted to get the message across that it's just one juror that forged a path so that Lindsay Clancy could not be acquitted this time around.

BLACKWELL: You talked about the length of the deliberations, the length of the trial. What are you hearing about how the jury held up during the final moments before that mistrial was declared?

CASAREZ: Well, that, too. It was very, very tense in that courtroom, especially with the jury because when the judge called them out and they sat down for that final time, and then in front of them, he ordered and declared that there was a mistrial. There was -- women were looking down. They were holding their hands very tightly. There were shakes of the head in just such sadness.

When the judge said, you all should be so proud as jurors of what you've done, one female juror was like, uh-uh, nope, nope. And so, the feeling there, they obviously felt like they had failed the system, but the system worked the way the system was supposed to work, apparently, in this circumstance.

BLACKWELL: Jean Casarez with some very important reporting there, thank you so much. Let's unpack this further now with our legal experts tonight. Trial attorney and the host of "The Monique Pressley Show," Monique Pressley, former Miami-Dade County court judge, Jeff Swartz, and former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, Neama Rahmani, welcome to you all.

Judge, let me start with you and the judge's decision in this case. Obviously, the defense attorney disagreed, but was declaring a mistrial the only real option that he had?

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER JUDGE, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT: Well, as I understand it, based upon the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, shall I say, third time is strikeout. And three times they came out, they had received what they call a dynamite charge, we call it an Allen charge down here in Florida, and they could not break into making decision.

I don't think he had a choice. He gave Mr. Reddington the ability to go to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to try to change everything, to get a juror thrown off, to get them back into doing what they were supposed to, you know, to deliberate, and that got dismissed almost offhand.

We don't do that to jurors, and I think that Mr. Reddington's speech afterwards was out of line. I think he was trying to intimidate future jurors. I just -- we don't do that, and we heard this before, we don't do that to jurors. We just don't do it. But the judge did the right thing.

BLACKWELL: Monique, let me ask you about that, what Kevin Reddington said. He attacked this holdout juror, said that the rest of the jury was robbed by his actions, went on to say, I hope that guy can sleep well at night, as we heard. What do you make of that? And did he make it more difficult to seat a new jury if this is retried?

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY, YOUTUBE HOST: I don't know if he made it difficult to seat a new jury, but I do agree that what he did and what he said as a defense attorney, as a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth, was to me a bridge too far. I perhaps disagree about whether the judge could have done something or not. I think that Reddington gave several options, which were in the judge's discretion.

If you have a juror who, even at the bench, has admitted that they may have doubt but they're unwilling to apply the law as that doubt should be, then, certainly, as a defense attorney, I understand the frustration, I understand the weeks of testimony, the months of work, and the situation that his client is in. And so, I do think that emotionality got the best of him.

Does it stretch to intimidation where no other jury is going to be willing to sit? I don't think so because we had 11 of the 12 jurors that were ready and willing to do the right thing, and it seems that this one juror was set on nullifying.

[23:10:00]

Now, here's the thing about that. As a career defense attorney, there's many times where nullification works in our favor, where there's that one holdout juror that decides the case based on something other than the fact. They might like one of the lawyers, they may just have their own personal beliefs about the case, but then there are times when that does not work in our favor, and this was one of those times. So, I think, on balance, the judge made this decision, but that doesn't mean that there weren't other things that could have been done.

BLACKWELL: So now, Neama, what's next? Do you think that the state will try to -- or the Commonwealth will try to retry this case or offer a plea deal?

NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Victor, let me tell you what should happen and also what will happen. I agree, I'm going to be critical of both the district attorney, Timothy Cruz, and defense attorney Kevin Reddington, and this is why. Verdict means to speak the truth, and this jury has spoken. Eleven to find her not criminally responsible. There is no world where this case should be retried.

Now, I understand why it will be, because the political pressure is too much. We have three dead kids. Everyone in the world is watching this trial and this prosecutor, so there is no world where Lindsay Clancy is not going to be prosecuted, because she walks out a free woman or actually wheels herself out, right? So, we will have a retrial, probably sometime later this year, maybe early next year.

But I also have to take issue with what Reddington did. The motion he filed to the Court of Appeal, it was borderline frivolous. I understand you're a defense attorney, you want to win, you want to advocate for your client, advocate zealously, but to go after a juror just because you're not happy with what the result is, if you believe in our jury system as a prosecutor, the district attorney, you've got to respect that 11-1. Same thing with the defense.

We have the best system in this country. Don't attack jurors. And if you get the result that you don't like as a prosecutor, your job is to pursue justice. You're a defense attorney. Already, people don't want to show up to serve as jurors. They are not going to give up a month and a half, two months of their time, and now when they're being attacked publicly.

And Reddington did a masterful job at this trial, both inside the courtroom and outside, but it's time to call off the dogs and respect the jury's decision.

BLACKWELL: And judge, on that point, there has already been backlash to this. Glenn Beck likened Reddington's comments to doxing. I hear across the panel tonight a degree of condemnation of what Kevin Reddington said and did today. But do you believe, judge, that there are potential consequences for revealing any information about this juror, even the gender of the juror? Could the state bar or even the trial judge step in?

SWARTZ: I think that at this point, unless they disclose their names themselves, that no one is going to know who they are. The real problem is going to be if you have frustrated members of the 11 group, they may choose to disclose the name of that juror. There's nothing stopping them from doing it. They may be critical themselves.

The real problem here, Victor, is that everybody is accusing this juror of not following the law, of not using the instructions that he received for the purposes of deliberation. That's not necessarily so. And everybody is following Reddington's claims of all of this, but we don't know that. We don't know what happened in that jury room.

And to go after a juror because you didn't get your way is about as petulant as a lawyer can get. We believe in the system. We believe in jurors. This was just wrong, and it has to be dealt with and may be dealt with by the Bar Association, for all I know. BLACKWELL: All right. Thank you, everyone. Still ahead, the mistrial has created a wave of angry debate across the country, and the discourse goes now far beyond mental health. Plus, Lindsay Clancy's husband is reportedly pained by the prospects of another trial as he now faces attacks and conspiracy theories. The reporter who spent months interviewing Patrick Clancy will join me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: The Lindsay Clancy trial has certainly hit a cultural nerve and one that has ignited strong opinions on both sides. Just listen to some of the reactions CNN captured outside court today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I was hoping that she would be found not guilty and that she could get the help that she needs and she could move on with her life.

UNKNOWN: My family came on the Mayflower (ph), and I really don't think that they had in mind that 400 years later, we would be in court discussing, trying to make excuses for murdering our children, to be blunt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: But it's not just a handful of people outside court making themselves heard. A lot of the vitriol on social media has been directed at Clancy's ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, even after he described Lindsay as a loving mother while on the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK CLANCY, EX-HUSBAND OF LINDSAY CLANCY: She's very dedicated. She did everything. She started reading them books at three months. And she made up songs for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Joining me now is someone who interviewed Patrick Clancy extensively and even had his work subpoenaed by prosecutors. Contributing editor for "The New Yorker," Eren Orbey, joins me now. Eren, thanks for being with me. You write in your latest piece -- quote -- "No witness complicated the prosecution's case more than Clancy's ex-husband, Patrick." Why?

[23:19:59]

EREN ORBEY, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THE NEW YORKER: From the start, Patrick Clancy has been sympathetic to Lindsay. Several days after this horrific tragedy, after his children died, he came out publicly and said, I forgive Lindsay, and I encourage you to forgive her, too. The real Lindsay was genuinely loving and caring. You know, in a murder trial, you might expect the father of slain children to express contempt, hatred for the killer, but in this case, he wasn't the sort of star witness that the prosecution might have expected. You know, he was called by the prosecution but in, some ways, he was an almost hostile witness to them because he so overtly didn't fit that narrative.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Begs the question of if this is retried, what do they then do with Patrick Clancy? You can't avoid him in calling witnesses because, of course, the jury would want to know what he believes about all this. You did an extensive interview with Patrick just a couple of years ago. Did anything in particular stand out about how he has dealt with this tragedy?

ORBEY: From the start, Patrick has been dealt with this kind of ambiguous, incomprehensible catastrophe. He had to reconcile what Lindsay Clancy did with the version of Lindsay Clancy he knew and loved and married and was married to for years, and I think the luxury that some commentators have and that some people search for to have a simple theory for what happened and kind of piece together bits of information he didn't have.

He was someone who was compassionate toward Lindsay, but also was living with the reality of what she had done. I think, for him, it has just continued to be difficult, to see his life, his family life, be scrutinized in that way.

BLACKWELL: And you know that there are some people online who have tried to make him the villain. They're pushing false claims that he was actually responsible for the killings. Let's be clear. He has not been accused of any wrongdoing, charged with anything. Lindsay killed those children. But what is driving the conspiracy theories?

ORBEY: Again, this was a horrific catastrophe. And I think the more incomprehensible it is, the harder it is to understand the greater appeal there is to some sort of counternarrative that will make sense of it. And, you know, we had this trial livestreamed for weeks and weeks. People could parse the testimony, you know, piece together different bits of medical information, text messages, timelines to kind of come to different ideas of what had happened, and that ran rampant.

And I think there must be people who genuinely believe some of it. I think there are also kind of valid questions about certain elements of the investigation woven in there but it just got carried away. And then, of course, with the internet, you also have people who are glomming on to some of those ideas because they're prevalent, because they're, you know, trending sounds on TikTok or popular on Instagram.

And it's hard to suss out, I think, how much actual doubt there is around certain questions from how much traction, you know, that kind of expression has just gotten online today.

BLACKWELL: Yes. I said at the top that this has hit a cultural nerve. This initially started a conversation about postpartum health and flaws in the health care system, but it has now turned out to be this political culture war.

Let me read some of the reactions from some notable conservatives. First, from Meghan McCain. "I feel like a woman becoming president has now gotten much further away from happening since the Lindsay Clancy trial. This is Congresswoman Nancy Mace. She says, "As a country, we need to stop coddling criminals and start treating the actual victims as such. Lindsay Clancy is not the victim here." And from Fox News's Tomi Lahren. "You think these liberal women would still be in the Clancy fan club if she were a MAGA Trump supporter?"

How did it get to this point?

ORBEY: Well, I think in some of these cases, Lindsay is a target for what people actually have discomfort with, which is the idea of the insanity defense or the defense of a lack of criminal responsibility. In Massachusetts, it's a pretty expansive standard. And so, in a case like this, there really was a challenge for the prosecution to eliminate all reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible.

The trial was confusing with painful, traumatic evidence on both sides. And you could understand how some jurors might sit through it and notice certain inconsistencies or questions about what was really going through Lindsay Clancy's mind, and then still think, well, what is reasonable doubt in a murder case that really resolves on the question of someone's mindset, which is kind of unknowable.

I also think it's a tragedy that these discussions about postpartum mood disorders kind of require, as on occasion, this really rare, uncommon outcome. Postpartum depression is not uncommon. Postpartum psychosis is really rare. And suicide, filicide in cases of postpartum psychosis is very, very rare.

[23:24:59]

And so, it's a shame in a way that these conversations are circling around a case that is not representative in some ways and kind of primes people to think, oh, it's just some excuse for these killings, really.

BLACKWELL: Eren Orbey, thank you so much.

ORBEY: Thanks for having me.

BLACKWELL: Up next, Senator John Fetterman faces calls to resign after "The Wall Street Journal" detailed stunning examples of him dodging his constituents. And tonight, there's word that some of his former staffers may be out to reveal even more. The reporter who broke that story is with me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:29:57]

BLACKWELL: A new story from "The Wall Street Journal" reveals the dysfunction inside the office of Senator John Fetterman, missed meetings, dodging constituents, frequent appearances on Fox News. The journal's reporting is based on interviews with more than a dozen former Fetterman staffers, text messages, and internal records.

One of those text exchanges details a moment when Fetterman bailed on attending a funeral for three police officers in Pennsylvania. According to the messages the journal obtained, Fetterman backed out of the funeral because it was too long and the dress code was formal. The journal says Fetterman's office ignored multiple requests for comment.

Let's discuss now with my political panel tonight. Alex Vogel, former general counsel for the RNC, Mo Elleithee, former communications director for the DNC, and the reporter who broke that story, "The Wall Street Journal" Siobhan Hughes, welcome to you all.

Siobhan, let me start with you. You read through this and you kind of get the picture of someone who really just didn't want to do the work that's required by the job. Did you get a picture from the people you interviewed that he just does not want to be in Congress anymore?

SIOBHAN HUGHES, REPORTER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: What you really get a picture of is the contempt that he has for both the institution and the people that he represents. He certainly doesn't seem happy there. That's something that you can tell not just from the staffers, the ex- staffers, but also from watching him in that building. It's just not a happy place for him.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Some Democrats say that he should just resign. Pennsylvania Congressman Conor Lamb says he should quit. If this is what he feels about the institution and the job, why doesn't he?

MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR DNC: Yes. Look, John Fetterman likes being a maverick voice in the Senate, right? I think he actually enjoys being what he is. A lot of progressives were let down because they thought when they helped elect him, that they were electing this new generation progressive leader. And he has proven to be a guy you can't put in a box ideologically.

He has earned the right to be a maverick voice in the Senate, but in order to do that, you've actually got to be in the Senate, you've actually got to go to work, you've actually got to do the job. And you can be a maverick voice ideologically on the floor of the Senate in your floor speeches, but your voters don't want you to be a maverick when it comes to constituent services, when it comes to doing that part of the job. And if you're not willing to do even that, then I think you're going to continue -- that contempt can go both ways.

BLACKWELL: So, on the question of switching parties, he said that he's not switching parties, although he has pretty high approval ratings among Republicans in Pennsylvania, even higher than Dave McCormick. Do Republicans want a senator who doesn't go to the police officer's funeral because he has to wear a suit or isn't responding to constituent services? Does the math outweigh what he would actually be in the office?

ALEX VOGEL, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL FOR RNC: Look, I don't think he actually has to switch parties and declare himself a Republican to have a huge political impact here and a lot of leverage, which he understands. He can declare himself an independent, but caucus with Republicans. So, he has that dynamic available to him.

The more interesting thing to me is, look, there's no rule that says this is how many committee meetings you have to go to or you have to do this kind of constituent work. Certainly, that's an expectation and a norm. We've had candidates running for president. John Kerry, I remember, when I was working in the Senate, missed 90 percent of the votes one year because he was running.

This has also wrapped up in the broader politics of a potential primary in '28 for that seat with lots of Democrats eager to talk about it. The problem is they may create a political problem for themselves in January 27, depending on what control the Senate looks like.

ELLEITHEE: What's interesting is the loudest voices calling on him to leave are really coming from people who actually want his job, right? You're not hearing a lot of it, at least publicly, from his colleagues in the Senate, and I think it's because they get that point exactly, that, you know, he's a thorn in their side, but they can't alienate him too much. If they win control in November, they could lose it in January if he stops being an active member of the caucus.

BLACKWELL: To that point, you're certainly not hearing opposition from Chuck Schumer. I mean, you reported they had dinner last month, that he said kind things about him. That's exclusively the math, too?

HUGHES: Chuck Schumer and his colleagues are doing a lot of work behind the scenes to make sure they keep Fetterman on board, and that is absolutely about the math.

BLACKWELL: Mo, so, there's this new X account that popped up. There are former staffers who say they're going to release more. They're going to have more to say. Here is the announcement of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Where does this leave Fetterman now? I mean, Democrats want him because of the math, but where does it leave him in the party?

[23:35:00]

ELLEITHEE: He is the Democrat that Democrats love to hate, right? I think he will continue to be that. I think there are a lot of former staffers of his who -- this isn't new. Since almost the month he took office, people, insiders were starting to leak information about him in drips and drabs. That's going to continue. I think it will continue to exacerbate his contempt for the institution. But, ultimately, I think the math is going to govern how his colleagues deal with him. His math within a Democratic primary electorate will determine how Pennsylvania voters deal with him.

VOGEL: I do have concerns about the idea that former staffers are leaking functional emails from their time in the office. If you work for someone, you don't like where they are on issues, although, I would argue, even on the most hot-button issue he's tangled with folks on, which is Israel, that was his position when he got elected. That was actually a pretty mainstream position at the time. The party has obviously moved way over to the other side on that and created some political problems.

But this idea that members can't trust their own staff, if you don't like somebody, you don't like their position, you don't like the way they work and are serving voters, resign, but to leak the emails out there, I think, is not a functional way to do it.

ELLEITHEE: If you're going to do it, put your name on it.

VOGEL: Yes.

BLACKWELL: Yes, don't do it anonymously. On Israel, Senator Fetterman has said that if the party becomes anti-Israel, if it becomes part of the platform that's anti-Israel, that would be probably the thing that moves him out of the party, if not to Republicans, but out of the party. Why has he made this -- placed a premium on the commitment to Israel?

HUGHES: This is one of the great mysteries of John Fetterman. I mean, he certainly took this position in 2022. It was not controversial until a focal point. This became a focal point after October 7th, and nobody has been able to unravel that. And if you talk to John Fetterman, it still is not entirely clear.

BLACKWELL: All right. Everybody, stand by. We've got more to talk about. Up next, as the midterm sprint begins, Republicans face a question: Do they want President Trump on the campaign trail with them? And for Democrats, what about having Kamala Harris out there? We'll get into it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Fewer than 60 days away now from the midterm elections. Voting is just days away. North Carolina today became the first state to send out mail-in ballots for the election. Remember, President Trump is trying to limit mail-in voting. That executive order is held up in court. But there may be a bigger issue for the president. Some Republicans don't seem too thrilled to campaign with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN NOBLES, CHIEF CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT, NBC NEWS: Do you want the president to come to the first district and campaign with you?

REP. ROB WITTMAN (R), VIRGINIA: Well, Ryan, listen, I'm very focused on our campaign plan, getting out and talking to the folks in the first congressional district.

NOBLES: But would part of your campaign plan be to have an event with the president to bring him to your district? WITTMAN: Well, my campaign plan is about our efforts to talk with our constituents and do everything that we can to meet with them as many as we can face-to-face.

NOBLES: All right. I'm going to try it one more time. Do you want the president to campaign for you?

WITTMAN: As I said, our campaign plan is focused on my interactions with my constituents and the things that we've worked on there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Ryan Noble has tried, tried to get a straight answer out of that. My panel is back with me now. Alex, let me start with you. Is the president a liability on the campaign trail this cycle?

VOGEL: I don't think that's the issue. I mean, look, one of the things we've learned about President Trump, he is a singular force when it comes to motivating and turning out Republican voters. And one of the things you have to do is make sure the Republican base electorate turns out and you want him engaged and you want him in that conversation.

The challenge in some of these races, because we're talking about a fairly narrow strip of actually competitive races, they're so close on a partisan basis. All of those candidates want this to be much more about the contrast with their opponent as opposed to a national issue.

BLACKWELL: How much of that is because of the president's historically low approval ratings?

VOGEL: The president's approval ratings have never tracked where traditional politicians' numbers have. So, I think it's less to do with that and more about the specifics in a lot of these races.

BLACKWELL: Siobhan, the president says that Republicans like him, but they don't like other elected Republicans. He wants to make himself the center, consider that he's on the ballot. How does that work if he thinks that the Republicans on the ballot are the issue and he's supposed to go out and stand next to them? How does he reconcile those two?

HUGHES: Yes, that does seem to be like a built-in conflict.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

HUGHES: Yes.

BLACKWELL: Is there a plan? What does it look like?

HUGHES: You mean for the Republicans who are trying to win?

BLACKWELL: Yes.

HUGHES: You know, I was on the Hill this week, and so many Republicans I talked to were taking the strategy of I'm running my own race, I'm independent, sometimes I'm with President Trump, sometimes I'm not. And it reminded me so much of -- do you remember 2016, when all of the Republicans were told, run like you're running for sheriff? And Bob Portman campaigned on algae blooms in Lake Erie. Pat Toomey was out there dealing with pepper spray that he'd gotten for the wardens in the prisons.

[23:45:02]

These were amazing races where they really managed to separate themselves. It's harder to separate yourself now because what have the Republicans actually done? I've seen them go out and talk about the housing bill. We got the housing bill passed. The next question is, oh, you mean the housing bill the president didn't sign?

BLACKWELL: Yes.

HUGHES: It's just a tough, tough spot.

ELLEITHEE: I mean, Alex is right when he says that the president is a singular force in turning out Republican voters for himself, right? But one thing we have learned over the last decade, his popularity is not necessarily transferable, but his unpopularity is very much transferable.

And so, these down-ballot Republicans, when his name is not at the top of the ticket, very much understand that he is less popular than he's ever been overall, that his job approval has never been weaker on the economy, on immigration. Those are the two things that Republicans used to own, and they are now -- voters are saying they trust Democrats more on those two issues.

The president does not help in the way he once did. So, I think you will see him out on the campaign trail, in the most red places to turn out, right? Ken Paxton is going to be very happy to campaign with the president because he's in trouble in Texas, of all places. The president might be able to help boost Republican turnout, but in his last midterm election, he actually didn't help boost Republican turnout even when he went out on the campaign trail. It's not transferable.

BLACKWELL: Well, let me stay with you. And former Vice President Kamala Harris was asked about some Democrats who don't want her on the campaign trail with them. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FORMER DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT (voice-over): We need to win, OK? Bottom line, we need to win. I have run locally. I've run for statewide office and obviously nationally, and these candidates know what they need to do to win, and I would expect nothing less. I look forward to being on the trail and helping folks where I can be helpful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: And so, what does this say about not just the elected Democrats but the electorate? Are they ready to move on from that era?

ELLEITHEE: I think we are very much in a change cycle, right? People -- and we've seen this throughout Democratic primaries. People want change. They're very sort of oriented towards what's next, how do we turn the corner from this period of time. So, it makes sense that in some places, candidates may not want to focus on the past, and that's what Kamala Harris is, right? She was the past nominee. They want to focus on the future.

Now, she may become the future down the road. I think she may run for president. If she does, she would be a very formidable candidate. Now is not the time to make that case. If she wants to make that case, she can make it starting in 2027.

Candidates right now are very much oriented towards the future, and what they want to focus on is not the 2024 Democratic nominee but the 2024 Republican nominee, the current president of the United States.

BLACKWELL: Siobhan, is there any evidence that that framework applies to former President Obama? I mean, in the same way that maybe these Democrats don't want Kamala Harris. They are recording ads with President Obama.

HUGHES: President Obama has had an appeal that really is enduring, and I would put him in a far different category from someone like Kamala Harris. You know, this is somebody who had a major accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. He's really remembered fondly.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Do you agree with that?

ELLEITHEE: I think that's true. I think there are exceptions to every rule, and I think President Obama is an exception to that rule. We were talking back in the Green Room that sort of in these times of change, in these populist moments, there's sort of two flavors, right? There's angry populism. We're seeing a lot of that on both sides of the aisle. There is aspirational populism. At the end of the day, when people are mad, they still want to feel better. President Obama always sort of had a way to make people feel better.

BLACKWELL: All right. Thank you, everyone. Up next, a business leader who is not afraid to take on the White House. The head of Patagonia is suing the administration over its cuts to protected national lands. Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert is my guest, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Patagonia is taking the Trump administration back to court over the fight to protect public lands. The outdoor apparel company is suing President Trump over his move to shrink Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. President Obama first designated the area a national monument in 2016. But in July, Trump ordered the boundaries of Bears Ears to be reduced by more than 1.2 million acres, roughly 91 percent of the monument. It could open much of that land to drilling and mining. Patagonia argues that current law lets presidents designate monuments, not dismantle them. The Justice Department says it has no comment on the lawsuit.

Earlier, I spoke with Patagonia's CEO about the fight.

[23:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL: Joining me now is the CEO of Patagonia, Ryan Gellert. Ryan, thanks for joining me tonight. So, first question, why did you decide to take on this administration? Why was this the issue that your company felt it needed to fight?

RYAN GELLERT, CEO, PATAGONIA: You know, we've been involved in protecting wild places for the vast majority of our 53-year history. With Bears Ears specifically, we've been involved since, I think, at least 2013, maybe a bit earlier, in supporting the tribal nations and other conservationists in protecting that area.

BLACKWELL: And you know that the political climate is very contentious. A lot of businesses, they don't want anything to do with politics for fear of alienating customers, maybe who disagree. What's your concern, if at all, about taking on this administration and how that could hurt business?

GELLERT: You know, I think, first of all, our mission statement is we're in business to save our home planet, so this is what we've always done, this is what we do. So, I think, to your point, we're living in increasingly polarized times.

The reality, though, is I'd argue public lands is probably one of the few remaining less politically-charged or at least polarized issues in America. I think, you know, it's a pretty safe statement that the vast majority of Americans want clean air, clean water, clean soil. And protecting nature, I think, is something that we all share. So, it's the center of the bullseye for our mission, and I think it's something that our customers and communities expect.

BLACKWELL: And what is so special about Bears Ear specifically for you? You've been involved in preservation and protection for so long. Talk to me about this monument.

GELLERT: Yes. I mean, I'll talk to you about it personally first. I spent the better part of 20 years living in Salt Lake City. I'm a rock climber and somebody that just loves spending time outdoors. And so, I've spent a lot of time, probably hundreds of hours, exploring the Bears Ears area, including the monument, as it was established by President Obama. So, an area that's incredibly important to me personally.

That really is the equivalent of, like, stopping by for a cup of coffee, in my opinion, relative to the original stewards of the land, which are the tribal communities. They've lived on, depended on, and steward that land for literally hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And it's in support of them that we also joined this lawsuit, which we did as well under the first Trump administration, when the borders of Bears Ears were rescinded in 2017.

BLACKWELL: So, I understand why you want to protect it, but there's also this risk for your side. Some environmental lawyers, they're worried that if this case reaches the Supreme Court, the administration wins, it could actually weaken protections for other national monuments beyond Bears Ears. Are you worried this lawsuit could backfire? Have you considered that risk?

GELLERT: Certainly considered it. I think you raise a really good point. The reality as we see it is two things. Number one, I think the risk of doing nothing is much higher than the risk that you just outlined. And I would say, number two, we've got really good attorneys and a really good case, so I'm confident in our position.

BLACKWELL: Yes. And I know you've talked about businesses who try to avoid confrontation with the Trump administration. In some cases, companies have adapted to the president's preferences. You know, the president calls it Lake America. Google calls it Lake America. Now, Apple calls it Lake America. What do you make of Corporate America's approach to or the handling of Trump's second term?

GELLERT: You know, I'll say a couple of things. Number one, our mission statement is, we're in business to save our home planet. And I don't think that's a political position. That's just a statement of commitment. And we use a whole-of-business approach to trying to live up to that mission statement. Four years ago, we restructured our business. We give a hundred percent of our profits away to fighting the climate and ecological crisis. That's a starting place. That's who we are and what we do.

I think what is coming out of this administration over the last 19 months is a whole-of-government attack on nature, on biodiversity, on climate, and on public lands. And so, we have an absolute responsibility to step up and participate and push back against that.

And I think on the topic of what do we expect of other businesses? I think -- you know, I think leadership is not something that you do when it's easy. Leadership is something that you do when it's exactly the opposite. And I've been really frustrated with the business sector kowtowing and bending, not so much to the political wills of this administration, but to just right and wrong, and that's really frustrating to watch.

BLACKWELL: Hey, on the question of Lake America, I mean, Patagonia has a store in Toronto, right near Lake Ontario. Is there any Lake America-branded Patagonia ware coming?

GELLERT: Yes. Not now. Not ever.

BLACKWELL: Simple answer. Ryan Gellert, thanks so much.

[00:00:00] GELLERT: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL: Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Alex Michaelson" is next.