Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Canada Vows To Match U.S. Tariffs "Dollar For Dollar"; Supreme Court hands Trump Win Over Mail-In Ballots; South Carolina Senate Runoff Tests Trump's Endorsement Power; Police Investigating People Emerging From NYC Manholes; Court Resumes After Judge Denies Mistrial Motion; FDA Clears New Blood Test To Help Detect Alzheimer's Disease; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired August 25, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:31]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching the second hour of
"One World."
Ahead on the show, Canada announces counter tariffs on hundreds of American goods, saying it's matching sweeping Trump tariffs dollar for dollar.
And in the U.S., we'll go to South Carolina where a heated GOP Senate race is underway.
Plus, trial resumes for the mother accused of murdering her three children.
And we begin in Canada with the country firing back at the United States, announcing in the last hour counter tariffs on more than 700 American
goods.
The duty is set to take effect on September 8th and worth over $20 billion of particular note. Canada says that it's doubling tariffs on U.S. steel
and aluminum to 50 percent, matching the rate Washington charges on Canadian metals.
The retaliatory tariffs were laid out by a group of government ministers earlier, along with other measures to help support Canadian businesses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANCOIS-PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE, CANADIAN FINANCE MINISTER: Today, I'm announcing that Canada will match the United States tariffs, dollar for
dollar, rate for rate. Effective September 8th, Canada will impose counter tariffs of up to 15, 25, or 50 percent on 27.6 billion in imports from the
United States of America. For each product, our tariff would match the American tariff on the same type of Canadian good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: One is a longtime ally and a loyal friend of Washington, the other is a decades old adversary. Now, both Iran and Canada find themselves
in an economic showdown with the U.S.
And as my colleague Stephen Collinson says, this moment could be a major test of Trump's theory of global power.
On Iran, the U.S. Treasury Secretary says Washington will further crack down on countries that continue to do business with Tehran. Scott Bessent
did not offer specifics of potential U.S. measures or give a timeline. His threat puts China front and center for possible U.S. actions.
And Iran says that it's fully prepared to counter the U.S. sanctions, various forms of international sanctions over a nearly 50-year period have
already crippled Iran's economy. Experts say Tehran has a high threshold for pain and is unlikely to capitulate under pressure.
Let's break this all down with the aforementioned CNN politics senior reporter Stephen Collinson. Stephen, great to see you.
You have another must-read piece out as you analyze this trade war and economic war really that the United States has taken with an ally and then
with an adversary with Iran in particular.
Let's talk about this economic onslaught that the treasury secretary announced yesterday. At the same breath, though, he also said that he
didn't want a full-out global blow-up of the financial system.
So, which one is it? Is it the actual policy of just laying out what could be in hypotheticals or enacting it no matter the consequences?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: That's a good question. And I think as we've seen throughout the six months now of this war, there
are doubts about what the U.S. strategy is and what it's trying to achieve.
Clearly, the president believes that the U.S. economy is so strong on its own that he can use that leverage to force other countries to end their
trade with Iran, and thereby further crush Iran's economy.
The problem is, as you mentioned, that they didn't line out specific measures that we're going to take against specific countries or entities
within those countries.
So the big question is, therefore, why aren't they going after, for example, Chinese banks that facilitate the shadow trade in oil that is
keeping Iran's economy off complete rock bottom?
And I think that gets to the problem the president has. He regards the U.S. as so powerful that it can do exactly what it wants, when it wants, but
going after Chinese businesses would come with a price, with reprisals.
And we saw last year that if it's so minded, China can stand up to the United States like few other countries. We remember it threatened to
curtail rare earth mineral exports to the United States, which are crucial for the U.S. tech and defense industries. And that ended the trade war with
the United States.
[12:05:16]
So, I think the question is, as you mentioned, Iran can endure a great deal of pain because its repressive leaders are prepared to put that pain on the
people. Is the United States and are U.S. voters rallying into the midterm elections also prepared to endure economic pain?
And the reticence of this treasury secretary of the United States is applying it, as opposed to threatening it, does suggest, I think, and will
suggest to Iran and other U.S. adversaries that the U.S. is still not ready to go full bore ahead with this.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the treasury secretary said yesterday that a major financial institution would be sanctioned by the end of this week, not yet
clear which institution that is. Is it a major Chinese bank? That would be a first and a significant escalation here.
But yet, we have not had any specific rhetoric on what the United States plans to do, vis-a-vis China. I mean, we have that state visit in exactly a
month's time from President Xi to Washington.
What's interesting also, Stephen, is that while these are two very different countries in terms of their relations with the United States,
one's a Western country that has up until now, at least been a traditional ally in democratic country, obviously that being Canada.
And the other, Iran, a global pariah, one that we have been at war with now for six years and have leveled sanctions against since 1979, the global
sponsor, really, of -- of terror here in the world, both of these countries, though, do seem to know that the lever that they have against
the United States in response here, economically, is the midterm election and how much pain the president is able to withstand economically here in
the United States. And would that ultimately lead him to reverse course? You write about this in the piece.
COLLINSON: Yes. And I think it's been very interesting throughout the war with Iran that Tehran is clearly kind of pretty close-eyed on American
politics. The whole issue of the Strait of Hormuz seizing that critical waterway is designed to ratchet up pressure on the global economy and
thereby political pressure on President Trump.
Canada also clearly understands this even more than Iran. If you think about the U.S. states that are most deeply affected, for example, by
tariffs, by a slowdown of trade between the two countries, you're talking about border states, two of those; Michigan and Maine are the critical
states, really, in the midterm elections, in terms of whether Democrats can win the Senate.
There is a very close alliance or integration of the economies on both sides of the U.S. and Canadian borders in those two states.
Voters feel rising cost there because of tariff wars much more quickly than voters elsewhere in the United States. So, political pressure will ratchet
up very quickly.
What was quite interesting today is that the Canadians are not ruling out the possibility of a much more draconian sanc -- or tariffs or economic
sanctions effectively on the United States if Trump responds even further and this gets even more out of control.
For example, potash fertilizer imports to the United States are absolutely vital to the U.S. agricultural industry. That could hurt Trump in states
that are politically sensitive if Canada were to tax, for example, U.S. imports of that commodity.
And also the auto industry. If you think about the auto industry between the two countries, cars go backwards and forwards several times during the
manufacturing process. That's going to be a very big deal in Michigan, for example, a state that Democrats are trying to hang on to in a narrow race
which could dictate the destiny of the U.S. Senate. So, I think there is a lot of political leverage here.
And the Canadians also have the option of perhaps increasing the price of energy that the United States pays which is vital to the U.S. economy. And
any increase there would very quickly hit consumers who are already very worried about high prices.
So, there's a lot of politics, as you say, going on behind the economics here. And I think many Canadians believe this is not necessarily a tariff
war. There's a fight for their own sovereignty and nationhood and President Trump's incessant demands for them to become the 51st state. They look a
little bit of a joke in the United States, but across the other side of the border, they look a lot more real.
[12:10:08]
GOLODRYGA: And, of course, from all of this, the loser here on both sides of the border are consumers, potentially.
Stephen Collinson, thank you.
Well, now to a political win for President Trump; the U.S. Supreme Court allowed him to move forward with an executive order that targets mail-in
voting.
The court's decision did not address the legality of Trump's order, only the timing of a lawsuit filed by 23 U.S. states. The majority of the
justices ruled that the legal challenge to the order was premature.
Now, if the president's order is fully implemented by November, the restrictions on mail-in voting could disproportionately benefit Republicans
because mail-in ballots traditionally skew to the Democrats.
President Trump's repeated attacks on mail-in voting have been part of a wider effort to fundamentally change U.S. elections.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mail-in voting, which is so crooked.
Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt.
Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating. And we got to do something about it.
Mail-in ballots are a big fraud.
You will never have an honest selection if you have mail-in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Let's discuss with our chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, who is joining us from Washington. Joan, good to see you as
always.
This is an issue that the president has really prioritized in both of his terms here. And in the interim, at least, he got a win from the Supreme
Court yesterday. What does this mean for now, at least, for voters who vote by mail-in ballot?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes, Bianna. It's very good to see you.
And you're right, it was a win, but it's a limited win because with a limited case at this point. And what I'll be watching for is to see whether
this order suggests openness on the part of the Supreme Court toward his entire agenda here, which from hearing those clips that you just played, he
is not going to let go of.
Right now, as -- as you mentioned, the Supreme Court said that the case, as it first came up to them yesterday, was not -- not timely because neither
the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Postal Service had finalized, at least when this case started, had finalized their actual
rules.
There was -- the Supreme Court said the states actually had not yet been injured in any way. States are claiming that the -- the interference of the
federal government already is encroaching on their rights under the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution does indeed give the state's control over the time, place, and manner of elections. And the states are allow -- alleging that
this is interference, but the Supreme Court said, just wait, we don't know yet exactly what the administration is going to do.
In the short term, Bianna, the Department of Homeland Security can continue to compile lists of people who it believes are eligible voters, but the
Post Office cannot yet put in place its rule that would require states to use only certain designated envelopes with barcodes and would be
distributed only to people that have already been certified as -- as eligible voters.
Obviously, what Donald Trump says he's trying to head off are people who are here unlawfully voting.
We have seen no evidence that that is a serious problem in America of people using mail-in ballots to vote when they -- when they shouldn't be.
So, that's -- that's kind of what -- what some of the issues are.
But what's going to happen now in the next couple days and weeks, right coming up to the crunch time of the November 3rd election, you know, just
about two months and a few days from now, is that lower courts will further resolve these claims now from both the 23 states that have sued the
administration and the League of Women Voters that have -- has a separate case going forward, challenging these particular measures.
And now, they'll be a position to say, look, this is what the federal government wants to do specifically with the Post -- Postal Service,
because that order went into effect, what it was announced as -- as being finalized last Friday, it wasn't in time for the -- the case sits there
now.
But lower courts will take a new look at this, given what the Supreme Court said and given what the Trump administration is trying to do.
And the key question, Bianna, is, will it get up here to the Supreme Court and reso -- be resolved in time for the November election? And will the
court believe that these -- these measures, these measures that allow unprecedented federal authority and control into state elections, would
they allow these to even exist?
And as a practical matter, can the Trump administration actually put these things in place? Can it get a decent list of whose eligible that would be
turned over to the federal government, and get the barcodes onto ballot envelopes for mail-in?
[12:15:13]
All those things, you know, as I said, were -- were just about two months out. And so there are real questions of constitutionality and practicality
here.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, 70 days away, I believe, from the midterms.
BISKUPIC: That's right.
GOLODRYGA: And just days, days, weeks, in some parts of the country in some states, as it relates to early voting. So, this could --
BISKUPIC: That's right.
GOLODRYGA: -- lead to a lot more confusion ahead of the midterm elections.
BISKUPIC: That's right.
GOLODRYGA: Joan Biskupic, thank you.
BISKUPIC: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And still ahead on "One World," voters in two U.S. states head to the polls today. We'll look at how they'll affect the upcoming midterm
elections, and eventually the makeup of Congress. That's next.
And New York police are investigating people from emerging manholes -- emerging from manholes. It's really scary. More on this after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Well, as you just heard, there are just 70 days until the U.S. midterm elections. However, voters head to the polls in two states today,
both to replace incumbents who have passed away.
In Georgia, Democrats, Marcye Scott and Everton Blair, are vying to replace the late Congress member David Scott, Marcye's father. He passed away in
April. Filling the seat will reduce the Republicans' already narrow majority in the House. However, it may only be until January since neither
candidate is running in November's midterms.
And in South Carolina, voters are headed to the polls for a key Senate runoff. President Trump's choice, Senator Darline Graham, faces Congressman
Ralph Norman for the Republican nomination. Graham replaced her brother, Senator Lindsey Graham who died in early July. The winner will face
Democrat Annie Andrews in November.
Dianne Gallagher joins us now from a polling place in Lexington, South Carolina. Dianne, what are you hearing from voters?
DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Bianna, the voters are voting. And it does sound cliche, but this is a special primary runoff
election. So, turnout, literally, is going to be key here.
And there's been a lot of talk about experience or lack thereof with some Republicans saying that they are concerned about President Trump's backed
candidate, Senator Darline Graham, and what many consider to be a lack of details in her platform, that shaky debate performance she had one week ago
today.
[12:20:05]
And what one strategist said to me is simply, they just don't know that much about her. But President Trump has put his full support behind the
late Lindsey Graham sister, in part, because he has such loyalty to his friend, he has said, saying even make think like I am on the ballot when
you vote.
Well, we talked to some voters today and here's what they told us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Why'd you vote for Darline?
TRACIE BAXLEY, SOUTH CAROLINA VOTER: I loved her brother and I love what he stood for. And she's going to be great.
GALLAGHER: Did President Trump's endorsement play any role in your vote?
BAXLEY: It did.
GALLAGHER: Talk to me about that.
BAXLEY: Well, I'm a big supporter of him all said. But Lindsey Graham has been a part of South Carolina for so long. And having his endorsement for
his sister meant the world.
GALLAGHER: Who did you vote for?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ralph Norman.
GALLAGHER: Why?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because when I watched the debate, Darline Graham was not prepared. She does not seem to have the experience that we need.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: Now, Graham's success or failure tonight is likely going to be seen by many even outside of South Carolina as a direct reflection on
President Trump. He held an in-person rally here in Myrtle Beach on Friday to tell rallies and his super PAC, MAGA Inc., made a rare drop of nearly
$830,000 on get out the vote efforts here in the final few days.
Again, he has basically said, think of it as me on the ballot to voters. Both campaigns, the Norman campaign and the Graham campaign, have worked
hard to make sure people show up to the polls today because they agree. If they can get the turnout in the area where they feel, they have the most
support in the state, that is going to be the key to potentially eating out a victory either because of or in spite of President Trump's endorsement,
Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Dianne Gallagher have been covering it all for us today. And you have been covering it up to this election day too. Thank you.
GALLAGHER: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Well, this is something you don't hear about every day. Police are investigating a video of men crawling out of a manhole in New York. How
creepy is that?
It happened right near Penn Station. It's the country's busiest transit hub. CNN's Shimon Prokupecz has the details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): This bizarre video posted to TikTok showing three men wearing what appears
to be headlamps and protective clothing crawling out of a manhole in New York City is sparking a frenzy of questions. Who are these people? What are
they doing and why?
The NYPD says they are aware of the incident and are actively investigating. There are no arrests. Police say this video was taken around
4:00 A.M. on Thursday, August 18, just outside Manhattan's Penn Station. It's the busiest passenger transportation facility in America, handling
more daily riders than any individual airport or major tunnel in the area.
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think the fact that it was so close to Penn Station means that the NYPD is going to take
probably an extra focus to try to stop this from happening.
PROKUPECZ (voice-over): This incident comes after eerily similar videos around New York City appeared just a few months ago. In this one outside an
auto body shop in Queens, you can see the three individuals pry open a manhole cover, enter into the sewer and pulled the cover closed before
traffic started moving again. Investigators believe people may have been hunting for anything of value that found its way into the sewer system,
especially after a storm.
Authorities investigated but did not find that anything was damaged or interfered with.
KAYYEM: These are highly orchestrated events. You have people on the outside knowing exactly when to lift the manhole and let these -- and let
the others out. The earlier when these were first found in May, these videos, the NYPD said that they thought it was some sort of scavenger hunt.
PROKUPECZ (voice-over): After this video surfaced in May, New York City's Department of Environmental Protection issued a statement saying in part,
"Entering the sewer system is both illegal and extremely dangerous."
These videos of humans emerging from sewers looks like something out of a Hollywood movie.
BILL MURRAY, ACTOR: The guys are going down to the sewer to check for slime stuff, and Egon thinks there may be a huge surge in cockroach breeding.
PROKUPECZ (voice-over): The question remains, is it more minions? Or something more nefarious?
KAYYEM: Whatever it is, it's highly dangerous, not simply for them. It's disgusting down there. There's chemicals, there's smells, there's noxious
materials and -- and liquids, but obviously, they could leave something behind that would be dangerous to pedestrians or street.
PROKUPECZ (voice-over): Shimon Prokupecz, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:25:52]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York.
Court is set to resume in Las Vegas this hour for the trial of Duane Davis who was accused of orchestrating the 1996 killing of Tupac Shakur.
The prosecution is expected to call on more witnesses. The emotions ran high on Monday after the court heard recordings of interviews from 2017.
In them, Davis said that he wished Shakur's death never happened but also U-turned on wanting to apologize to Shakur's family. Shakur's sister was
seen tearing up in the courtroom as she listened.
In a more recent tragedy is in the spotlight in Massachusetts, the trial of Lindsay Clancy resuming today after the judge denied the defense's motion
for a mistrial on Monday.
Clancy is accused of murdering her three young children in 2023. The mistrial motion was based on testimony from a prosecution witness who
referred to the defendant's Catholic face -- faith. The judge asked jurors to ignore the testimony.
CNN's Jean Casarez is in Plymouth and joins us now.
Jean, you've been in the courtroom all morning, every day, as you have been throughout this trial. Tell us what it was like inside.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was fascinating, because we watch it on television. There's a camera in the courtroom, but to be in that courtroom
to really watch and see.
And the jury is completely focused on the expert witness because we are now in the battle of the experts and they're writing notes. Predominantly, the
women are writing notes though, not the men. There's one man that's writing notes, but they are focused continually, even to the point when the defense
attorney went and put his hands on the defendant's shoulder talking about what she's been through. They continued to focus on the witness.
But there are two distinct theories here. And the point is, did she know right from wrong? Lindsay Clancy, when she killed her three children.
Should she be held criminally responsible? That's the part of this case that we're into right now.
Now, the defense says, she was in the -- she was frankly psychotic. She was in a state of mind where a voice was commanding her to kill her children
and this is because of the medication she had been on. She wasn't on too many things at the point that's happened but just the build-up of all of
it.
[12:30:09]
Also, because of the psychosis and the commanding voices, she had no control. One expert said she was like a puppet on a string.
But the expert that is on the witness stand now, the psychologist, Dr. Heilbrun, he is saying that there is something called altruistic filicide.
That is when someone kills their children. And it is out of the love for the children.
She wanted to commit suicide, he testified, no question about it. She was very severely mentally ill. And she didn't want to leave her children alone
without a mother. And it was a kind thing to do, potentially in her own mind. He also gave another example from the 1940s.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. KIRK HEILBRUN, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: If -- if one of us were to learn, and we had no doubt in our mind that the Holocaust was coming tomorrow, and
we thought that was going to be awful, and I -- I can't -- I can't live through that, and so I'm going to take my own life.
If I had children, the question might come up, do I take them with me? Do I take their lives as well?
Now, I'm not saying that I would definitely do that, but what I'm saying is that it would come up as a possibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CASAREZ: That was a very somber moment in that courtroom, but the jury is focused intently. They know they have a big decision to make when this goes
to closing argument and jury deliberations.
Now, we were told closings would be tomorrow, but the judge backed off of that this morning. He said, I've been wrong so many times. I'm not going to
say it. So, the rebuttal case of the prosecution continues. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: You'll be covering it for us as you have been so brilliantly, as you always do. Jean Casarez, thank you.
Well, jurors in those two high-profile murder trials faced with the challenge of sifting evidence from experts, witnesses, and law enforcement
while under the glare of intense media attention. It's not easy.
Time now for The Exchange. Joining us is criminal defense attorney Elyse Hershon. Elyse, good to see you.
So, let's start in the -- the Lindsay Clancy case first. And the prosecution's rebuttal psychologist who we heard a little bit from in -- in
Jean's piece, Kirk Heilbrun, testified that Lindsay Clancy reported a command hallucination only during the killings and never before and never
after. And he noted that that is very, very rare and a convenient way to lessen culpability.
Legally, how do you interpret that testimony? How damaging is it?
ELYSE HERSHON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And thank you for having me on your show, Bianna.
So, essentially, that we're in the battle of the experts, the defense in its case, although it has no burden to do so, called three experts,
essentially, a psychiatrist, two psychologists who found that Lindsay Clancy or gave their opinion after interviewing her that she was not
criminally responsible.
Now, the prosecution has rebuttal witnesses. We're on the second rebuttal witness. And he has testified that she is criminally responsible and is
giving reasons why.
Essentially, both sides are taking the same facts and the same defendant and coming to different opinions. What we have to remember is in
Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she is criminally responsible, in addition to the
triple murder charges.
So, they have a really high burden here, the defendant doesn't. So, essentially, coming out with an opposite opinion means the jury is weighing
two different opinions, and that by definition, is reasonable doubt.
GOLODRYGA: So, walk us through what the jury will actually be weighing here. Is a murder conviction their only path? Or is there some middle
ground like manslaughter?
HERSHON: Great question. So, in Massachusetts, when there's a first-degree murder charge, there are three different theories that they can go forward
with. Only one has to be proven. One is premeditated, deliberate murder. That is going to be on the verdict slip and instructed to the jury.
The second type of first-degree murder, and this is for each child who was killed, is extreme atrocity and cruelty, so not premeditated but
intentional. And that it was such a horrifying way to kill somebody.
Now, manslaughter could be on the verdict slip as well in voluntary manslaughter. What happens in Massachusetts is a defense attorney, at the
charge conference, so after most of the evidence has come in, can ask the judge to add or take away a charge, essentially giving the jury something
else to deliberate, besides a not-guilty across the board, which will also be on their first-degree murder, second-degree murder will also be an
option, and then not guilty for lack of criminal responsibility.
[12:35:03]
And voluntary manslaughter could be on there as well, giving the jury more to discuss, more to agree on, or maybe more to disagree on, that could end
in a hung jury.
Essentially, if the jury does not believe that the prosecution has proved that she's fully criminally responsible, but doesn't believe that she maybe
they think it's a partial defense, they can land on an involuntary manslaughter where it is a mitigating factor that she was suffering from
mental illness.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, let's move on now to the Tupac Shakur trial there. Duane Davis, as we've been reporting, has for years and he's written about it,
he's profited from it, called himself the shot caller, that he is the one who killed Tupac Shakur in that "Death Row Chronicles" interview that the
jury watched. He first said that he hates that this happened. And now, now, he's denying anything.
When you are a jury here and you're deliberating between what the defendant said then and said now, how much pressure is there on this jury to figure
out where the truth is and where they ultimately land?
HERSHON: That's going to be the ultimate question. But I'll tell you as a defense attorney, one of our worst nightmares is when our client's words
are being used against them to try to prove their guilt. It's -- it's one of the worst things you can deal as -- as a defense attorney.
But what is working in their favor and what the prosecution is going to struggle with and continue to struggle with, is that this is 30 years
later. There's no murder weapon. They don't have that gun. That white Cadillac is gone. Every other of those three people, including the alleged
shooter, which is Davis' nephew, they are all passed away, dead or having been shot.
And the only one in the other car is Suge Knight. He's in prison. He has already come out and said, no way am I testifying.
So, we don't have an eyewitness. And we have investigators that are trying to jog their memories from 30 years ago.
So, they're going to have a hard time corroborating Davis' statements. So, they're trying to use what's called a proffer or basically an undersealed
discussion that they had with Davis when they were investigating the case that was not expected to see the light of day, to try to corroborate that
what he said in his book and his media interviews is true.
GOLODRYGA: That's really going to come down to he said versus he said, right? Thirty years later, as you note there --
HERSHON: Absolutely.
GOLODRYGA: -- is not much evidence. Really just unfortunate circumstances for the Shakur family, especially.
Thank you so much, Elyse Hershon. We appreciate it.
Well, the long-awaited trial of the Libyan man accused in the deadly 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has been delayed. Jury selection was slated to
start on Wednesday, but the judge says there's newly discovered evidence that the defense wants to investigate. It's not clear what the new evidence
is.
The defendant was arrested in 2022 and has pleaded not guilty. The bombing remains the deadliest terror attack in the United Kingdom. Two hundred and
seventy people were killed when the flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
And there is new hope for early detection of Alzheimer's disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared a new blood test that can help
identify signs of Alzheimer's in people age 55 and older who are experiencing cognitive decline.
CNN's Meg Tirrell has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this new blood test was cleared for people who are at least 55 years old and who have signs and
symptoms of cognitive decline thought to be potentially associated with Alzheimer's disease.
It's important to note that this is not recommended as a standalone test for Alzheimer's. And it's also not recommended for people who don't have
any of those signs of Alzheimer's disease. So, problems thinking clearly or memory issues.
Really what doctors say is that they hope we could move toward that potentially in the future, but right now, this test and others that have
been cleared. There have been now four of these blood tests that have been cleared by the FDA in the last year that really they could sort of fit into
a treatment or a diagnostic paradigm for Alzheimer's disease with other existing tools and potentially even move into the primary care space.
So, instead of having to be at a specialist when you get to a space where you might be testing in this kind of way for Alzheimer's disease, you could
start that potentially earlier in the process which could lead to a potentially faster diagnosis.
But what this blood test looks for is a marker in the blood that has been associated with levels of that amyloid plaque buildup in the brain that's
associated with Alzheimer's disease.
And so what doctors tell us about these kinds of tests is that they could be useful potentially especially for ruling out Alzheimer's disease.
So, if you're in consultation with your doctor about a concern about this kind of diagnosis, you have these symptoms, perhaps you could get this
blood test before moving on to more invasive testing like PET scans or cerebral spinal fluid testing. And you could potentially rule out
Alzheimer's or you could inform whether you move on to those additional kinds of tests.
[12:40:11]
Now, doctors do say that the hope is in the future. This could be used for people who don't have signs of Alzheimer's yet but maybe have risk factors,
because the goal of treatment is to move it even earlier in the course of disease to a time when people don't even have symptoms yet, because those
amyloid plaques can start building up in the brain decades before you start to show symptoms of Alzheimer's.
And now we do have these new medicines on the market that clear out those amyloid plaques. And while they don't cure or stop the disease from
progressing, the hope is that they could slow down that progression.
And if you could start that earlier, perhaps aided by better tests that can tell you if you do have that buildup of plaque in your brain and you're at
risk or you have Alzheimer's disease in the very earliest stages, perhaps then we could lead -- we could get to that kind of treatment paradigm, but
we're not quite there yet.
Doctors are hopeful that this is a step in the right direction, but it's important folks know what this test is and what it isn't.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Sounds very promising. Our thanks to Meg.
All right. And in Scotland, a little robot power might be exactly what the doctor ordered. Meet Temi, the robot lending a high-tech hand to patients
in Scotland. The robot is being tested as part of a trial in Dundee guiding patients through routine checks including height, weight, blood pressure,
and oxygen levels.
Researchers hope the robot will ease pressure on the national health system.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GED CASHLEY, PATIENT: It's a bit odd to -- to deal with a robot at first, but you get used to it quite quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right. We now want to show you images from the International Space Station. Here you see live pictures of flight engineers from NASA and
the European Space Agency conducting a spacewalk. They've been working to replace what's known as a space-to-ground antenna that serves as a critical
link for high-speed data transmission.
All right. So, cool to see them.
Do stay with CNN. "African Voices" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:45:00]
(AFRICAN VOICES)
[13:00:00]
END
