Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Hosts Battleground GOP Lawmakers For Rose Garden Dinner; Jeffries Calls Dems Helping Republicans A "Breach Of Trust"; Clancy Jury Ends Fifth Day Of Deliberations Without Verdict. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 02, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --residents, people from other areas have been coming down here, throughout the day, taking pictures, staring, trying to comprehend what has happened and what happens now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: So much suffering and so much need and much you can do to help. For information on exactly how, just go to CNN.com/impact. Again, CNN.com/impact.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: What President Trump told multiple Republicans about his plans for the upcoming midterm elections.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, as they are staring down an uphill battle to keep control of Congress, this November, Republican lawmakers are gathered at the White House, including several of them that are locked in close midterm races. The President tonight was hosting a special dinner for them in the Rose Garden with just more than two months to go before Election Day.
But as voter anger has grown over the cost of living and the seemingly never-ending war with Iran, there's one big elephant in the room tonight. Vulnerable Republicans want the President to open his wallet, but don't want him making their races too much about him.
Yet here's how the President opened tonight's dinner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You used to have to stand on very, very soggy earth, and we replaced it with a very similar stone to what the White House is, and it's become quite a place. Outside, as you see, we just completed what I think is the most beautiful helipad anywhere in the world. I think most of you have seen it.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And right behind you is the ballroom/military complex, and it's -- it's really something special.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: During that moment in the Rose Garden, the President then vowed to campaign for every single Republican who is running in a tight race.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm going to take the final 30 days, maybe a little bit more than that because, it's all about 35 races. I'm going to go to every one of those 35 places, and we're going to see if we can get everyone elected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now that pledge tonight from the President comes, as his political operation has just launched their very first ad campaign to boost Republicans in November. But you might be forgiven, as you watch this, for thinking the President himself is on the ballot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA WHITE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: He's the toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met, and nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves.
TRUMP: We gave you no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security, the largest tax cuts in American history.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): He's fighting for you every day. Help him finish the job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The new ads barely even allude to Congress or really the Republican Party at all. It could be a potentially risky strategy, given the President's own approval rating is at a historic low, though the President himself does not seem to think so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What I really want you to do is pretend, please, that I'm on the ballot.
I'm asking the people to get out and vote. Pretend I'm on the ballot. The question is, will they vote? Because a lot of them are very angry at Republicans, to be honest with you. They're angry at--
JAKE SHERMAN, FOUNDER, PUNCHBOWL NEWS: Why is that?
TRUMP: I don't know. I mean, they're angry at Republicans. But they're not angry at me.
SHERMAN: That's an interesting -- why though?
TRUMP: They're not angry at me, but they are angry at Republicans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now the polls show that's not necessarily the case. The President's approval rating was 32 points underwater in CNN's latest poll last month. The Republican Party's image was 21 points underwater. That might explain why the attendance at the President's big midterm convention in Texas, next week, is expected to be mixed at best. Several Republicans who are in tough races are now RSVP-ing no to the event, which has been dubbed, Trump-a-palooza.
Congressman Tom Barrett of Michigan just told Politico, quote, "I just felt I'd be more useful in my district." That's a sentiment that has been echoed by several other Republicans. And some, like Pennsylvania's Congressman Rob Bresnahan, have said they're not sure yet about going.
And when Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa was asked whether or not, by a New York Times reporter, she will be in attendance, she responded angrily, quote, "Call my communications director."
It is technically the job of a communications instructor, I guess.
Despite that, the President said today he believes this midterm convention is going to be fantastic.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I just came up with the idea, and we raised a lot of money. I put up a lot of money, basically it's -- I don't care because we're saving the nation, and it's going to be fantastic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My top political sources are here tonight, including:
The former Biden White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield.
Former Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu.
And along with my fellow White House reporter, Semafor's Shelby Talcott.
It's great to have all of you here.
I mean, Kate--
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER BIDEN WH COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I'd just say, I really -- I really support when elected officials say, Call my communication -- Call my communications director.
COLLINS: Do you wish that Joe Biden had said more, Call my comms director?
BEDINGFIELD: If only there have been more times where he's like, Call my communications director -- no that's--
COLLINS: But really, I mean, Shelby, as we're staring down this convention that's going to happen in Texas next week. It is kind of a question at the White House of who exactly is coming. And listening to the President tonight in the Rose Garden say, Everyone who's in a close district, in a close race, I'm coming to that to your district ahead of the midterms. Some of them may not necessarily want that.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I think that there are certainly Republicans who are hoping that they can keep sort of an arm's length with the President.
And so far, it's been kind of interesting because the President has allowed some of these Republicans not to be as vocally supportive of everything that he's doing. I think partially, that's because the President himself has not been as involved in the midterm races, despite what his aides might think.
But the team around the President genuinely believes that in a lot of these races, him going to these places will gin up that 30 percent or so of the kind of die-hard Trump supporters that really only the President historically has been able to get out in ways that the broader Republican Party hasn't. And so, that's kind of what they're banking on with bringing him to these -- to these areas.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, obviously you were a governor. He said tonight basically, If you're a governor, maybe you'll get a shout out if you happen to be at a rally for someone who's running for the House and the Senate.
CHRIS SUNUNU, (R) FORMER NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR, PRESIDENT & CEO, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA: Maybe.
COLLINS: But how would you be viewing this if you're a Republican in a tough race?
SUNUNU: Well, a couple ways.
Number one, on this convention next week, I'd be surprised if a lot of candidates showed up. Because if it's a close race, you got to be in your district, you got to be doing the retail politics. You're not earning any votes by necessarily going to the convention. Maybe on fundraising and all that. But at this point, if you haven't gotten your fundraising in place, but with the last 60 days, you're in trouble.
And he'll spend time in areas where he knows he can be helpful. Doesn't mean he's going to necessarily visit every single one. I think that would actually be kind of logistically pretty difficult to do. And yes, some of those issues, if he wants to work hard to get his poll numbers up. Well, the argument is his poll numbers have been pulling back on the Republican Party. So, if he wants to work hard to get his poll numbers up, theoretically that'll help the Republican Party. That's all fine.
But when you look at Canadian tariffs. Well, that's a big issue in Maine and New Hampshire, Ohio and Michigan. The war in Iran, people aren't loving it, especially on the Republican side where we weren't going to get into that stuff.
So, if he sticks to his wins -- and he has had some wins here, right? There's no doubt. The tax on tips things go over very well. The Trump Accounts is actually working very well. If he wants to promote those wins to help the Republican Party as a whole, I think that'd be a good way to go.
COLLINS: Kate, how are you seeing it, politically speaking?
BEDINGFIELD: I think most Democrats at this stage would absolutely welcome Donald Trump coming to their district to try to campaign for their Republican opponent.
I mean, he's at a historically low approval rating. Every time he appears before a camera, he talks about the ballroom or a project he's putting his name on. He is a reminder that gas is expensive as it is because he continues to prosecute this war in Iran with essentially no end in sight.
And you see that not only are Democrats incredibly motivated, the enthusiasm gap between Democratic voters and Republican voters is significant. But on top of that, you have Republican voters, some of those voters who Trump was able to pull out in 2024, who say that they're frustrated with the direction of the country, and that they're frustrated specifically with Trump and his inability to focus on bringing prices down.
So, the idea that he's -- I understand on paper what the White House is trying to do with their strategy there. But the idea that Donald Trump going into any of these districts to make his case, I think -- I think most Democrats would absolutely welcome that contrast.
COLLINS: Well, and there's two places that he mentioned specifically that he's going to go tonight: Alaska and Texas.
And in Texas, it's Ken Paxton who we know needs a lot of fundraising help, speaking of getting that in order. The President, multiple times today, has brought up Ken Paxton's appearance while praising him, and this is what he said tonight at the dinner. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, Ken Paxton, you might not like the way he dresses. And I say this -- it's so insulting to him, but I might as well say it. You might not like the way he looks. You might not love his look. You might not love his television interviews. But he was the best attorney general in the country perhaps, he was one of the best in the entire country, and that speaks a lot louder than the suit he's wearing that doesn't look so great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TALCOTT: I mean, I'm curious to see if Ken Paxton shows up in the next few weeks with like a little bit of a different look. It's no surprise that the President -- but--
COLLINS: Some tailor--
TALCOTT: Yes--
SUNUNU: The President says wear a different suit, he's wearing a different suit.
BEDINGFIELD: OK--
(CROSSTALK)
[21:10:00]
TALCOTT: But it's no surprise the President cares a lot about how people look, right? He always talks about how his Cabinet has the right look. He likes when people are good on TV. And so, I think it's really notable that he's making these critiques publicly because also, there's a lot riding, not just for Ken Paxton, not just for the Republican Party, but for the President himself.
Because remember, a lot of people in the Republican Party didn't want the President to back Ken Paxton, and he has really put himself behind Ken Paxton, and so now you're seeing, I think, kind of the start of these concerns from the President. Whether or not it snowballs into something bigger, who knows? But I think those comments are kind of the first warning shots that the President here is telling Ken Paxton, Hey, shape up a little bit.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, I'm sure John Cornyn is eating those comments up.
But politically speaking, Ken Paxton is in a fight for his political life--
SUNUNU: Yes.
COLLINS: --against James Talarico in Texas right now, especially when it comes to money.
SUNUNU: And if it was in a small state like Delaware or something like that. Because it's Texas, because the Republicans now have to defend something that they thought they could not have to worry about, and the level of dollars isn't a couple million; it's like a billion dollar type race. Yes, that's why the President is going to go down there, try to get his base out where it is fairly strong in Texas to gin up the energy on that side, and that's probably a good way to offset some of the dollars that would otherwise be needed that are in places like Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Ohio.
BEDINGFIELD: Although the fact that the President and the National Republican Party has to spend any time, money, energy on Texas tells you what the political environment looks like for Republicans.
I mean, they -- Republicans should, in theory, be out trying to defend races and advance in races where they have a real shot at keeping Democrats from flipping the Senate. The fact that they've got to spend money in Texas tells you, first of all, a lot about how problematic a candidate Ken Paxton is, which we could go on and on about that, in my opinion. But also just how terrible the political environment is nationally for Republicans.
SUNUNU: But the same goes for Michigan, right? Democrats thought they had Michigan kind of wrapped up, but now they've got -- now they have to defend it, vigorously, with a candidate that a lot of Democrats actually don't care for.
BEDINGFIELD: Oh, I don't think -- I would disagree a little on that. I don't think Democrats ever thought they had Michigan wrapped up. It's a genuine swing state. Sometimes--
(CROSSTALK)
SUNUNU: But they're having a challenge defending the candidate in Michigan. Like maybe some Republicans are having the heartache defending the candidate in Texas--
COLLINS: While we're on the topic of money, can I ask you: Is it normal that the convention -- well, it's -- there's not normally a midterm convention, but the President really wanted one.
SUNUNU: Yes.
COLLINS: Some Republicans aren't going, or they're unhappy because they have to pay $25,000 per House member per Republican going to attend.
Is that normal from your experience?
SUNUNU: I've never heard of anything like that myself, no.
COLLINS: Like--
SUNUNU: I mean, I don't know. I don't know about the -- I don't--
BEDINGFIELD: Yes--
COLLINS: I'm not even sure-- (CROSSTALK)
SUNUNU: I haven't even heard on the Democrat side, so.
COLLINS: --$25,000 is going to.
SUNUNU: Yes.
COLLINS: But Tim Burchett was saying he had to pay -- he got a bill for 25k.
SUNUNU: They're supposed to be raising money for the candidates.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, it's--
TALCOTT: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: --the money's supposed to be flowing the other way at this--
SUNUNU: Flowing the other way--
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: At this point in the cycle, the money is supposed to be flowing the other way is the best part--
COLLINS: Have you heard anything from sources on why that is, Shelby?
TALCOTT: Nobody knows why, but there's certainly concerns, and there's also concerns because, to your point, they have a lot of money to spend, right? And so, I think people are wondering why aren't -- why isn't the administration starting to spend this money? Why are they asking for money?
COLLINS: We're talking about what the President's political advisers are doing, what everything's looking like.
Last week on this show, we were talking about everything the President is trying to rebrand since he has entered office in this second term. And the President, he had said that he wanted to make the Strait of Hormuz a U.S. territory, last week. We talked about that and said, well, he hasn't tried to name it after the President himself yet.
Today, he wrote, right on cue, Should we change the name of the Hormuz Strait to the Trump Strait??? Like America itself, it would be "hotter" than ever before.
BEDINGFIELD: I mean, can I just say--
COLLINS: Thoughts?
SUNUNU: Is that a question? I mean--
(CROSSTALK) BEDINGFIELD: Can I just say, if Donald Trump wants his name associated with the Strait of Hormuz, I have great news for him, which is that most Americans do now associate his name with the Strait of Hormuz and with the foreign policy fiasco that we've now entered into there.
We're in a war where gas prices are higher. We are emptying our military resources in a conflict that the administration can't really fully describe what their end goals are. So, if Trump's looking to have his name associated with the Strait of Hormuz, well, he's done it.
SUNUNU: I'm just waiting for the Canadians to name Lake Michigan, Lake Canada, in retaliation, or something like that. You know, Bob and Doug McKenzie will work on that one.
But look, it's -- I don't want to -- it's not what people are focusing on. It's more just kind of -- it was kind of--
COLLINS: But it's what the President's focusing on.
SUNUNU: People were willing to put up with it with the Gulf of America. OK. Fine. Yes. OK.
In politics, you got to keep it fresh. And doing the Lake of America thing is kind of a replication of what you did last year. You got to -- you got to come up with something a little new if you want to -- you want to keep people on their toes.
Right now, people are looking at candidates. Candidate quality is all that matters at the end of the day. And Republicans have to energize their base. They have to get people kind of excited about the fact that not about Trump, but about what they can deliver for this country.
COLLINS: Yes.
SUNUNU: And lately, no one in Washington has been delivering anything.
COLLINS: Well--
SUNUNU: So, sorry--
COLLINS: And Trump is looking at their suits--
TALCOTT: Yes.
COLLINS: Governor. Kate. Shelby. Great to have all of you here tonight. Thank you for joining us.
[21:15:00]
Up next. My source tonight is the retired Air Force Secretary, calling on military leaders to stand up when it comes to President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. More of that, right after this.
And also, speaking of those 62 days until the midterms. You might think that Democrats would be laser-focused on taking the House and Senate back. Instead, they're actually fighting amongst themselves.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): I mean, we're not kids, you know, we're not -- we don't have a parent that's going to punish us. We are all elected. But we have to have some unity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, there are multiple Pentagon sources who are voicing their concerns to CNN, about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's leadership, after the Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned.
Sources are echoing the same concerns that Driscoll had and that he raised directly to the President last week, namely, that he believes Secretary Hegseth is damaging the Army's efforts to modernize because of his fixation on culture wars.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses.
Frankly, it's tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops.
No more beardos.
I'm authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency.
And we're restoring the warrior ethos inside our department because that matters.
At the Department of War, we do training, not trannies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The Pentagon spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said, quote, The entire department is unified behind Secretary Hegseth's vision.
My next source argues otherwise, and he says he's hearing directly about the challenges the military and the officials there are facing, under Secretary Hegseth and President Trump.
In The New York Times, the Air Force Secretary under President Biden, Frank Kendall, says he was alarmed at a recent retirement ceremony by the vibe in the room, given it was General Dan Caine, who is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that was the presiding officer and the featured speaker.
Former Secretary Kendall writes, quote, It was eerily, even alarmingly normal. He goes on to say, quote, "Denial is one of the two approaches the nation's senior military leaders seem to have taken to cope with Donald Trump's presidency. When they aren't ignoring how abnormal things have become, they turn to the other approach, claiming that they have no responsibility for the actions the armed forces have been ordered to take because those orders were "policy" choices outside the scope of their duties. This is a cop-out, and it is putting our democracy at risk."
And Frank Kendall joins me now. He's also the author of "Lethal Autonomy: The Future of Warfare Whether We Like It Or Not."
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
And I mean, just reading your op-ed and the challenges you believe that the military is facing, with that, with Secretary Driscoll, why he resigned. What is your assessment of what's happening inside the Pentagon right now?
FRANK KENDALL, FORMER AIR FORCE SECRETARY, AUTHOR, "LETHAL AUTONOMY": In a word, it's dysfunctional.
This Secretary -- and I've worked with and had a chance to work for maybe a dozen several Secretaries of Defense -- he's doing active harm to the Department of Defense. It's not past. It's active harm.
You mentioned some of the things. All the firings of general officers, about 25 now, I think, removing people from promotion lists, both of these are totally unprecedented. The climate of fear that's been created is very palpable. It's affecting everybody and how they work. It's affecting the quality of advice that's being given. People are afraid to say something that's not going to be approved of.
The witch-hunt, if you will, for people who are supposedly woke, I think has got a lot of people scared. Even in the first Trump administration, when emphasizing DEI was part of the policy, people would make speeches about it, and now they're being punished for that.
So, it's a very tough climate to work in. I don't think senior leaders are getting good advice, and people are coping as best they can. And the things I mentioned in the op-ed are some of the coping mechanisms that they're using to try to adopt to this situation. It's not good for the country.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, one of the things you wrote, you said, a lot of the lower-level officers you spoke with are privately appalled, but afraid to challenge what they are seeing.
KENDALL: If somebody speaks up, they can be labeled. They can be identified as somebody who's not with the program, so to speak, and they can be punished for that in any number of ways. So, people are just afraid to speak out. I mean, if they trust some people or close friends, they might do it in that kind of environment.
I am in touch with a lot of people. I just talked to some recently who are serving, and questioning whether they should remain in the service or not, continue to serve their country because of the climate they're working in. We-- COLLINS: That's remarkable.
KENDALL: We may have two and a half more years of this. That's a long time. Four years of this type of management, it is incredibly debilitating and destructive.
COLLINS: But you've spoken with people who are considering leaving the military altogether because of the environment right now?
KENDALL: That's right.
COLLINS: Did you ever think that you'd hear something like that?
KENDALL: No. I've been through several administrations. I've been through transitions from Democrats to Republicans and vice versa, and I've always been very impressed and always admired the military's institution, and it's being very apolitical. It's a matter of great pride, both for the career civilians and the military people themselves, that administrations come and go, policies change. Basically, you adopt to whoever is in power.
And you, as long as orders are lawful, and you can, with good conscience, go ahead and implement them, then you do, and you support whoever is in power at the time. It's a hallmark of the American system that civilian control of the military is widely respected by even our most senior officers, and that's all the way up and down the ranks.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: You mentioned so many of these senior positions that are now open. And with Dan Driscoll leaving. I mean that was a big concern he had, not just in terms of all the vacancies.
But the Army is now -- doesn't have a Senate-confirmed top general, a confirmed Army general, in charge of operations. They don't have a confirmed commander of Army troops in Europe. We're in the middle of a war with Iran. What kind of impact does that have, do you believe?
KENDALL: We have a deep bench in the Department of Defense, and there are a lot of very qualified people.
In the case of the Army, for example, there is an Undersecretary who's there. There is a Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, who appears to be the candidate to be the Chief of Staff.
There will be somebody in charge. There's always a succession plan. And so, in a situation like this, where there's absence of a permanent leader, people continue to do their jobs. They keep the trains running. They do what they're told to do. What you don't see is any new initiatives, any changes in strategic direction, or any major decisions being made. So, it slows a lot of things like that down.
COLLINS: In terms of the promotions themselves. I mean, obviously, you served as the Army Secretary. You recommended four stars--
KENDALL: Yes.
COLLINS: --for promotions.
KENDALL: The way our system works is three- and four-star positions are filled, they're handpicked. Everyone is picked individually. There aren't that many of those people.
And the Chief of Staff of the Service and Service Secretary sit down together. They take their recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, and then he sends them to the President. That's a system that I think has worked very well. And it's always done, again, in my experience, in a very apolitical way. It's about -- it's a meritocracy. It's very much a meritocracy. You don't know or want to know anybody's political inclinations.
Below that, they're done by boards, impartial boards that are very objective. I would review those boards for one-star or two-star positions, and then they would go forward to the Secretary of Defense and the President and Congress.
I have never, in my experience, seen a Secretary of Defense pull people off of a board-selected group of people for one or two stars. That is happening routinely now. And what I've been told by people who are involved in that process is that boards are now adjusting who they send to try to avoid having people pulled off. And if you look at--
COLLINS: So, they're picking people--
(CROSSTALK)
KENDALL: If you look at who's being pulled off, there are a lot of women and minorities being pulled off of those lists, as well as people who, for whatever reason, apparently are presumed to not be, again, in line with the program and the priorities of the Secretary.
COLLINS: What are you hearing from other people about how they view that? Because obviously, it's a huge honor for someone to be recommended for that.
KENDALL: Oh, absolutely. I talked to an officer who's on a list, and the list has been -- and sitting for a very long time in the Secretary's office, and they have no idea whether they're going to be pulled off it or not. So, it just creates a lot of stress. It's a disruption of a system that everybody has always trusted, and it's inserting politicization into a system that, again, has been a meritocracy as long as I've been associated with it.
COLLINS: So, it's not something that's picked based on which President is in office.
KENDALL: No. No. There's no correlation to that.
I mean, look, I pointedly never asked or knew what any of the generals that worked for me, what their political leanings were. I didn't care. I cared about how well they did their job, how effective their leadership was, and how professional they were. And that's all. And that's been the environment in every Pentagon. I spent 20 years in the Pentagon. It has always been that way until this administration.
COLLINS: Do you worry about the impact it has long-term?
KENDALL: Oh, absolutely. Kaitlan, four years of this is going to do enormous damage. It's going to take several years or a decade to go repair this and restore the type of system that we have had traditionally.
COLLINS: When we listen to Secretary Hegseth, I mean, he often has the same kind of mantra that he repeats. Some people might hear that and agree with it. Some people might say, Well, I like that he's doing that.
The concerns, though, that we seem to be hearing in our reporting and from Secretary Driscoll himself is that, it's impacting what, he believes, the military should be focused on, what he believes that Secretary Hegseth should be focused on.
KENDALL: Right now, in our competition strategically, brain power is just as important as how big somebody's biceps are. We need people with intellectual capital just as much as we need people who are physically capable.
He's overemphasizing this kind of bro thing, with the testosterone thing you mentioned, as well as many other things. That's not what the Secretary of Defense should be working -- worrying about. What he should be worrying about is not getting us into a conflict that we have no obvious way out of, and isn't going to accomplish the things that we got into.
And we're thinking of an absolute disaster in Iran right now. We went into this thing with very poor assumptions about how it will play out. Risks that were well-understood and prevented any other prior Secretary of Defense or President from doing this were ignored, and we went into this conflict we now have no way out.
[21:30:00]
We need leadership that doesn't do that sort of thing, and the other things that are kind of window-dressing that Secretary Hegseth seems to be focused on are not things that a Secretary of Defense should be worrying about. The professional military will take care of standards of grooming, physical fitness, and all those things. They're very good at that, and they always have been. He doesn't need to worry about that.
But frankly, in this case, I don't think he knows how to do anything else. So, he's doing the things that he understands and thinks he can do something about.
COLLINS: Do you think the President is getting an honest assessment of what is going in Iran right now?
KENDALL: That's a great question, and I don't know. There are reports that when Secretary Driscoll was leaving, he went to the President and he told him about the situation in the army. Service secretaries like myself and now, Secretary Driscoll, are responsible for organizing, training, and equipping the services they're responsible for. They don't do operational things. They're more about providing forces to other people who do operations.
But in this case, the President probably had no idea what the status of his army was, until Secretary Driscoll came in and informed him. If that's an indicator, it may well be that the President doesn't understand how this war is going. That's hard for me to believe because we've been at it for six months now, and some things are blatantly obvious from the way it has all played out.
COLLINS: Yes. Do you see an ending to it in sight in this moment?
KENDALL: I don't right now. I was a little more optimistic a month or so ago. I thought we might work out of the MOU that we had. And I didn't think we were going to resolve the nuclear program thing very easily. I thought we could get the Straits open and go into protracted negotiations from there. That fell apart.
So now we're in a situation where Iran, quite frankly, seems to be close -- controlling the timeline. We're doing intermittent engagements, skirmishes, kind of, lower levels of violence, which is better than the massive things we were doing before. But nobody seems to be ready to sit down at the negotiating table and get this thing resolved. That's what we need.
And Iran, to a very large extent right now, it seems to me -- they've already taken enormous economic hit. They seem to be able to absorb that.
We've pulled back on how much we're doing militarily. We don't have great options there. I don't see an easy way out at this point.
COLLINS: Former Air Force Secretary, Frank Kendall, thank you for joining us tonight.
KENDALL: Thank you. Good to be here.
COLLINS: We appreciate your time and your service. Thank you.
KENDALL: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. There are questions in Washington of whether or not there will be consequences for those two Democrats who crossed party lines to help Republicans. We have a Democratic source joining us tonight, a congressional candidate from Montana, with his message for his party.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats' minority leader, is facing a leadership test, this evening, here in Washington, and promising a serious response after two Democrats crossed over the political aisle to help Republicans salvage their legislative agenda.
When he was questioned by CNN, Jeffries didn't say if those two Democrats, Jared Golden of Maine, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, should be stripped of their committee assignments as a punishment. But he did accuse them of blindsiding the caucus, the entire caucus, and creating what he described as a significant breach of trust.
Our sources tell us that the reason the two backed that key Republican vote was to help pave the way for a bill to help lobstermen in Golden's home state of Maine.
My next source tonight is a Democrat who is running to represent Montana in Congress. Union leader, and smokejumper, Sam Forstag.
I should note, Montana has not had a Democrat serve in the House since 1997.
But you're a smokejumper, which I learned what that was earlier today. Can you actually tell everyone what that is for people who might be unfamiliar?
SAM FORSTAG, (D) MONTANA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Absolutely. Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
We, smokejumpers, we parachute into remote wildfires to put them out while they're still small. And yes, I was a leader in my union's local until about a month now--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: And you did that. You were actually going to go to law school, but then continued doing that, instead of having it kind of fill in your gap in between the time between college and law school. Is that right?
FORSTAG: Yes, I did what a lot of folks do. I went to Wildland Fire after graduating college at University of Montana, and I worked two or three jobs the entire time I was there, and I still graduated with debt.
COLLINS: Yes.
FORSTAG: And I thought I'd pay my debts, and I learned you can get paid to jump out of planes. Good for you.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean that risk, that tolerance for risk, might be necessary here in Washington if you are in the Democratic Caucus, this November.
Based on what's happened today, I mean, Democrats are really unhappy because they believe these two Democrats crossed over, tried to help them. Would you do something like that, if it had this higher goal of helping people in Montana, or how do you see this?
FORSTAG: To be honest with you, this is not the sort of thing that many people are talking about, back in Montana. I mean, I will be working with whoever the heck it takes to pass bills when it comes to actually helping to improve people's lives on housing, on health care, and on, well, improving labor rights. And frankly, Democrats have not always been on the right side of these things.
COLLINS: So, you wouldn't feel like you had to vote only with Democrats. You would vote with whichever party you thought was in the right on a policy issue?
FORSTAG: Oh, absolutely not. I mean, Democrats are part of the problem. This problem does not lie in one party or the other.
People -- I don't think I've forgotten that we were four years in power. And at the end of those four years, I was making about 19 bucks an hour, jumping out of airplanes for the federal government, in a community where you'd be lucky to find a house for less than a half million bucks. And there are a whole lot of folks who are deeper into their fire career and not federal employees, being left in a worse situation, after we had the chance to fix it.
And so, I'll work with Republicans like the five former Republican legislators in my state who are supporting this campaign, if that's what it takes. Like, the 20 Republicans that voted with Democrats to actually pass some major labor legislation just in the last couple of months.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: So, what do you think Democrats need to be doing differently?
FORSTAG: Well, I think we need to be electing different people, and I think we need to actually prioritize making people's lives materially better. Because, if there is a role of the federal government, it is first and foremost to defend your constitutional freedoms, many of which are freedoms from the government, and second, to make sure you can meet your basic material needs when the market is not meeting them. And there are so many needs that the market is not meeting in a place like Western Montana where, well, homelessness has doubled or tripled, in just about every major city in our state.
COLLINS: You talked about electing different Democrats. There has been a fight playing out in these primaries, where sometimes Democratic leaders pick candidates that we see people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorse the person who's running against them in that primary. I know Bernie and AOC came and campaigned for you.
How do you see that in terms of the split? Do you think Democratic leadership is in tune and in line with Democratic voters?
FORSTAG: I'll tell you, I think that the real gap here is in terms of -- as a matter of lived experience, and what type -- what kind of lived experience actually defines your day-to-day life? It's economic lived experience. It's how much money you got.
Like, if you know what it's like to work three jobs at a time and come up short on rent, like I do? Well, that impacts everything you do, every single day. If you know what it's like to be uninsured? Well, that's something you carry in your chest every single day. And there are not a lot of people in this Congress, or for too long, who seem to know what that's like. And if they do, they've forgotten it because they're not actually addressing these problems with the kind of urgency that it requires.
COLLINS: What do you make of the rise of Democratic Socialists in your party, and that that message that they've had has resonated with a lot of voters?
FORSTAG: Well, I don't see them rising in Montana. What I see rising in Montana is actually finally electing somebody who knows what we're just talking about is like. I think there are a lot of people who feel like we've been lied to by both political parties.
When there's a party telling us that the economy is better than we think it is, and meanwhile we got a whole generation or two of people who cannot conceive of owning a home.
Or when we got this party who's in power right now, people like Ryan Zinke, whose seat I'm running for coming to take because he took a lot of my union members' jobs, who tells us he's going to stand up for public lands, and then guts a quarter of the Forest Service in my state, and mainly guts the lowest-paid workers that we got, or tries to sell off a chunk of Yosemite National Park, without standing up, like he could do in a narrowly divided Congress.
That's the sort of representative we deserve in Western Montana.
COLLINS: You said there's not a lot of Democratic Socialists in Montana. Fair. Bernie Sanders and AOC did come and campaign for you. I believe President Trump won your district by 12 points or so, two years ago. Does that help in the district? Does their support boost you, or how do you see that?
FORSTAG: Well, I'll tell you, I think I've got a lot more in common with either of those two, along with the, well, five Republican state legislators supporting this campaign, than I do with a Congressperson who's worth, well, $4 million, which is the average net worth of a Congressperson today, last time I checked, depending on the day and how good the stock market's doing. Those are the sort of people I want to work with, and those are the people who've been left behind, under both parties' leadership.
COLLINS: When you look at this in terms of where you want this to go. I mentioned how long it's been since a Democrat represented Montana in the House.
FORSTAG: Yes.
COLLINS: Close to when you were born--
FORSTAG: Well.
COLLINS: --I believe three years after that. How do you see your path coming to November? FORSTAG: Well, I'll tell you, I'm in the Western Congressional District here, and a Democrat just won this district last year. Jon Tester, he won Montana's 1st while losing statewide, and he did that during a year when it sure seemed like the National Party was doing everything they could to make it impossible for a Democrat to win in a state like mine.
So, my path to victory, it is reaching out to a whole lot of the voters we just lost. It's working-class people, people making less than a 100,000 bucks, who we lost to Republicans last year, is reaching out to union members, half of whom voted for Republicans instead of Democrats, and to young people, who -- a lot of whom stayed home last year or swung to the right because they didn't see any cause--
COLLINS: Yes.
FORSTAG: --for hope in a politics that talks about everything except for how we are going to actually make people's lives better. So, we change that by electing people who actually know what it's like on the ground, and know what it's going to take to fix it, and that's what I'm running to do.
And if anyone wants to find more, go to samformontana.com because, it is rare to see a working person make it to the halls of power, and I need all the help that I can get.
COLLINS: Sam Forstag, thank you for joining us tonight.
FORSTAG: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time.
Up next for us here on THE SOURCE. We are following the latest developments in the Lindsay Clancy trial, as jurors went home again today, after they told a judge they're deadlocked, again. After a woman who was also arrested for allegedly recording video of those jurors exiting the courthouse. My legal source will join me right after this with what could happen tomorrow, in the Lindsay Clancy case.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, a Massachusetts jury is home, again, after not delivering a verdict in the Lindsay Clancy trial, again. The former labor and delivery nurse is accused of murdering her three young children in 2023. And for the second day in a row, jurors told the judge they're deadlocked, but the judge instructed them to keep going.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Voice of JUDGE WILLIAM F. SULLIVAN, MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: In conferring together, you ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. [21:50:00]
Thus, where there is disagreement, jurors for acquittal should consider whether a doubt in their own minds is a reasonable one if it makes no impression on the minds of others who are equally honest, equally intelligent and who have heard the same evidence with the same intention with an equal desire to arrive at the truth and who have taken the same oath as jurors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Lindsay Clancy has admitted that she killed her three young children. But jurors have to decide if she committed murder or if, according to her attorneys, including the one you saw there sitting next to her, postpartum psychosis had taken hold of her mind so that she could not be held, quote, Criminally responsible.
Now, despite there being no verdict, there was a lot of drama around the courthouse today. A 56-year-old woman that you see here was arrested this morning, after prosecutors said that she recorded jurors as they were exiting the building yesterday. She pleaded not guilty to a jury intimidation charge, and then faced a swarm of media on her own, as she exited and eventually ran out of the building.
My source tonight is the jury consultant and attorney, Renato Stabile.
And Renato, obviously, we heard from the judge today exactly what you predicted last night, that there was going to be this Tuey-Rodriguez instruction read to the jury today, after they came back deadlocked again. I mean, it's a real question of what was going to happen today, what's going to happen tomorrow. What's your sense?
RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT, ATTORNEY, PRESIDENT, DUBIN RESEARCH & CONSULTING: So, I think the most surprising thing that happened today was that the jury went home at 4 o'clock. That indicates to me that they have made a decision, that they don't need to deliberate any further.
Now, I'm not sure what the decision is. I'm guessing that it's going to be a hung jury. And I think what they said to each other at 4 o'clock was, Look, we're going to tell the judge that we can't reach unanimous verdict. Let's all go home. Let's sleep on it one more night.
I expect that tomorrow morning, at about 10:00 a.m., we're going to get that note from the jury, saying that, We're unable to reach unanimous verdict, and at that point we'll see a mistrial.
COLLINS: So if there is a mistrial, then what happens?
STABILE: Well, then the state has to decide whether or not they want to retry her, which they are entitled to do. I think every indication is that the D.A., Timothy Cruz, is going to retry her.
But we saw some indication yesterday, from her attorney, when he was outside of court saying she really -- I don't remember the exact words -- but she couldn't really handle going through this again. To me, that's signaling that they would be open to some sort of disposition.
And kind of from a PR perspective, she would take a disposition, maybe the manslaughter if it's offered. Who knows if it's going to be offered? While still saying, Look, I did this because I needed to put this behind me. I didn't want to put my family through this again. I mentally could not go through this again. I couldn't even put my ex- husband through this again, Patrick Clancy who, remember, was the very first witness called by the prosecution and was pretty favorable to her.
COLLINS: As we have been waiting to see how the jury heard that, not just from Patrick Clancy, but the other 79 witnesses.
Today, that woman who was arrested and charged with jury intimidation, she was accused of filming those jurors as they were leaving yesterday. Her attorney said it was a misunderstanding. How serious is that, given obviously what these jurors have been tasked with doing?
STABILE: I think it was a bit of an overreach to actually charge her with something and haul her into court. I mean, she could have been brought in and admonished by the judge.
I realize that the identity of the jurors is being kept secret. It's anonymous to the public. I tend to disagree that jurors should be kept anonymous at the rate they are.
But to charge her with an actual crime for some sort of intimidation, I thought was way, way overboard. But obviously, they're trying to send a message.
COLLINS: Yes.
Renato Stabile, always great to have you. Obviously, tomorrow, we'll wait to see what happens when court resumes. Thank you for joining us.
STABILE: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. It is time for Source Code. We give you a number at the center of a story that's in the news. Can you figure out what the story is? Tonight's Source Code is 61. I'll be right back with the answer.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Our Source Code tonight is 61. Because that's how many dollars you have to pay to get a roll of 25 commemorative $1 Trump coins.
Hours after the U.S. Mint put out those new coins on sale today, they appear to be out of stock. The 25-coin roll and the 100-coin bag are both listed as unavailable tonight. The gold-colored coin features President Donald Trump's portrait on one side and the presidential seal on the other, and a 250, marking America's 250th anniversary. Now, federal law prohibits images of sitting or living former Presidents on coins, but Congress passed a law allowing the Treasury to mint special $1 coins to honor the event.
And if you're wondering why 25 $1 coins will cost you 61 bucks, the Mint says that part of the extra cost goes towards organizations and projects that benefit the community.
CNN has reached out to the Treasury Department for more details.
[22:00:00]
Thanks so much for joining us here on THE SOURCE tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight. His approval's at a record low. But Donald Trump's midterm strategy appears to focus on him--
