Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Vance On Iran War: "I Wouldn't Call It A War"; Deadlocked Clancy Sends Court A Note; Billionaire Sues, Refuses To Testify In House Epstein Probe. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired September 03, 2026 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:27]
MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: J.D. Vance refusing to say how or when the war with Iran might end.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
With talks at a standstill and Tehran not budging after recent airstrikes, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance says it's not clear when the war with Iran
may come to an end. In fact, when the vice president spoke with reporters last hour at the White House, he said he wouldn't even call the war with
Iran a war.
CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked when the conflict between the two countries may end.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Secondly, in terms of the war and the timeline, given this administration has put timelines
out there before, what you just said about no negotiations happening with Iran, will this war be over by the time of the midterm elections?
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, Kaitlan, again, I don't -- I wouldn't call it a war. Right now there is no active shooting. I
recognize there have been places where this has flared up. Major combat operations -- again, major combat operations lasted for about six weeks,
and since then, we destroyed, of course, their nuclear facilities with Midnight Hammer. With Epic Fury, we destroyed their defense industrial base
for producing weapons and also a lot of their conventional military. And then we made it harder for them to rebuild that nuclear program.
But when you ask when will this end, you're asking me a question like, when will the Iranians stop shooting at ships? I think the reality is I don't
know the answer to that question. You would have to ask the Iranians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Kevin Liptak is at the White House trying to make sense of this because the White House has been very clear that there have been -- there
has been active shooting.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, I mean, it's been -- yeah, it's been evident that the shooting has been active for the last
three days or so after the U.S. shot at what it said were targets in Iran that were preparing to launch mines into the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians
shot back at U.S. positions. The U.S. shot back at the Iranians. The Iranians shot back.
So the shooting has been active, whether the vice president is talking about these sort of flare-ups, as he calls them, intentions or major combat
operations, which have waned certainly since the ceasefire had gone into place earlier this summer.
And so it's really sort of --
FOSTER: Kevin, I'm so sorry to interrupt, but we are going to cross to our colleagues in the U.S. because we have an update on the Clancy trial.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: For attorney, no facial expressions, no movement of her upper torso, just staring straight ahead. Kevin Reddington
at the defense table reading something on his desk. And Father Bob, who is sitting with, he is a Catholic priest, he is sitting with the family, his
eyes are shut in that courtroom right now.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Jean, thank you so much.
Let's go to Areva Martin, because, Areva, there are certain things that both sides, the prosecution and the defense, could glean from a mistrial if
this winds up going in that direction. How does it affect the calculus of what comes next, whatever they learn from the jury?
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY & LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, one of the things is, is this a case that maybe can be submitted to a plea deal? Are
the prosecutors willing to consider negotiating with Clancy's legal team about some kind of plea, whether it's a manslaughter plea? But given the
severity of the crimes that were committed or the acts that were committed, no doubt the prosecution would be looking for some jail time. I doubt if
they would agree to any -- you know, ending of this process that does not involve Clancy spending some time in jail.
We've heard the defense attorney say look the ball is in the court of the prosecutor. If they want to talk plea, we are more than open to do so, but
we've heard this prosecutor board say that if it is a mistrial, they are committed to retrying this case and both sides now know what the arguments
are. They know what the witnesses are. They know what the exhibits are. They know the theories that will be presented if there is a second trial.
We just saw in the another high-profile Massachusetts case that ended in a mistrial, and then the case was tried again, and the defendant ended up
acquainted in that case. I think that's the Karen Reed case. So, a second trial shouldn't always go well for prosecutors.
SANCHEZ: Mark, what is the likelihood of a plea deal in case there is a mistrial?
MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, it really should be because let's face it, the state has put on their best case ever. And if
that's true, because they were ready and they could not convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, which is their standard, then maybe they
shouldn't even try a second time. Maybe it is a case that screams out for some type of resolution.
And let's face it, wherever you fall on the spectrum of guilt versus insanity, this is a horrible tragedy case.
[15:05:03]
And now we know a lot more about what Ms. Clancy was going through with all the extra testimony. And there is a lot of people out there who are now
realizing the depth of a postpartum depression and how it might have such a devastating effect on a mom. So maybe we can all learn a lesson from this
and that Ms. Clancy doesn't have to pay the ultimate price for having sort of been trying to get help but failing or the system failing her in doing
so.
SANCHEZ: Let's go back out to Jean Casarez.
Jean, what are our reporters in the room sharing with you about what it looks like behind closed doors?
CASAREZ: There's still a sidebar, the attorneys and the judge. The judge has a lot of papers that he is talking to the attorneys about. Kevin
Reddington has his papers, and he is very strongly talking to the judge, head movements up and down as he's doing that.
He's turning around. He is pointing at Lindsay Clancy in the courtroom and then he's turning back to the judge and he keeps talking. He's very
animated. very emotional with his movements you could say, we don't know what the topic is but we do know that they the three -- and the prosecutors
are right there, too. They are very aggressively talking about something that will I -- then I think be said in open court.
SANCHEZ: We are expecting that --
CASAREZ: I've got some more information here, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Jean, please.
CASAREZ: Boris, I've got more -- Kevin Reddington just slammed his hand down the judge's area right there -- very, very animated, absolutely
doesn't appear to be happy at this point. The defense attorney -- they're going back and forth at this point.
We -- there's not -- it's not audible because this is a sidebar, but this is something we have not seen during this trial. They have been civil
sidebars, the judge talks to the attorneys, they go back to the table, then court becomes on the record with the gallery. This is far different than
what we've seen before.
SANCHEZ: Wow, a very right show of emotion there, it sounds like.
CASAREZ: Extremely frustrated.
SANCHEZ: Yeah. Jean, please keep us posted on what you're hearing.
Let's go to Areva Martin for some reaction. Areva, when you hear that defense attorney Kevin Reddington reacted that way, slamming his hand on
the bench, how do you read that?
MARTIN: Well, I can imagine if you are the defense attorney, you are ready for this judge to declare a mistrial. You're ready to say, look, 35 hours,
nothing is going to change. And to continue to force these jurors to deliberate is, in effect, coercing them. And that's not what our jury
system should be, and that's not what jurors should be. They shouldn't be coerced into a unanimous decision.
So, I can only imagine that the defense attorney is trying to speed up this process of the judge declaring a mistrial. That would be the ultimate best
outcome for him if he's not going to get an outright not guilty verdict, which there's no indication that that's going to happen at this point.
So, again, as Jean said, not clear what they're talking about, but we can only imagine that's what the defense attorney is pushing for.
FOSTER: Yeah, I'm sure we'll soon find out what is animated the defense attorney this way.
Mark, a moment ago you were saying that it may not be a great idea for Judge Sullivan to ask the jury to continue deliberating after 34 almost 35
hours. What would factor in to the judge potentially saying, you know, what I think they might actually be close? What would lead him to ask them to
continue?
O'MARA: So here's you know we love reading tea leaves that we shouldn't until we hear what that note says but I'm now curious whether or not that
note to the judge is telling the judge there is just one juror who's not listening. There's one juror -- again, this is all guesswork. There's one
juror who's getting in our way. Good or bad, we don't know the result.
Because when you get a reaction from a defense attorney like that, and they're hearing that, the reaction is based upon the fact that now the
judge may be deciding to go back in give them yet a third charge -- dynamite charge give them even more time to try and wear down that minority
maybe as little as one juror who's getting it, quote, getting in the way of a verdict and the defense attorney does not want that to happen because we
know what's going to happen that juror is going to be talked to is he or she's going to come out of the woodwork. We're going to have a real
question on the appeal as to whether or not so legitimate. It was based upon duress, which is now seemingly maybe on the table.
SANCHEZ: Wow.
Let's go back to Jean Casares because, Jean, you've got some new information?
CASAREZ: Yes, I do. The acrimony between the judge and Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, escalating -- Kevin Reddington talking to a point
that you can almost in the gallery here what he's saying. He throws the papers down on the bench he walks away to the defense attorney, Reddington
does.
Reddington then sits with his client Lindsay Clancy, and their heads are almost together.
He's bringing Clancy to the bench right now. Lindsay Clancy is being wheeled up to the bench, leaving her in her chair, obviously being wheeled
up to the bench. Now I want to say at the same time that all of this is going on, the assistant district attorney has been nodding in agreement
with the judge. We have to know that also. The judge is now talking to Lindsay Clancy one-on-one with the attorneys present up at the bench.
SANCHEZ: Wow.
Areva Martin, what -- under what circumstance would a defendant be brought up to speak one-on-one with a judge?
MARTIN: Yeah, unusual turn of events. And I think what Mark said is, again, guesswork, but could be true. Could be the judge making some
decision about continuing to deliberate or forcing the jurors to continue to deliberate if that note suggests that they may be close, but for one or
two jurors, holding out in terms of their decision making.
But I have grave concerns about the territory that this case is now evolving into and the issues that could be for appeal in terms of how this
judge is handling this jury. Again, 35 hours of deliberation. What possibly could have changed in the last couple of hours? Not likely that much other
than again one or two folks who are just not on board with the majority and those folks now being coerced, being forced to change their opinions.
SANCHEZ: I want to get your thoughts on Lindsay Clancy being brought up to speak to the judge in just a moment, Mark. But we have more color now from
Jean Casares.
Jean, what are you hearing?
CASAREZ: So the judge has been speaking to Lindsay Clancy. She is still up at the bench. Kevin Reddington close to her, touching her shoulders, but at
the same time, the assistant district attorney that is listening to that conversation that the judge is saying to Lindsay Clancy, the assistant
district attorney is agreeing with the judge. Whatever the judge is saying, the assistant DA is in agreeance with it, the defense vehemently against
it.
FOSTER: Mark, how do you read this high drama happening in the courtroom right now?
O'MARA: So again, it's pure supposition, but I am now wondering, and it's just difficult for a judge to do it, maybe not the best way to handle it. I
wonder if that judge --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Mark, just hold on one moment, Mark. I'm sorry to interrupt, but we've just learned that the judge has now brought one juror to the bench
and is now speaking to that juror. What does that tell you, Mark?
O'MARA: This is all very dangerous territory for a judgment. I think he was first talking to Clancy to say, do you really want a mistrial? Don't
you want this over good or bad today? Could be saying things like that to try and talk her into not having a mistrial, even if the defense attorney
is arguing for it, which obviously he would and should be.
Now I'm even more concerned because now they're bringing in seemingly the one recalcitrant juror guesswork again. to be talked to specifically by a
judge, that type of pressure on one juror? I'm not kidding. I have not heard of a juror being taken out of deliberations to be spoken to by a
judge.
And I've done this for a while, and it's extraordinarily dangerous because the pressure of a judge telling you in effect what to do is going to come
back to haunt the process, the judge, and any verdict.
SANCHEZ: You imagine that would be challenged? Right, you imagine that would be challenged, any guilty verdict on appeal. We understand that that
juror, after speaking with Judge Sullivan, nodded and then left the courtroom.
Let's go back to Jean Casares because she's in touch with the CNN reporters that are in the room.
Jean, what are they sharing with you?
CASAREZ: All right, what we're learning is the first juror, as you just said, Boris, was brought into the courtroom. One juror, first juror, went
up to the bench where Lindsay Clancy is right there, along with the attorneys sworn in. That juror asked a question by the judge. The juror
answered it. The juror left.
A second juror has just come into the courtroom, same scenario, sworn in, judge asked her a question or he a question. answers it, and then leaves.
So at this point, it appears as though just those two jurors came in to speak to the attorneys and the judge. But now the jury is getting involved
in this. The judge is bringing them in.
All right, now they're on the fourth juror. So they are going through the jurors right now, bringing them in one at a time.
A foot from Lindsay Clancy, so close to the defendant, asking them a question, but swearing them in, making sure that this is under oath what
they are saying.
The question and the answer that they give is under oath with these jurors.
[15:15:00]
SANCHEZ: Wow. Jean, thank you so much for that.
So, this paints, Areva and Mark, a bit of a different picture. It's not just one juror that the judge is conferring with. It seems to be at least
four of them, potentially more, now five.
Areva, why would the judge be going juror by juror swearing them in, especially with Lindsay Clancy seemingly arm's distance from them?
MARTIN: Yeah, we can only assume at this point Boris that the judge is trying to confirm that these jurors cannot reach a unanimous agreement
before he declares a mistrial. He's asking each of them. Have you done your best? Have you considered every position that has been presented? And you
know, have you come to a decision based on the evidence and the legal charge that was presented to them.
I think the judge is just trying to cover his basis. Obviously does not want this case to end in a mistrial. They invested so much time, court
time, effort and energy into this. He wants a conclusion today -- ideally, that's what the judge would want.
So I presume he's asking these jurors before he declares this mistrial. Just verifying that there's no way additional time would cause them to get
to a different outcome.
SANCHEZ: Judges now conferring with a sixth juror. Mark, your thoughts? I see you shaking your head.
O'MARA: Well, I'm sorry. It's just very dangerous territory that he is in. The whole purpose of the dynamite charge is to give it to them as a whole,
to not segregate them out, to not blame anybody for the process, to not do anything that's going to impact on them acting as a whole. That's why you
bring them in one time, maybe twice, as in this case, and do it.
I'm very concerned. I guess what he is doing is making sure, one, that they still want to deliberate, if that's the decision. Still dangerous territory
to do it one at a time. Two, he may be arguing, is your verdict or your decision in cement not going to change, not actually wanted is just not
going to change, again dangerous territory because he's not supposed to ask them individually but it's the only thing that makes sense.
And the only thing that's going to salvage the way he did this from appellate review is if he is about to declare a mistrial. They go back and
deliberate longer, he's on very dangerous territory for a verdict, no matter what -- if it's a guilty verdict, can't appeal it in acquittal.
But very dangerous territory. He needs to be extraordinarily careful. I know he's frustrated with weeks of work. This is not the way to handle the
inefficiencies of having to have a second trial.
SANCHEZ: He's now gone through eight jurors, Areva, your thoughts to Mark was saying about this being potentially dangerous, even if the jurors do
want to deliberate more, the way that the judge is handling this, is it fair to say that this is unorthodox?
MARTN: Absolutely, I agree with Mark 100 percent. The jurors should be spoken to as a group. The charge should be given to the jurors as a group.
Anytime an individual juror has to speak directly to a judge, of course, they're going to feel pressure. Just the reverence that jurors have for
judges. Just the power dynamic in that conversation is going to cause some jurors to feel pressure no matter what the question is.
If the question is we want to continue deliberating, there's going to be pressure to answer in a certain way. If the question is, can you change
your mind or are you sure you're not going to change your mind? Doesn't really matter what the question is. The fact that it's being asked of the
jurors one by one by the judge is by definition creating pressure on them. That is, I agree with my very problematic from an appeal standpoint.
Not clear what -- so two things could happen. This judge is going to send them all back to deliberate more or he's going to determine that they're.
endlessly deadlocked, and he's going to declare a mistrial. But either way, handling it in the fashion that we're hearing from Jean and the reporters
is not the way this is typically done.
SANCHEZ: And what strikes me, Mark, is that this is happening as he's now gone through nine jurors, with Lindsay Clancy right there.
O'MARA: It's just so awkward. The whole point of keeping a juror inviolate, jury, not individual jurors, inviolate as a group. Is that exact
dynamic? That's why the charge is given to all of them. That's why the question comes from one to the judge. That's why they're never talked about
individually.
And yet we now have, and I'm not exaggerating when I say brand new procedural law being made by this one judge as how to handle individual
jurors. And I don't know what he has planned, but the idea that Miss Clancy is two, three feet away, I think what happened was what we talked about
potentially right.
The defense attorney obviously wants a mistrial and we're on the grounds of that. Maybe the judge is trying to make sure to Ms. Clancy, are you sure
you want to do this all again? I just want to wait to say maybe it's an acquittal. Maybe it's a conviction, but this is your day in court. Maybe he
can drag her up there for that. And he did, seemingly.
Having her up there for this individual inquiry of the jury -- of the jurors, is just strange. And again, isn't that pressure on a jury, on the
juror who's going to sit there two feet away from the defendant and say, yes, I want to still work. No, I don't want to still work. She should have
been brought back to the table and the procedure, the decorum of the procedure of inquiring a juror individually should have been maintained
much differently.
In my opinion, no disrespect for the court. This is unique territory for him to be in as well as us talking about it. But you have to be so, so
careful because an appellate court is going to have to review as to whether or not this was an enough of abuse of discretion that the conviction can't
stand.
SANCHEZ: Yeah, let's go back to Jean Casarez.
Jean, I believe that the judge has now gone through all of the jurors or is in the process now of speaking to the twelfth juror. Is that correct?
CASAREZ: Yeah, just concluded.
So, the judge went through all 12 jurors. It was very short. It was very brief. There was an answer from each and every juror and that was it. So,
there was not an extended conversation at all.
At this point right now, the assistant district attorney that gave the closing argument is talking with the judge, nodding up and down in
agreement with what the judge is saying. Mr. Reddington just reached over and he grabbed the stack of papers off the bench. He is still standing
directly behind Lindsay Clancy, holding on to her chair up at the bench.
And as these jurors were brought in, our reporter in the courtroom, our producer, Nikki Brown, said that Lindsay Clancy was right in the thick of
it. She was right there as the jurors were being brought in and questioned by the judge.
But very short, it was not questioning. It was just like, one answer, that's it, and they go back.
So, now, we have to see what happens if this will go into a proceeding that is on the record in open court so we all can hear exactly what the
situation is.
SANCHEZ: Yeah, we are anticipating that. We will see.
CASAREZ: Reddington is standing with his arms crossed. He is not happy.
SANCHEZ: Let's go back to footage from inside the courtroom. You see Lindsay Clancy being wheeled back to the defense table. Let's go ahead and
listen in. .
(INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise. Jurors entering.
[15:25:12]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The court is now in session. Be seated.
CLERK: Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, present before the court are 12 deliberating jurors and six off minutes in the matter of
Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All other parties are present.
JUDGE: All right, thank you, Madam Clerk. You're welcome.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I just wanted to go over a couple of things this afternoon. First off, I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the
law as I gave them to you, all right? I also want to, at this point, go over the instruction that I gave you about reasonable doubt. All right?
And so, reasonable doubt. The burden is on the commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against
her. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it's not easily defined. Proof
beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or
imaginary doubt.
The charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding
conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in
matters relating to human affairs based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.
I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you
evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be
acquitted.
It's not enough for the commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not
guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty. A certainty that
convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence.
This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All right. And with that, I'm going to ask you to resume your deliberations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise, please. Sir, next question?
(INAUDIBLE)
SANCHEZ: A stunning moment in the courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts, as the judge there, William Sullivan, ordering the jury to continue
deliberations past now what are some 35 hours of discussions. in attempting to reach a unanimous verdict over the fate of Lindsay Clancy, who strangled
her three children, the state arguing that she planned to do so, her defense arguing that she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and
should not be held criminally responsible.
Let's bring in Areva Martin, Jean Casarez, and Mark O'Mara.
Mark, first to you. Really a stunning turn of events here as we saw the jury send a note to the judge, no clarity on exactly what it said. but the
judge conferring with each individual juror, with Lindsay Clancy at the bench alongside them, and then giving them instructions about reasonable
doubt, saying that it is on the commonwealth. The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but that reasonable doubt does not mean
proof without any possible doubt. It requires a moral certainty.
What did you make of those instructions, Mark?
O'MARA: Again, it's interesting. I'd love to read the note, but I have to think the note had maybe two parts for one. The problem that they have a
real difficult time making a decision and then also uncertain -- now we're certain that they also wanted to have that instruction written.
And it's funny because in my state where I practice, normally you get the written rules or procedures that go back with you. Obviously not here, but
they would just review them. So, the fact that he had to give them to him, what relevance does that have?
Presumably they're now going to go back to the one or two recalcitrant jurors and say it's not a possible doubt. It's not every doubt. We just
have to be sort of certain, right? That's sort of what that says.
I'm now wondering if either they're going to come back having talked to that one or two jurors into it and come back with the verdict of guilty or
if they're finally going to tell the judge one last time. We're not getting close to a verdict and they have to be let gone at that point.
SANCHEZ: Areva, walk us through what the judge is describing as a moral certainty and possible doubt versus reasonable doubt.
[15:30:05]
MARTIN: Yes, it's - I'm not surprised that after 35 hours that the jurors wanted the judge to reread the reasonable doubt standard. It's very
difficult for people to understand that level of you know, what does it mean to be proven beyond reasonable doubt gets, I think, many people
confused. Is it every possible doubt eliminated?
Or is it, you know, the majority of doubt that you may have in your mind? And I could see why jurors in a case like this, again, with the complexity
of this evidence really grappling with that issue in terms of beyond reasonable doubt. And in this question is, is it beyond reasonable doubt?
SANCHEZ: Please, for a moment, hold that thought. Let's go to Plymouth, Massachusetts, where Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney speaking.
KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Rather than at the sidebar, the juror, the court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been
working for a week now saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest
respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar can you listen to the law, as I instruct you, does not focus on the
issue. The question is not sufficient enough.
It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law, on reasonable doubt. And if
we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real
shame.
And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that
refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.
SHANAN BUCKINGHAM, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MA: Thank you, your honor. We have the note from the jury. There's no way to
determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to because that's part of deliberations.
I think what your honor has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is
appropriate under Commonwealth versus Ralph. So we do not have an objection to what the questions or the re-instruction.
JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT COURT: All right. Well, I'm sure as parties understand, as they say, the discharge of a
deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked.
I don't feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with
one juror or the 11. At this point, I've asked if they are able to follow my instructions.
According, they swore earlier that they could. They've said to that at this point that they can. That was specifically addressed towards the specific
question.
And that's what I'm doing. So the defendant's objection is noted, and we will be in recess on this at this time. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Wow. Really dramatic moments in court here for Lindsay Clancy. We've learned that there is apparently one juror, one holdout who refuses,
according to the defense, to listen to the judge's orders.
The prosecution there saying that they do not object to the judge's decision to have jurors continue deliberating. The judge making clear that
he believes -- Judge William Sullivan, that he believes that he acted appropriately in reiterating the rules regarding reasonable doubt to the
jurors, doing so one at a time.
Let's go back to Jean Casarez, who has been following this case from the beginning. Jean, apparently there is one single holdout that we don't know
whether they believe that Lindsay Clancy is guilty or whether she should be acquitted.
CASAREZ: Good point. Let's look at the facts of what we just learned. Kevin Reddington is saying that there is one juror who will not follow the
law of the instruction on reasonable doubt.
So every juror was polled. We just heard the assistant district attorney say that they were asked by the judge, each and every one of them being
sworn, can you follow the law? Conceivably, every one of them said yes.
So you have two opposite statements in that courtroom right now that a juror is refusing to follow the law, but every juror under oath conceivably
said they could follow the law. Now, was that said in open court? No.
But if they said they couldn't follow the law, I think there'd be further discussion on that issue right there.
[15:35:00]
And the prosecutor or the defense would bring that up. So, and they all heard what the jury was saying.
So the jury is now deliberating again, but we learned a lot from what both sides have just said. And we see why the prosecutor was nodding her head in
agreement because the standard instruction on reasonable doubt that was given to the jury at the time they began their deliberations was read
again. That's not unusual.
Many times they want to understand what a jury instruction means. And the only remedy for that is to read the instruction. They can't go into
subjective reasoning.
The judge can't do that because then he's participating really in jury deliberation. So they read the instruction, jury goes back in. That's
normal, but otherwise not normal.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Areva Martin, one juror that does not agree with the 11 others.
MARTIN: Yes, not unusual, Boris. In cases like this, again, sometimes you just can't get 12 people to agree. And now we know that it is one juror
that has been probably for the last 30 hours, if not some substantial part of that 30 hours, not agreeing with the majority.
I'm still very concerned about those jurors being asked by the judge. And of course I agree with Jean, they all probably said, yes, I can follow the
law, but apparently some of the jurors do not believe that the law is being followed. I'm not sure that the judge reading that instruction again to the
entire panel gets us any closer to a unanimous decision in this case, because reasonable doubt is a very difficult legal concept to understand.
And if this juror, this one juror still believes that they cannot get to the place where they believe the evidence has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt, we may still end up back at a mistrial.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Mark, it's interesting because we learned there a bit about what was in the note, the judge revealing that it had two components, one
saying, obviously we can't come to a unanimous agreement, and the second, a request that the concept of reasonable doubt is expressed and that
instructions are given by the judge over what it means and what it entails. What does that tell you about how this is playing out behind the closed
doors of the deliberation room?
O'MARA: But in the deliberations room, it does sound like obviously 11 to 1, we now virtually know that. I have to appreciate the arrogance of Mr.
Reddington, that he is the one saying, kick the one out who won't let my client go. That's a strong position to take from a defense attorney, a very
confident position to take, that he knows that there's 11 of them in his favor.
I don't know how he knows that, because none of us do, but interesting. But what it really tells us is that for the past probably 30 hours of the 35
hours that it's been as one juror, we know that probably now that 11 of them have been trying for a long, long time to try and convince number 12
to come to their side. And I thought the judge now, as he explains it, did about the best he can do in a very difficult circumstance because he can't
take sides.
He can't walk into one juror at a time and say, listen to the others. He did it as a whole. He can't do it individually.
Now we know why he did. All he did was ask him to follow the law. Great.
And then the reasonable doubt instruction is supposed to help the defense, but it's not a defense instruction alone. It tells the jury, it doesn't
have to be beyond all doubt. It just has to be something that you can look at your moral compass as a community and say, I am confident that she is
guilty or that she is not provably guilty.
It's going to be interesting what happens in this half hour.
SANCHEZ: It's fascinating quickly, Areva, that the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington is convinced that that one juror is holding out for a guilty
verdict while the prosecution, the assistant DA is essentially saying, no, this is the way that things should be, that they seem confident that the 11
jurors are on their side.
MARTIN: Absolutely. Both seem to be arguing for something very different. The prosecution is saying, no, let this 12 group -- this group of 12 as
constituted, let them continue deliberating, obviously feeling confident that at the end, they're going to find Clancy criminally responsible, which
is what the prosecution has been arguing throughout this case.
And yes, we have the defensive lawyer saying, no, get rid of this juror, because if we get rid of that one, I feel confident that they're going to
give my client something favorable, i.e. an acquittal. No way for either side to know what those 12 jurors are thinking at this point. But that's
what confident, very sophisticated and very experienced lawyers do.
So I'm not really surprised by their respective, although very different positions.
SANCHEZ: Areva Martin, Mark O'Mara, thank you so much for your perspective. Our thanks to Jean Casarez outside the courthouse in Plymouth,
Massachusetts as well.
We're going to stay on top of any developments from court and bring them to you as we get in the Lindsay Clancy case.
Up next, a billionaire subpoenaed by House lawmakers in the Epstein probe turns out to be a no-show, instead filing a lawsuit against the committee.
[15:40:07]
We're going to speak with one of the Democrats on that panel when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We're following new developments in the House Oversight Committee's investigation into convicted child sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein.
Billionaire investor Leon Black was scheduled to appear before the panel for a deposition this morning, but instead Black is now suing in an attempt
to block the committee from obtaining his nondisclosure agreements and testimony. In a letter obtained by CNN, Black's attorneys argued that the
NDAs the panel was seeking were too broad, had no connection to Epstein and disregarded the privacy interests of third parties.
[15:45:03]
Here's Oversight Chair James Comer responding to this latest move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I would hold him in contempt right now of all the powerful billionaires and political people
we brought in for interviews and depositions. This is the first time anyone's filed suit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: During a voluntary interview in June, Black told the panel that he didn't know the extent of Epstein's crimes and that he himself never
abused women or had sexual relations with minors. His refusal to answer a series of questions, though, led to two subpoenas.
We're joined now by Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico. She's a member of the House Oversight Committee. Congresswoman,
thank you so much for being with us.
First, what happens now that Leon Black has filed this lawsuit? Does it in any way complicate the effort to hold him in contempt?
REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, this is obviously an attempt by Mr. Black to get out of his deposition and the
requirements of the subpoena, but it's very clear that he is a person of interest in this case. This is not just the House Committee on Oversight
that's been investigating him, but the Senate Finance Committee for years, and the reason is because Mr. Black is the second highest net worth
individual who transferred over $170 million to Jeffrey Epstein, and it's not clear what it was for. He claims it was for certain financial services,
estate planning, et cetera, but we also know from unredacted files that myself and others have viewed behind the DOJ redaction wall that one of the
women who sued him for sexual assault, which he is denying and who he signed an NDA with, is actually a person that Jeffrey Epstein tried to have
deported on his behalf.
In fact, there is an email in the DOJ files in which Jeffrey Epstein is contacting a Russian official and trying to have this woman who has accused
Mr. Black of rape and assault to have her deported, and so the question is, did Mr. Black pay Epstein for these kinds of services? Is this what Mr.
Epstein was involved in for his rich clients? And this is one of the largest financial investment firms on planet Earth, and so he is certainly
a person of interest in this story and understanding how Epstein operated, and he's now in active defiance of two subpoenas.
So we will refer him for criminal contempt.
SANCHEZ: What's your reaction to the accusation that the committee is overstepping its authority and asking him about NDAs that aren't related to
Epstein?
STANSBURY: Well, clearly the NDAs are related to Epstein because we know from one of the women who's accused him of sexual assault that she was
forced to sign an NDA, and that is actually the person who I just mentioned, who we know Jeffrey Epstein was actively co-conspiring with to
try to have her deported. So his claims are baseless. This lawsuit is baseless, and the committee will be voting to refer him for contempt.
SANCHEZ: Earlier this week, Congressman Thomas Massie said on the House floor that he wants perpetrators in the Epstein investigation to be
investigated and prosecuted. He read the names of 14 people allowed, including Black. He said in order to shame the DOJ into delivering justice.
Again, Black denies any wrongdoing, says he doesn't know about the extent of Epstein's crimes. Based on the work of your committee, do you have
enough evidence to prosecute someone like Black or the others that Massie named?
STANSBURY: Well, our job as Congress is not to prosecute. Our job is to collect evidence, to conduct oversight, and we are conducting oversight
over DOJ, whose job is to prosecute. And part of why Todd Blanches conformation is so deeply troubling is that he has been at the heart of
covering up this case for individuals who are implicated in these files, such as the President himself, as well as potentially Leon Black.
And so what we need is to hold DOJ accountable so that they will prosecute these individuals.
SANCHEZ: Of course, DOJ does the prosecuting, but I just wonder on what you found on the committee, if you've seen evidence that you think is
strong enough for DOJ to do that.
STANSBURY: Well, it's not for me to determine, but what I can tell you is that I've seen unredacted files, and I know that DOJ was investigating Mr.
Black for a number of years.
SANCHEZ: Do you think the committee has gone far enough with its probe that you've uncovered co-conspirators that DOJ has not?
STANSBURY: Absolutely. I mean, I think it's very clear that there are potentially dozens of individuals who were involved in Jeffrey Epstein's
orbit, potential customers, people who he did fixing for, like potentially the person we're discussing today, as well as individuals who have not yet
had their names revealed publicly, who were obtaining women in places where Jeffrey Epstein was spending his time.
And so I think what is most clear in this case is that we've got an administration who's engaged in the most significant cover-up, certainly in
our generation. And a White House, who, by "The New York Times'" own reporting, is using the situation room to try to stop this information from
coming to light.
[15:50:03]
And so, what we have to do is to continue to put pressure on the White House, to put pressure on DOJ, and to use our voices and congressional
oversight until we get justice for the survivors.
SANCHEZ: Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, we've lived the conversation there. Appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.
STANSBURY: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: Still ahead, the Los Angeles Clippers fined more than $30 million, blocked for making first-round picks for five years. Their owner
banned from the NBA for a year. More on that investigation that led to this decision, how it could affect the team and the NBA for years to come.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: The NBA is hitting the L.A. Clippers with one of the most severe punishments in league history.
[15:55:02]
An independent investigation found the team circumvented the league's salary cap by funneling off court endorsement opportunities to star player
Kawhi Leonard. The penalties for team owner Steve Ballmer and the team were significant, including millions of dollars in fines and forfeited draft
picks.
The Clippers deny the allegations, calling the probe a, quote, "heavily biased investigation".
Joining us now is Amin Elhassan. He's an NBA contributor, rather an NBA analyst and contributor to the Pablo Torrey Finds Out podcast, which won a
Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the Clippers investigation.
Amin, great to see you. First, does the punishment fit the crime?
AMIN ELHASSAN, NBA ANALYST: Well, it's certainly a weighty punishment. It's a punishment that will make teams think twice about, you know, doing
this type of conduct. But when you read the report that Wachtell Lipton put out, it seems to be that the Clippers went above and beyond to not only
circumvent the cap, but to try to cover their tracks.
And when you read the details, it really feels like they might have gotten off a little light.
SANCHEZ: A little light. What do you think would have been an appropriate punishment?
ELHASSAN: Well, I think Steve Ballmer should have been suspended for longer than a year. And I think Gillian Zucker and, which should have
probably been terminated from her position. What she did is damning because not only did she facilitate many of these deals, structuring them at the
behest of Steve Ballmer, but then the cover up and then the Wachtell Lipton investigators said that she was not forthcoming and indeed obfuscatory in
their dealings with her, giving false and misleading statements. So not only did she do it and cover it up, but when asked about it, she was not,
you know, truthful to use their terms.
SANCHEZ: Yes, the indication is that they knew that they were doing something wrong and then worked to hide it. I wonder what you think of
Kawhi Leonard's response saying that it's something to the effect of he takes full responsibility for some of the actions that the people around
him may have taken.
ELHASSAN: Yes, I mean, that's part of the settlement that happened between the NBA and the Players Association. By virtue of Kawhi and the Players
Association essentially saying our bad, ball of us, we promise not to do it again and accepting that fine, they thus closed the door for arbitration,
which would have been the way that the Clippers could have contested this within the confines of the NBA. As a result now, because they accepted the
punishment and accepted the settlement because of that, there is no venue for arbitration for the Clippers.
The only way they can challenge this is an actual court by suing the NBA itself.
SANCHEZ: Do you think that's likely to happen? How would Adam Silver respond?
ELHASSAN: Well, I mean, on the one hand, the Clippers statements seem to be very vigorous, and you know, full of energy about they're going to do
this. But again, Boris, I urge anyone to read the document. And when you read the things in there and say to yourself, how can this not be cap
circumvention?
It's very difficult to conceive of a rational explanation. And that's what the collective bargaining agreement says. The actual document, Article 13
on cap circumvention, it says if there isn't a rational explanation for what happened, then it can be found to be cap circumvention.
SANCHEZ: Yes. So just to explain it in basic terms, essentially, the contract of Kawhi Leonard was capped at a certain level. And the allegation
here is what the NBA found is that the Clippers created a sort of fake philanthropy and they funneled money to Kawhi Leonard through this fake
philanthropy to get around paying the salary cap mandated contract. Do you think, Amin, that other NBA teams may be doing something like this or that
it's exclusive to the Clippers and Kawhi Leonard?
ELHASSAN: Boris, I describe cap circumvention like speeding on the highway. The number says 55. We're all doing more than 55, right?
We're going 60. We're going 65. But it all moves at the flow of traffic.
But then here comes a guy doing 95, zooming in and out of the lanes. That's the Clippers. They got pulled over.
Are they the only speeders? No, but they were doing it egregiously in a way that had to, had to have consequences.
SANCHEZ: Amin Elhassan, I can't believe you just admitted to speeding on the highway, my friend.
ELHASSAN: Statute of limitations.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Thanks so much for joining us, Amin. Appreciate you.
And thank you so much for sharing your afternoon with us. Jam-packed with news. We'll wait to see what the jury says in the Lindsay Clancy trial.
They are still deliberating. More than 35 hours in now in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts in just a few seconds.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
