---
source_url: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cg/date/2026-09-04/segment/02
---

[Return to Transcripts main page](/)
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Judge Extends Block On Trump's Mail-In Ballot Crackdown; Two Men Found Alive After Nine Days Trapped In Nepal Tunnel; Judge Declares Mistrial In Clancy Case After Jury Deadlocks; Judge To Decide Whether To Block DOJ From Reviving Reflecting Pool Vandalism Case Against Ex-Olympian; Vermont Ski Resort Sees Drop In Canadian Guests From Trump Rhetoric. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired September 04, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: The Lead tonight, breaking news in the ballot battle over President Trump's effort to limit mail-in voting.
[18:00:04]
A federal judge just extended a block on Trump's executive order calling for the U.S. Postal Service to enforce new rules on who can get a mail-in ballot. This is the same court that the president was trying to skip over by filing an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
All of this is coming as North Carolina today became the first state to send out mail-in ballots for November's midterm elections. The stakes of this ballot battle are extremely high. If the Supreme Court gives Trump's plan the green light, United States Postal Service says it has a plan to enact Trump's new rules.
Though a whistleblower report this week claims the postal service has rushed its process which could lead to thousands of mail-in ballots not being delivered.
We start things off with CNN's Dianne Gallagher in Charlotte, North Carolina. Dianne, North Carolina ballots already in the mail. All I keep thinking about is how complicated things can and will get if the Supreme Court green-lights this. What are you hearing from officials on the ground?
DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Phil, there's a lot of uncertainty here because the ballots aren't just being sent. There are a few that have already been returned here in North Carolina, so voting in the 2026 midterms is already underway. North Carolina not just first in flight but you know, sorry, Ohio.
And, Phil, I will say that these are UOCAVA votes through the electronic system, so they're military and overseas ballots, not through the mail. But, look, they sent tens of thousands out today in North Carolina through the U.S. Postal Service system. And I spoke with election officials who say that North Carolina, of course, is a part of that lawsuit challenging and trying to stop this rule from going into effect. At the same time, the Republican-controlled State Board of Elections did voluntarily submit the envelopes for the ballots here, and they were approved by USPS. But according to officials here, they received no additional guidance for anything. They were not told to do anything differently, so I'm told they didn't.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL DICKERSON, MECKLENBURG COUNTY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR: We're continuing to go until we hear order or directive from our state to do anything different. So, we're moving forward right now.
The confusion can be for the voter. What are you going to do? What am I -- they may not understand.
We have started the voting process. So, you and I have joked I guarantee you I will get a ballot back from somebody in this state today or tomorrow from military overseas or UOCOVA voter. So, it's going.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GALLAGHER: And like I said, they got exactly that in return.
Now, look, there was also concern because from the numerous election officials I've talked to in North Carolina, they've received zero guidance or any real information about what would happen to the ballots that have already been sent out. 5,000 sent through the mail just today here in Mecklenburg County. In Wake County, where Raleigh is, more than 7,000 sent through the mail just today. And each of these 100 counties in North Carolina will continue to fulfill the request unless they're told to stop doing so.
They do not know what would happen to the ballots that have already been sent out if this rule were allowed to go into effect. And, of course, Phil, North Carolina, a very pivotal state when we're looking at the U.S. Senate with that race between the former Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, and the former RNC chair, Michael Whatley. A lot of people looking at North Carolina and concerned whether or not the genie's already been let out of the bottle here, and what would happen if the Supreme Court did allow this to go into effect.
MATTINGLY: Diane Gallagher from Charlotte, North Carolina. I don't think I didn't hear the Ohio comment. We're going to -- we'll get back to that. I appreciate it, my friend. Thank you.
Well joining me now, Maryland's Democratic Governor Wes Moore. Governor Moore, I really appreciate your time.
I think the question that I've had throughout the course of this process, but especially as I read the 90-plus-page rule, USPS rule and the Federal Reserve a couple days ago when it published for the first time, which is the weight it puts on state election officials who are actually responsible for election administration, is enormous. Have you scenario-planned what would happen if the green light is given by the Supreme Court here? GOV. WES MOORE (D-MD): We've been scenario-planning this but also collections of other scenarios, because we have seen how these tactics that the president is trying to deploy that he's been doing them for well over a year now. And he's not hiding it. Whether it is talking about mail-in balloting which, again, you know, in the state of Maryland we've sued him for, and we beat him in court, whether it saying that he wants to get access to our ballot boxes, which there's no reason for him to have that, whether it's him saying he want to put federal agents around voting booths and -- which we know is voter intimidation, whether it's him saying that that he wants to ask Republican states to redistrict, to do mid-decade redistricting, but Democratic states just sit on our hands.
And so these are things that we have seen how the president has repeatedly come up with ways of trying to attack our voting systems because he knows that his policies are unpopular and that he'll get beat in the voting booth.
[18:05:05]
And so it's not a surprise why we're seeing this, but we also are very clear, the power of voting belongs to the states, and the states will continue to hold onto it.
MATTINGLY: So, that's quite literally in statute, which I think is one of the things that's been confusing about this entire process. If the Supreme Court says, go ahead, and USPS says, this rule is in effect, do you comply?
MOORE: Well, I think we've already been looking at various scenario- plannings depending on where this all goes. But the thing that we know is we have faith in our legal system and we have faith that the Constitution is going to be followed.
This actually is not confusing. And this is not controversial. This is actually the Tenth Amendment. It's in the Bill of Rights. And so we're very clear about that voting when these documents were first pulled together, that there was a real fear of a tyrannical executive that could then go and try to obstruct elections. It's the reason that they gave the rights to the states.
And so it's these type of moments that I think that the Founding Fathers prepared the country for and that we now, as governors and as chief executives, as secretaries of state, as attorneys general, we are prepared to make sure that the will of the Constitution is actually followed through on.
MATTINGLY: Yes. And just for clarity, when I said it's confusing, it's confusing that the White House thought they had executive authority to implement something that was not in statute.
MOORE: Exactly.
MATTINGLY: That's been the thing that's bamboozled me a bit over the course of the last couple of weeks. Speaking of court cases, you had a significant win, I guess, it was yesterday at this point related to redistricting. There is now going to be a question put on the ballot about the ability to redistrict going forward. I'm interested, in your statement that you put out after that decision was made by the highest court in Maryland, you said you are going to vigorously campaign and advocate on behalf of supporting this in November. Do you have a plan mapped? Is there like a finance and strategy and ground operation that you're really planning to put a push in here?
MOORE: Yes, we're -- first of all, I say we're we are thrilled, and it was a massive victory. But the truth is it wasn't a massive victory for me. It was a massive victory for the people of Maryland because we put the power back in their hands. We said that Donald Trump nor any party boss should be able to dictate to us or tell us what our democracy should actually look like. Let it go to the people of Maryland and let them have the final say.
And so I'm really excited and encouraged that the courts, our Maryland Supreme Court, and, by the way, in overwhelming fashion, in a 5-2 vote, came out and said that this should go back to the people.
So, I will be out there campaigning on behalf of it. You know, the people know that I'm up for re-election come November as well, and so we're going to be, are urging people to vote Wes and vote yes on question three. Because we believe deeply that if you want to be able to push back against what's happening right now, if you want to make sure that the president of the United States, that Donald Trump is not able to make this pain permanent, that it is important that we hold onto our democracy, hold onto our basic freedoms, and know that decision should be made by Marylanders and not by Donald Trump.
MATTINGLY: I want to turn to Iran because you served. You served in combat. And just yesterday Vice President JD Vance said he wouldn't call the conflict a war, and today, President Trump was asked about it and said this. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: A lot of people don't call it a war. I call it a military conflict because it's small potatoes for us. It's not a big thing. We did Venezuela and we did this. In Venezuela, we lost nobody. In this, we lost 18 people. And in Vietnam, we lost 100,000 people. And in other conflicts, we lost tens of thousands of people.
I would say that it's intermittent. You know, we do intermittent strikes. So, I heard what he said, and it was interesting because I think that there's a lot of truth to it. We're not fighting right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Small potatoes, I think, stood out to a lot of people. What's your response to that?
MOORE: I think it's disgusting. I think he's not thinking about the 18 family members who now are mourning the fact that we've lost loved ones. He's not thinking about the units of the people who were overseas fighting and who have lost people overseas. He's not thinking about those who are right now fighting on his behalf, on his orders, that are now executing missions because the country asked and because the commander-in-chief asked them to.
So, I find how callous he is about this deeply disrespectful and deeply disgusting. But the truth is, I'm not actually surprised hearing it from him because I don't think he does understand what the service members are going through or what these families are having to grieve.
[18:10:00]
And the truth is that I don't give a damn what he calls it. The thing that I know is that we have been a nation at war for six months. The people of this country know that we've been in a war, been in one of these foreign forever wars that's driving prices up on all of us, that's now requiring our nation's armed forces to go overseas. And so whatever he wants to call it or not call it, here's the reality, whatever he does, wants to call it or not call it, he's losing. And that's the thing that gets him most.
And so it is deeply frustrating as both a person who has served overseas, a person who has been forward deployed, a person who has had to deal with these consequences of these foreign forever wars, to hear the president of the United States being so callous. But, again, considering his behavior, I cannot expect anything different, and that is deeply angering and deeply frustrating.
MATTINGLY: Maryland Governor Wes Moore, I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.
MOORE: Thank you.
MATTINGLY: Well, new Fed chair, same problems. President Trump today is trying a creative way to pressure the new Fed leader into lowering interest rates, but will it work?
Plus, the judge declares a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy triple homicide case. We break down the courtroom drama and what this could mean for Clancy's fate. That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:15:00]
MATTINGLY: In our Money Lead, President Donald Trump today threatened to stop the U.S. from trading with many nations unless the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, writing on Truth Social, quote, Lower the rate or I'll stop trading with countries with which we have a deficit, which the U.S. Supreme Court in its ridiculous and very costly tariff decision strongly acknowledged the president, in quotes, has an absolute right to do. It's better than tariffs. The Fed board, with its great new leader must get smart, be patriots for a change.
A short time ago, the president elaborated on what he meant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have countries that are considered elite financially, like Switzerland, like others. But if we didn't trade with them, they would be bankrupt countries.
So, if we don't trade with Switzerland, just to use it as an example, watches, things, if we don't trade, we have no deficit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: CNN's Dave Goldman is here to explain what this could mean. Dave?
DAVE GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Hey, Phil. Yes, the president with a pretty unusual s- post on social media today saying, lower the rate or I'll stop trading with countries with which we have a deficit. And this could really use some unpacking because there's a lot here.
Let's start with lower the rate. What is going on? Well, we had a pretty strong jobs report. That's when it all started. This morning, the country added 162,000 jobs in August. That was good news. So, stocks, what? They fell?
Well, okay, so what this is all about is that the market says, well, maybe this gives the Fed some leeway in the coming weeks to raise rates and that leads stocks lower. President Trump did not like that, had a separate post saying, this is ridiculous.
So, what is the stop trading all about? Well, this is the Emergency Powers Act that the president was using with his tariffs. Now, the Supreme Court ruled against this as a tool for tariffs, but the administration has said that the president has wide authority to stop trading with countries that are doing the United States harm.
And we are already using this to not trade with North Korea, and when Spain was angering the Trump administration by not helping with the war in Iran, the administration was threatening to use the Emergency Powers Act to stop trade with Spain just a couple months ago. So, that's what that's all about.
Well, what about the deficit? Well, we just learned that we had a massive trade gap. So, we import $89 billion more than we export in the month of July, which is the latest data, and that was a 16-month high. Well, wasn't tariff supposed to fix that? Yes, but it hasn't, and A.I. is a big reason why, because we import so many chips.
So, how many countries do we have a deficit with? Well, it's all of these. So, are we going to stop trading with all of those countries? We'll see, but this is what the president is talking about, at least maybe that makes a little bit of sense.
Phil, back to you.
MATTINGLY: Dave Goldman, an absolute treasure, thank you.
Well, nine days trapped underground and then a rescue. Two men found alive inside a flooded hydropower tunnel in Nepal, giving rescuers new hope others may be alive. We'll take you inside the massive rescue operation and the race against time next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
MATTINGLY: Our World Lead takes us to Nepal tonight where it's a race against time to find hundreds of workers trapped inside hydro power tunnels, this after two workers were found alive overnight.
CNN's Hanako Montgomery witnessed the miraculous rescue.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HANAKO MONTGOMERY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): After days of desperation, cries of joy. This is the incredible moment two survivors were pulled from a tunnel in Nepal after being trapped for an agonizing nine days.
The relief and exhaustion is palpable on 30-year-old Sanjay Sah's face. He was hauled out of the water-filled tunnel along with 45-year- old Kabir Maharjan on Friday morning. Both were rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Kathmandu.
From his hospital bed, Sah, a mechanical foreman, described how he got trapped.
SANJAY SAH, RESCUED FROM TUNNEL: My responsibility was to save everyone's life. After the accident happened I could not run by myself. I had to save everyone. In the process of saving everyone, I told them that there was an accident in the big dam. I asked everyone to escape outside. Doing so, I wasted time and I could not get out. I got trapped.
MONTGOMERY: When news broke of the rescue, we flew to the site.
Right now, we're flying over Nepal towards the Trishuli-3A tunnel where authorities believe that there might be still some survivors inside who are alive. They were able to rescue two individuals. And they are hoping the operations can continue and that they will have more luck getting more survivors out.
As we approached, a deafening sound of heavy machinery drilling grew louder, and with it, a sense of hope. Nepali army rescuers surrounded a hole where the two survivors were hauled out from earlier in the day. We watched as dozens of workers pulled at a piece of rope.
[18:25:00]
They tell me that on the other end of this rope is someone who was stuck inside the tunnel. They don't know if this person is alive or is dead. But, clearly, there are dozens of workers right now trying to get this body out. And these people have been stuck inside for nine days now since that flash flood first hit Nepal.
We've spoken to the major general, the head of military operations in Nepal, and he told us that it was really difficult to find signs of life, especially inside this tunnel which was one of the worst hit.
The Trishuli-3A hydropower station has a conduit that's a staggering 26 meters deep, an army general told me Thursday. The rescuers here explain that it's filled with water rather than mud, allowing them to use whitewater rafts to travel down the tunnels.
As we left the scene, oxygen tanks and body bags were being passed towards the opening. Authorities later said a body was extracted from the tunnel.
Nepali authorities have previously warned there are more than 900 workers missing at multiple energy projects in the Himalayas after catastrophic flashfloods swept through the area. They don't know how many are dead or still alive, but the search goes on with the hope that hundreds more families will be reunited.
Hanako Montgomery, CNN, Nepal.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTINGLY: Hanako Montgomery, thank you for the great reporting.
Well, we're following breaking news tonight. What comes next for Lindsay Clancey after a mistrial was officially declared in her murder case? Will she face another trial? Our legal experts weigh in ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our Law and Justice Lead, a mistrial in the triple murder case that captivated the nation. Today, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial said they could not and will not reach a unanimous verdict on whether the Massachusetts mother is criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023. After nearly six weeks of testimony, almost 40 hours of deliberations, the judge declared a mistrial.
CNN Jean Casarez reports on how this case reached this point and what happens next.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: At this point I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrial.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Lindsay Clancy's triple murder trial coming to a dramatic ending on Friday, a mistrial.
KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S ATTORNEY: This is not a time for gloating, bragging, expressing victory. It's a very sad case. CASAREZ: But not before a few last-ditch efforts by the defense, including filing an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts highest court. But that appeal was denied after six and half days of deliberation and several notes to the judge from the jurors saying they were unable to come to a unanimous verdict. The last note from the jury read simply, quote, it is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.
Earlier in the day when the court reconvened, the defense asked the judge to question the lone holdout juror.
REDDINGTON: It clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11-1, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.
CASAREZ: The judge denied the request. The defense then pushed for a forceful reminder to jurors to follow the law, drawing visible exasperation from the judge.
SULLIVAN: What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?
CASAREZ: Later on outside court, in an unusual moment, the defense spoke out about that one juror who was a holdout.
REDDINGTON: They know that they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful, and listened to this evidence. And you could see how defeated they were sitting there.
CASAREZ: Clancy is accused of strangling her young children, five- year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan in January of 2023. She does not deny that she killed her three children, but pleaded not guilty. The 36-year-old's defense team argued she should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
REDDINGTON: She loved her children. They were her life. This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect.
CASAREZ: The prosecution acknowledged Clancy had a mental disease or defect, but claimed the former labor and delivery nurse deliberately killed her children with premeditation and extreme cruelty, and that she was not in a state of psychosis at the time of the murders.
TIMOTHY CRUZ, PLYMOUT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This case is not about a healthcare system or about how women are treated in it. Those are all important issues. This case, however, was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did on January 24th, 2023, and the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents.
CASAREZ: The focus now turns to what happens next, prosecutors saying they will decide whether to retry the case against Clancy at a future court hearing. CRUZ: I do know that one of the questions that are out here right now regarding retrials, I will let you know that there'll be no decisions made today regarding that. I'm going to be meeting with our team, and we will address this case further at the appropriate time in the context of an official court proceeding.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CASAREZ (on camera): And a status hearing is set for September 29th in this courthouse behind me. Kevin Reddington says he is ready to try this case. The week after that, he will file a motion for reconsideration, and we may learn whether the prosecution fully intends to retry this case.
[18:35:00]
They have not, as you just heard, spoken out about that. But the question is, is there a saturated jury pool at this moment in Plymouth County, Massachusetts? Phil?
MATTINGLY: Jean Casarez, who has done amazing work leading our coverage throughout the course of this trial, thank you for the great work.
Well, joining me now is former Palm Beach County Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg. Dave, first, your reaction to how this case ended, ending in a mistrial.
DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: That's the system, Phil. All it takes is one juror and you could have a hung jury. And I thought that Defense Lawyer Reddington did a really good job throughout the trial until the close. I thought he was lackluster in the close, and so maybe he has just himself to blame for the fact that one juror was a holdout.
One thing that I thought was inexcusable though was the way he went after that juror. We should be thanking jurors for their service, not attacking them or getting them doxxed online where they get harassed. I mean, he went in open court today and called this person a criminal, said that he lied under oath, and then he just laid him out to dry there in that press conference. I really don't think that's Reddington's finest moment as a lawyer.
MATTINGLY: Actually, I want to play some of those comments from Clancy's attorney. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REDDINGTON: Where do I begin to thank these jurors, minus one?
They were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was.
And you could see how defeated they were sitting there. And I got a funny feeling that they would've gone on for another week if they had to. So, I hope that guy can sleep well at night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Would something like that impact a future jury pool if there is a retrial?
ARONBERG: Could, yes. Why would you want to be a juror and be a holdout if you're going to be treated like that? I mean, this was a tough case because although there was evidence of premeditation, there was also a lot of evidence that the defendant was in the throes of real psychosis, and she was overmedicated. She had insomnia.
And although she seemed cold and calm when she sent her husband out to run errands and then did that brutal massacre of her kids, awful stuff, but still, you can be in chaos beneath the surface while you're calm outside. And that's something that the defense experts testified to. And the prosecution really didn't have an answer to that.
So, the fact that it was 11-1 and not a total acquittal could be seen as a victory for the prosecution. That's why I'd be surprised if they decided to do this whole case yet again.
MATTINGLY: Really? Explain -- say more about that. Why?
ARONBERG: Well, they don't want her to go free, but at the same time, why would you put your arm through a meat grinder again? I mean, you just essentially lost 11-1, and I thought that this case was headed to an acquittal from the beginning until the closing arguments, which I thought gave a lifeline to the prosecution.
When you look at an 11-1 verdict, you got to really reassess if you're going to go through this whole thing again, the time, expense, the aggravation. So, you may want to file it again and then try to reach a deal with the defense lawyer. But it didn't help that the defense lawyer here attacked the prosecutor, Tim Cruz, who I know, a good guy, attacked him personally, made fun of him for not knowing the children's names, kind of looked down at his notes. You don't need to do that, you know?
He said that this is not a time for gloating, but he seemed to gloat. He seemed to make it all personal, Reddington, and I just -- it just didn't stand right with me.
MATTINGLY: He was asked if he would do anything different in a possible retrial. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you feel there's something you would do differently with the second trial?
REDDINGTON: Why would I? I won the case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: I think that kind of underscores the point you were making there. Should the defense keep their strategy exactly the same if there's a retrial? ARONBERG: Yes. You know in the NFL they say act like you've been there before. He was spiking the ball over and over again. Yes, if it goes to retrial, they'll do the same strategy. I do think they'll probably move the case out of Plymouth County, but where are you going to go where no one knows about the case? So, wherever you go, people are going to know about it. It's just that you have to find a juror that can -- a jury that can set aside their biases, what they know, and just follow the evidence and the law.
But it's going to be harder to find a jury this next time around knowing that if you hold out, if you don't go the way that the defense lawyer wants you to go, he's going to call you out in public, and perhaps you'll get doxxed and harassed.
MATTINGLY: Yes. Dave Aronberg, I appreciate your expertise, friend. Thank you.
ARONBERG: Thanks Phil.
MATTINGLY: Well, an emergency injunction seeks to stop groundbreaking on the president's 250-foot triumphal arch as the Trump administration plows ahead with its so-called beautification projects across the nation's capital. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, President Trump's architectural blitz in the nation's capital, the White House ballroom, the golf course, the Reflecting Pool, the Triumphal Arch, the list goes on and on, well, he's apparently building them all for himself. He said as much in an interview with New York Magazine's Ben Terris in a great new piece, quote, that's true, Trump said. Nobody will do it once I'm gone. When I leave here, nobody will.
And as CNN Sunlen Serfaty reports, Trump's ambition to cement his legacy, it's not slowing down at all despite facing many legal challenges.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: That's pretty great, huh?
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Without the usual approvals and still in legal limbo, the Trump administration is pushing forward to break ground on President Trump's triumphal arch.
TRUMP: I think it will be the most beautiful in the world.
SERFATY: Announcing they will start excavating the ground to build the arch in the next two weeks.
TRUMP: The Arc de Triomphe would be the one that you would probably know in Paris. It's one of the most beautiful. It's a very similar size, slightly larger we're doing. We have to do slightly larger. SERFATY: The proposed 250-foot arch planned for Memorial Circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery has not been approved by the National Capital Planning Commission, the last of the two agencies that need to review and approve the work, nor has it gone through a full review necessary under the National Historical Preservation Act.
The FAA's final aeronautical study looking at the safety impact to the nearby airport has also not been finished, and the project is still bogged down in the courts with a veteran's rights group seeking a temporary restraining order Friday saying the arch obstructs the view of D.C. from Arlington Cemetery.
[18:45:05]
TRUMP: You get a better view right over here.
SERFATY (voice-over): All this comes after the administration scored a major victory for one of the president's other projects, the Supreme Court, allowing the construction of President Trump's ballroom to move forward.
TRUMP: This will be the greatest military complex/ballroom anywhere in the world. There won't be anything like it.
SERFATY (voice-over): That decision appearing to embolden the administration.
TRUMP: What I do best in life is build. I build buildings really well.
SERFATY (voice-over): With Justice Department lawyers now using that ruling to make the case that other challenges to the presidents construction projects should be dropped. Administration lawyers for the arch and for the presidents desired championship golf course he once built in D.C. this week, both requested the courts to dismiss each case.
TRUMP: This will be here long after we're gone. No matter what happens with the world, this is not moving.
SERFATY (voice-over): Meantime, as the president pushes ahead with all these projects to remake Washington in his style and liking --
TRUMP: We weren't necessarily thrilled with the contractor.
SERFATY (voice-over): -- his reflecting pool renovations continue to grow in cost. The administration hiring yet another new company to help clean and maintain the reflecting pool, adding another $2.7 million to a project that has already ballooned in cost to now over $16 million.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SERFATY: And just in the last hour, we received new information that essentially attempts to clarify what exactly the work that is going to be done here at the site of the president's proposed arch. The government lawyers, in a new filing just this evening, they
revealed that the work will be archeological survey work. Now, this is a very small but very important detail to the broader context of all of this. That survey work was always needing to be done. It was always anticipated that it would be done before getting proper approvals. It was needed to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.
That does not mean that this work will actually be work on the arch. It certainly does not mean that will be work on preparing the grounds for the arch.
And to that point, government lawyers saying tonight, Phil, that the land here will be restored by October 31st. They say, quote, this activity is not construction or demolition, in preparation for construction of the arch -- Phil.
MATTINGLY: Sunlen Serfaty, great work, my friend. Thank you.
Let's turn back now to the reflecting pool saga, because today a judge heard arguments on whether to stop the Trump Justice Department from reviving its vandalism case against former Olympian David Hearn.
Norm Eisen is part of Hearn's legal team. He joins me now.
Norm, the judge said he'd make a decision shortly. Did anything happen in court today that gives you an indication of how he's going to rule?
NORM EISEN, CO-FOUNDER, DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS ACTION: Well, Judge Edelman is a very evenhanded jurist, and as the best judges do, he had hard questions for both sides. But I thought that a couple of exchanges that he had with the prosecutors were very telling, Phil. He pressed them, do you have any evidence that could possibly emerge that would allow you to prosecute Mr. Hearn for the reflecting pool?
And they couldn't identify any even hypothetically, he put them in a corner on. You've admitted that there's no probable cause. There's no basis for the case. You can't think of any evidence. They couldn't even hypothetically think of evidence that could emerge. They said, well, the reflecting pool is being remade. Maybe some evidence will come from there.
How? How could re-renovating the reflecting pool after what the government has admitted was a botched, rushed renovation, possibly create evidence in this case. It's nonsense.
And then the other thing that I thought was very telling, the judge was very focused in his questions to us, the defense team, but particularly to the prosecutors on the harassment of Mr. Hearn. This unusual circumstance where, on the one hand, the government has said, oops, there was no evidence to charge him. And then you have the president saying, I disagree. He should be charged and even attacking. Mr. Hearn's lawyer, yours truly.
MATTINGLY: Right.
EISEN: That's not right. MATTINGLY: Should you get a dismissal with prejudice which would
prevent the justice department from reopening its case against Hearn, what then? What's the next step? Because. And I ask because, to your point, at least one side of the two sides, you were just explaining probably isn't going to end based on precedent of the president.
EISEN: Well, we argued strongly today. David Hearn is innocent. There is no basis to charge him. There was no basis. There is none now, and there will be no basis to charge him for doing damage to the reflecting pool.
The prosecutors have admitted not once but repeatedly in signed documents that they filed in court that the damage to the pool, including in the exact spot where Davey is claimed to have injured the pool, was done because of a botched rushed renovation.
[18:50:08]
So, we are keeping all options on the table. There is nothing that the American law abhors more, rejects hates more than targeting an innocent person, and our legal team is looking at everything right now. We want to get the case dismissed with prejudice. We hope the judge will see it our way and we'll go from there.
MATTINGLY: Real quick, because I have you here. I want to follow up on the stars and stripes case. You're involved in that lawsuit. This one's over. The Pentagon's recent firing of three staffers at stars and stripes, the military publication staffers claimed they were illegally pushed out for personal statements protected under the First Amendment.
Where does that stand right now?
EISEN: We are living litigating that case actively. It is on an emergency posture here in federal court in D.C., and this goes with at Democracy Defenders Fund and action. We have over 300 legal cases and matters, including many of the landmark successes with wonderful partners. Today I was in court Washington Litigation Group, Steptoe and us.
But these first amendment cases, we won reinstatement for Karen Attila when she was wrongly fired, blamed, thrown out of the post. They have to take her back. We've fought the Paramount/Warner's merger, supported the state A.G.s who are litigating that. The Voice of America case and now "Stars and Stripes".
These are very important First Amendment matters, Phil. So, we're confident in our arguments. We're proud to stand with these journalists and with our partners in the democracy movement in defense of the First Amendment. That's what it's all about in the United States.
MATTINGLY: Honestly, you being in person means you're out of a courtroom, which I didn't think happened anymore.
Norm Eisen, I really appreciate you coming in. Thank you. EISEN: Thanks, Phil.
MATTINGLY: Well, coming up, the business impact from the frosty relationship between the U.S. and Canada. We'll speak with the head of a Vermont ski resort about how Trump's tariffs are impacting them and why local business owners are on edge, as U.S./Canadian tensions continue to rise. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:56:25]
MATTINGLY: It's time for our "Business Leaders" series, where we talk to small business owners from coast to coast about how the Trump administration's policies are impacting them. Close to 400,000 skiers visit Jay Peak Resort in northern Vermont every year. Up to half are from Canada.
President and general manager Steven Wright says Canadian visitors declined by nearly 35 percent after President Trump began floating the notion of Canada becoming the, quote, "51st state".
Steven joins me now.
I really appreciate your time.
I just want to get a better understanding. How would you quantify the impact on the resort after just the 51st state comment, but also just the tensions escalating immediately after that?
STEVEN WRIGHT, PRESIDENT & CEO, JAY PEAK RESORT: Well, first of all, thanks for having me on, Phil. You know, we saw the dip in vacation bookings toward us. We have a -- an Olympic sized hockey rink here. We saw a drop in hockey teams willing to participate from the Canadian side of the border. We saw a bit of a dip in season passes, winter season passes of folks coming to the resort, and all of that sort of amalgamated into about a 30 to 50 -- 30 to 40 percent drop.
That was made up for by a massive increase on the us side of the business because we had so much snow last year, and eastern skiers stayed with us because we had so much snow, and the western part of the country, saw a drop in snowfall. So, you know what we missed in Canadian skiers, we made up for in the U.S. side of the audience.
You know, but we were a little bit concerned coming into this season that if things turn on the snow side, you know, we may be hurt by that.
MATTINGLY: And it seems like things have continued to turn on the trade and bilateral breakdown side. Last week, when the tariff war really began to escalate again, J.P. posted a message to its Canadian guests on social media.
It reads in part, quote, "We understand that right now some Canadians are making difficult decisions about traveling to the United States. We understand why. And while we're not particularly interested in telling anyone what to think about tariffs, trade policy or politics, we do have an opinion about anything that makes good neighbors feel further apart. We don't like it."
What's the response been?
WRIGHT: Well, it's -- you know, it's been mixed. You know, on the Canadian side, we've seen a lot of our Canadian audience thankful that we posted a message. Last year when we posted, we had a blog post after the 51st state narrative piece, Canadians were disappointed in that message. They were sad. They were disillusioned.
And you can have a conversation with disappointment. This year, as we -- as that blog post came out, there was really anger around that. And it's -- and it's difficult to speak to anger. This is one of the things that we're -- we're finding out it's prohibitively difficult to have that conversation when folks are angry.
MATTINGLY: Just only have a couple seconds left. Are you hopeful that things will come back together here?
WRIGHT: Yeah, we're very hopeful. And, you know, we think that, you know, by and large, I think that governments are going to disagree. It's, you know, essentially it's what governments do, right?
MATTINGLY: Right.
WRIGHT: But Canada isn't going anywhere and neither is the U.S. and, you know, when this particular dispute is over, we're still going to wake up and we're going to be six miles from each other. And we want to get back to working and trading and skiing the most snow in the east here at Jay Peak with our Canadian friends. And that's really going to happen.
And we hope that that leadership finds a way through getting through these disagreements.
MATTINGLY: Jay Peak Resort is located in Jay, Vermont.
Stephen Wright, really appreciate your time, sir. Thank you very much.
WRIGHT: Thanks for having me.
MATTINGLY: Well, coming up Sunday on "STATE OF THE UNION," Texas gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa. That's Sunday at 9:00 a.m. and noon Eastern on CNN.
You can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.