INSTANT REACTION: Mistrial Declared In Lindsay Clancy Case

In today's uncertain economy, American financing is helping families find a way out of the high

interest trap. We're heading into summer, but the economic clouds aren't clearing for most

middle-class families between persistent inflation and the cost of daily life. They're likely

feeling the pressure. You've worked hard for your home. Probably a more equity than you realize,

yet the summer surge is forcing many to rely on credit cards. It's an exhausting cycle,

but American financing understands that 2026 requires a real strategy. That's why they have salary

based mortgage consultants with mortgage rates in the fives. Their customers are saving an

average of $800 a month by wiping out high interest debt. That's money that stays in your pocket,

the fight back against rising costs, no upfront fees, no pressure. And if you start today,

you could delay two mortgage payments called American Finance today, 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711,

or visit americanfinancing.net slash Walsh. The Lindsey Clancy trial has reached a conclusion

for now, anyway, with a mistrial. And I will give my instant reaction and analysis of this news,

which comes to us after an absolutely bizarre and unprecedented string of events that are

almost hard to believe. But the only reason that we ended with a mistrial at the end of all this

madness is simply because of the actions of a lone heroic male juror, as we now know. A lot of

people speculated the jury of nine women and three men would break down to men against women.

Well, it turns out we were right in assuming that every single woman on the jury would want to

acquit a mother who brutally slaughtered her children. But we were wrong to assume that all three men

would stand strong for justice and common sense. As it turns out, only one man did. And because of

this one man, Clancy did not get away, not entirely, not yet, anyway, with brutally murdering her

three children. Apparently only one male member of the jury was willing to reach the obviously

appropriate verdict in this case, which is that there is no excuse, either legally or morally,

for the premeditated and systematic execution of your children. Based on all the information we have,

this lone male juror was able to withstand a campaign of public intimidation by the defense

attorney in this case, as well as the jury for person, the nine women on the jury and the two other

men were apparently not only willing to absolve Lindsey Clancy of these barbaric murders, but

they're also willing to pressure the lone holdout. We didn't agree with them. And thank god he

fought back. We simply cannot live in a country when murder is considered justifiable because a

woman claims that she was insane at the time. It's an incoherent standard, by the way, the insanity

standard, as we'll discuss in a moment. And at least for now, there's still a possibility that

Lindsey Clancy will face justice for what she did. We'll have to hear from the state about if they're

going to refile the charges of what the charges will be. And hopefully they do. And the thing is,

if you would ask me a week ago, I would have said that a mistrial in this case instead of a guilty

verdict would be a travesty and a tragedy. And it is. I mean, it still is. But now that we know

that we were one sane member of the jury away from a full acquittal away from a woman admitting

that she murdered her children and waltzing away, Scott free, the mistrial seems in that case by

comparison like something of a win or at least closer to a win than the alternative. Clancy's

odious defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, did everything in his power to corrupt the process

and force the acquittal by any means necessary. When the jury returned today to say that they were

still deadlocked, that the lone male juror was was not intimidated by Reddington or the four

person. Reddington initially demanded the jury be sent back to continue deliberations.

Otherwise, he wanted the judges to tell the jury for a third time that he would not accept a

hung jury. And of course, that would be coercive and inappropriate. So the judge declined.

He announced his intent to declare a mistrial and then Reddington walked all over the judge

and demanded an hour to file an emergency appeal before the trial was was finalized. Because you see

apparently when you don't get the verdict you want, you get the demand that an appeals court

remove whoever is on the jury that disagrees with you. You get the claim that he's not following

the law because he came to a different conclusion about the case. And that logic makes perfect

sense to Lindsey Clancy's lawyer and to the brain-rotted legions on TikTok and a lot of people in the

media too. And that's where the judge should have denied the appeal and ended the circus for good.

But instead, you know, he gave him an hour to do this appeal on the absurd grounds that he,

you know, that the lawyer didn't get the verdict he wants. And so he gets to appeal it. And as if

the appeal wasn't nonsensical enough on its face, it somehow gets worse. So Fox News obtained

the emergency appeal that was filed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. This again is from the

defense. This is their appeal to try to stop the jury from being, to try to, try to stop the mistrial.

And what they argue in this appeal, and I'm not making this up, they argue that the lone

juror is engaging in a line of reasoning, which quote, reflects a bias against those who are

suffering from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the fifth and 14th

amendments. Yes, the defense seriously argued that by voting to send a woman to prison for killing

her children, he was discriminating against the disabled. If you said a disabled person to court,

you know, then you're discriminating. I mean, to send them to prison, you're discriminating against

them. I guess is the logic. It's a total farce, but this is a farce that was allowed to play out in court.

The whole process was stalled just to allow all of this to happen. And of course, all for the sake

of shielding a mass murderer from accountability, which I mean, you could point out is the,

is the job of the defense attorney. But even so, it's a farce. And this is a recurring problem,

by the way, in our legal system, whenever the most loathsome and obviously guilty defendants are

put on trial, given enough time to legal process itself inevitably becomes a farce. It's very

difficult to prosecute the drags of society in an orderly and predictable fashion. For the

simple reason that the worst of the worst are very adept at, you know, finding ways to manipulate

the system. It wasn't too long ago that Somali fraudsters literally delivered a $120,000 cash

bribe to a, a juror just before deliberations began in an attempt to secure a not guilty verdict.

They blew up the whole trial in the process. This is a big challenge that prosecutors face when

they're confronted with overwhelmingly evil defendants who tend to attract very depraved lawyers.

As a saying goes, you know, you can't wrestle with a pig without everyone getting dirty. But

even with this expectation in mind, especially over the past few days, the Clancy case devolved into a

truly staggering, unprecedented display of corruption and lawlessness and moral rot.

Yesterday, as well as this morning, before we even get to the preposterous last ditch appeal,

Clancy's lawyer engaged in an overt campaign of mafia-like jury intimidation in an attempt to

secure an acquittal for his client. John Gotti would look at this trial and blush at the sheer

audacity of Clancy's lawyer, his name is Kevin Reddington. For whatever reason, Reddington was

allowed in the middle of the Liberations to publicly accost a specific juror and tell the entire world

that there's going to be an investigation into this person's statements during deliberations.

And the only reason for this investigation is that the juror, all by himself, appeared to be intent

on convicting Clancy for the murder of her children, which is something that I'm sure this member of

the jury figured he had the right to do, like he's allowed to come to his own conclusion, or so he

thought. Today, in open court, before the jury came back, and a mistrial was declared, Reddington

made it clear that the holdout on the jury is a man. So he told everybody that, which is a very

specific piece of information because there are only three males on the jury. And during the same

hearing, Reddington berated the judge for failing to intimidate the jury. He wanted the judge to

scold them for not following the law, meaning not returning the verdict that he wants.

And I understand exactly what happened here and how unseemly and corrupt it is. Let's go back

to the scene in the court house yesterday during the sixth day of deliberations in the case.

And by this point, the jury had already sent two notes to the judge indicating that they were

deadlocked. And in response, these notes, the judge followed established procedure by telling

the jurors to return to the jury room and tried to reach a verdict if it all possible. This is how

the system works. It's not unprecedented. It is really stupid. But this part, the system does

work this way. The jury says they're deadlocked. They're sent back. They say they're deadlocked

again. They're sent back again. You know, this is how the system works. It shouldn't work this way.

In my opinion, if a jury says that it's deadlocked after hours of deliberation, sending them back

is just asking them, even if you say you aren't asking them this, you are asking them to bully the

minority into caving. If you don't want the minority to be bullied into caving, then why would

you force them to stay in deliberations after they've considered the facts and deliberated

and made up their minds? I mean, it's pretty absurd. But in any case, if the jury had come back

yesterday with a third note, insisting that they were still deadlocked as they did today,

then the judge would have declared a hung jury. That's generally how it works because under our

constitution, the judge is not allowed to hold the jury hostage indefinitely. He can hold them

hostage, and he did in this case, but there's an end point eventually. And the jury in this case

almost certainly knew that. They, you know, they were not sequestered, so they had access to the

internet. They would have known that with just one more note, they could go home and return to

their families. But instead of sending another note indicating that they're deadlocked, the four

person was apparently a woman on the jury instead sent a note telling the judge that a particular

juror wasn't following the law on reasonable doubt. And somehow this person, the foreman,

foreperson, whatever, only decided to send this note on the six day of deliberations at the very

last possible moment before mistrial was going to be declared because of a hung jury. So we're

head to, let to believe that, you know, on the other five days of deliberations, I guess this guy

was following the law. And then on the six day, at the most crucial moment, suddenly he's not

following the law, you know, we're meant to believe that somehow this other juror had announced

his intention to disregard the law, which of course is ridiculous. Okay, it's ridiculous to claim

that he, that he, I mean, we don't, none of us were there. It's highly implausible, implausible,

rather that this guy sat there and said, no, I'm not going to follow the law. I refused to follow the

law. Now he was following the law, but the law led him in his view, which was the correct view,

to a different conclusion. The other members of the jury didn't like that conclusion and neither

did the defense. So they attempted to berate and manipulate him into changing his mind.

And they failed. Thank God. This was a clear act of jury intimidation by the jury, the foreperson

by the, and in response, the judge did the appropriate thing. It took, he took each, each member

of the jury aside. He reminded them of the law on reasonable doubt. He didn't single anybody out.

He didn't put any particular, you know, pressure on any one member of the jury. He asked all of them

if they were going to follow the law. And they all said, yes. But for Reddington, this wasn't

nearly enough. He wanted the jury removed from deliberations and replaced with an alternate,

presumably so that all 12 jurors could agree on a not guilty verdict. So he essentially made the

claim that if a majority of the jury wanted to vote another member of the jury off the island,

then they should be allowed to do that. You know, apparently, juries in this country, you know,

they, they should function like a, like a reality TV show, right? Like Survivor, where you get the

most, the least popular member gets voted off. And he's saying that jurors should be able to

say whatever they want to a judge to convince him to throw the loan dissenting juror off the panel

on the basis that he's supposedly not following the law. You know, it's a funny thing when, when

members of the jury accuse another member of the jury of not following the law. Because first of all,

if you know anything about juries, you know that they don't understand anything about the law anyway.

And they're happy to admit this right out in the open. This was the George Floyd jury, just for

example, watch. We got to the point actually that we realized for charged two at some point. I think

it was Jody. I'm pretty sure it was Jody said, wait a minute. Does the intended act of harm have to

be the death of George Floyd, or can it be him not providing the life support? And it was like all of

us and then light bulbs just went on for those people, I think, that were undecided or on the not

guilty side. Yeah, go ahead. I want to hear from you, Jody. Why is it you brought that up? What did you?

I brought that up because I mean, what you brought up and why? I brought up to the fact that

this is not what he did, but more or less what he didn't do. He did not provide life-saving

measures for George Floyd when he knew that the die was in pain or needed medical attention. Why

do you think that was a light bulb? Well, when we were in deliberations and Jody did bring that up

and we did look through everything very, very carefully. What I thought about is something that

was said during the trial and that is Minneapolis Police Department has a model. And if I'm

understanding it correctly, their model is in our custody, in our care. George Floyd was in

their custody. He was never in their care. And that for me just, it just hit hard. I don't

feel like they ever shared for him. The female jurors clearly dominated the deliberations there.

They explicitly decided to convict Derek Chauvin of murder not because of what he did,

but because of what he didn't do. In other words, they ignored the law. They ignored what the

charge actually was. Presumably because they knew that George Floyd had overdosed, they knew

Chauvin didn't kill him, but they thought Chauvin was an unsympathetic guy. And they're probably

advocates of BLM or whatever, so they convicted him of murder anyway. They don't mention any arguments

about whether Chauvin actually caused Floyd's death at any point in that 10 minutes scene.

And interview, they completely disregard the fact that under Minnesota law, third degree murder

requires the commission of some dangerous intentional act by Chauvin. Instead, they made up a new law

in which the omission of an act, namely failing to care for George Floyd, could somehow qualify as

an intentional action. They never sent a single note to the judge about this. By the way, they just

created the law on their own. And the reason this verdict was not overturned, even after this CNN

interview, where the jury admits they didn't follow the law is that jury deliberations are considered

sacrosanct in every court in this country, or at least they were, even when the jury admits on

national TV that they were not following the law and had no idea what the law even was, the verdict

still stands. The American legal system allows jurors to misunderstand the law. That's a known risk

of having random everyday people on juries, particularly the people who are too dumb to get out of

jury duty. You can make the case that, you know, that we shouldn't have the system. You can make

the case that there are some fundamental flaws with the system as we have. There are plenty of

countries, including Singapore, as we discussed earlier this week, that don't have the system,

that they have judges decide the cases, but in our system, juries decide guilt or innocence.

And if they don't grasp the law, too bad. So with this well-known limitation of our legal

system in mind, what exactly happened in the Clancy trial? Why might the juror in question

have misunderstood the law in this case? And how, given the nonsense that we allow juries to do

everyday in this country, could this misunderstanding possibly lead to the member of the jury being

dismissed from the case, which is what they wanted to have happened? Well, we kind of start

piecing all that together yesterday, thanks to this press conference, Redington gave

outside the courthouse yesterday, because for some reason he's allowed to intimidate the jury,

again, they're not sequestered. Watch. So the jury has been identified

by the note from the floor. And there will be an inquiry by the judge. Tomorrow at nine o'clock,

I don't know what his question is going to be. We'll have an argument about it. I don't think it

will be at the sidebar. I think it'll be an open court, which is my concern that we have

our arguments in open, not at the sidebar. So I expect that, and that's B-A-R, not B-A-H, okay?

What is it? Is it one person versus all the rest? Is this one person versus all the rest in the

jury? Is it one person holding this up? That's, you've heard the question. That's basically that

there's a person who has doubt, but will not listen to the judge's instruction.

So the defense attorney decided to wage a public pressure campaign against someone on the jury

during deliberations. I mean, this is insane. It's totally unprecedented.

They want to burn the whole system down for the sake of letting a woman get away with triple

homicide. This is textbook intimidation. He's publicly complaining about a specific juror and

falsely accusing him of not following the law. And again, doing this during deliberations.

But for a second, let's put aside the sliminess of this defense lawyer. The key point in that

footage is that he says one member of the jury has doubts, meaning reasonable doubts about

Clancy's guilt under Massachusetts law. Despite those doubts, he was allegedly failing to

follow the judge's instruction in the case. He was ignoring the law, in other words, according to

Reddington. So he puts this jury on blast during deliberations and and threatens this one specific

guy with a witch hunt. Well, why might this guy be interested in disregarding, quote, unquote,

the law of Massachusetts? Now, I don't think that he did disregard it, but let's follow that thread

for the sake of argument. Okay, let's see. According to Massachusetts laws, someone is criminally

insane if, because of some mental problem, they lack the substantial capacity to appreciate

the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of

the law. A defendant is considered not guilty if there's reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant

possessed this capacity in any way. And here's the important point in Massachusetts. The prosecution

has to prove the state, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant was criminally responsible, meaning they have to prove the defendant not just that he did

the thing, but that he did not have a serious mental defect and that he retained the capacity to

appreciate his conduct during the commission of the crime. Okay, so basically the prosecution has

to prove a negative, basically. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not crazy,

even though crazy is something that's going on inside her head. Right? So we have to prove,

beyond a reasonable doubt, what was going on inside her head in the moment when this thing,

when this crime occurred, when it was committed three years ago.

Well, the problem here, which should be obvious, is that there is doubt, there's at least doubt

some doubt for every single homicide under this standard. It is a ridiculous, unworkable standard

because we don't know what's going on in anybody's mind beyond any doubt. It's impossible to know.

No doctor can run a lab test or a diagnostic scan to determine whether someone could appreciate

the wrongfulness of their conduct or whether they lack the ability to control their actions.

That's impossible. Even if they were hooked up to a brain scan while they committed the murder,

which nobody ever is obviously, that still wouldn't prove beyond any doubt what was going on inside

their mind. And there's no testimony that can provide definitive proof on that point one way or

another. You know, if a woman goes to the shrank and says she's losing her mind and then she

commits mass murder, how exactly were you supposed to determine whether she was done the truth?

How are we supposed to determine whether her medications caused her to do something?

When, when, when, you know, no one understands how these medications even work in the first place,

how would you're supposed to come to any kind of conclusion when the trial features 20 different

experts, all of them saying conflicting things about the state of this woman's mind at the time

of the murders? You know, there's no getting around the fact that doubt and maybe reasonable

doubt, depending on how you define reasonable, can theoretically apply to, I mean, if you apply it

very liberally to, to any case, you can contort your reasoning in such a way as to excuse pretty much

any homicide that remotely resembles this case or any other case. Because you can never know for

sure what's going on in someone's mind. That's the point. And that's why the insanity defense itself

should be abolished entirely. It's totally incoherent. As I've said before, we need to get these

psychiatrist quacks out of the court system entirely. It's an absolute farce that a person can

commit murder. And then the defense can drag in a bunch of random psychiatrists to perform some

retroactive mind reading stunt, right? Like it's like they're, you know, they're an act on America's

got talent or something. And, you know, doing card tricks, appearing into the mind of this person

three years ago to determine what was going on inside the consciousness of this killer at the time

of the crime as if he has any, as if, as if, you know, they have the slightest clue at all.

There is no expert on the face of the planet. Okay, that has the supernatural ability to peer back

in time and examine the unspoken thoughts of another human. You might as well let the defense

present evidence from astrologists and fortune tellers, which by the way, these, these retarded

TikTok feminists, they would be perfectly fine with that. They would consider that to be bullet

proof evidence. Oh, you're on her. She's a Leo. She couldn't have. That's literally what they think.

This country really needs to get over its completely unwarranted reverence for psychiatrists.

These people are just making stuff up as they go. That's what they're doing. And if you watch this

trial, you're well aware of that fact. The testimony from the shrinks was extremely

unimpressive and medically wrong, in many cases, like when they claimed the serotonin theory of

depression is real when it was debunked years ago. But here's the key point. Clancy's insanity

defense rests almost completely on the claim that she heard a voice telling her to kill her kids.

That's the only insane mental state ever reported by Clancy herself. Because aside from that,

the only mental state she ever reported were, you know, she's really sad. She's upset.

She's having disturbing thoughts. None of that is insane. None of that means you're insane.

I don't care how sad you are. I don't care how depressed you are. I don't care how stressed you are.

Doesn't matter. You could have the worst case of postpartum depression of all time. Doesn't

matter. You're not insane. You still know you're not supposed to kill your kids. The only insane thing

that has ever been reported about Lindsey Clancy is that she heard a voice, which told her to kill

her kids. Well, the problem is number one, there's no way to prove or disprove in imaginary voice.

Any murderer can make this claim. And if that counts as a reasonable doubt,

then we can never convict anyone of anything ever again. Okay.

Anyone can say, yeah, I did this terrible thing. It doesn't even have to be murder. Maybe I

stole a car. Yeah, I stole a car, but a voice told me to do it. Can you prove? Can you prove a

voice didn't tell me to do it? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't have an imaginary

voice in my head telling me to do this? Well, no. I can't prove anything about an imaginary voice.

No one can prove anything about that. Neither can you.

Second, she never reported this voice before or since the crime, strongly indicating that she made

it up. And most importantly, even if she did hear a voice, why didn't she refuse to follow the command?

You know, that's the interesting thing when she when she talks about hearing a voice.

She's actually separating her consciousness from the voice, right? She's saying, I heard a voice.

So that so what you're telling us is that in this moment when you allegedly heard the voice,

that you still like you yourself were still there, you still your consciousness was there. And so

your consciousness was experiencing this voice, right? Because she didn't say, oh, I was I felt compelled,

like I couldn't even I couldn't I couldn't stop my arms from moving and strangling my kids.

Then I heard a voice that told me to do it. Told who to do it, told you to do it. Okay, so you

were there, not just physically, but like consciously. And if the voice told you to kill your kids,

then why didn't you refuse the voice? If a voice told me to murder my children, I would simply refuse.

If the voice threatened and harassed me, I would still refuse. If a if a real human voice,

that belonging to a real human being told me to kill my kids and put a gun to my head and told

me to do it, I would still refuse. So if this imaginary voice did appear, Clancy could have chosen to

not obey it. But instead by her telling the voice spoke exactly one time and she just

immediately complied with what it told her to do, not even a moment of pushback.

Even if I bought that nonsense, which I don't, she would still be guilty as hell.

Of course, the great irony, by the way, is that like 95% of the women blaming psych drugs for

Lindsey Clancy murdering her children are also on psych drugs themselves. They supposedly believe

that these drugs can cause you to annihilate your whole family. And that doesn't stop any of them

from taking the drugs. And they certainly are calling for the drugs to be banned, which means the

whole psych drug excuse is not even really believed by most of the people offering it.

Now, all of these arguments are very straightforward and obvious, but in a courtroom,

defense lawyers are allowed to call a series of paid experts to the stand, all of whom have one

job, muddy the waters as much as possible. And the job of those experts is to convince the jurors

to disregard common sense and follow supposedly Massachusetts law, which is a law that presents the

prosecution with a burden of proof that on a liberal reading is impossible to surmount.

Well, there are shoes that you wear because you're required to have something covering your feet.

And then there are boots and great boots can actually improve you as a person. I can't prove

that scientifically, but it's a good pair of boots and you immediately stand a little straighter,

you walk with more purpose. It's only you look like a man who knows how to fix things, whether you

actually know how to fix things is really beside the point. I have a couple of boots from Ticova's

because they're genuinely great boots. They're classic leather, roper boots with a slightly

shorter heel and a clean understated design. They look great with jeans. They're extremely

comfortable and unlike a lot of boots, you don't have to spend weeks painfully breaking them in.

Ticova's handcrafts every pair in more than 200 steps and you can feel the quality immediately.

They also carry other great pieces like belts, which I also have from them and not only are they

very well crafted, but also good for these in-between seasons when you're not sure what to wear.

Is it summer? Is it fall? What? Ticova's you don't need to worry about that. Right now,

get 10% off at tokovas.com slash mat when you sign up for email and text that's 10% off at t-e-c-o-v-a-s.com-slash-mat.

Tokovas.com slash mat, see site for details to kovas. Point your toes west.

We developed this strange habit of taking food, breaking it down into individual components,

and then trying to recreate what nature already made for us. Bowson nature takes a much simpler

approach. Their fruits of edgy supplements contain 31 different whole fruits of vegetables,

including things like apples, blueberries, broccoli, carrots, and spinach. It's just an easy way

to get more variety into your routine. Go to bowsonature.com, use code Walsh and get 10% off any subscription

plus a free guiltless snack. So the holdout juror in this case, even if he were disregarding the law,

which I actually don't even think he was, and I'll explain why I'm in it, would have been logically

justified in disregarding it and voting to convict this woman. That's what jurors are supposed to do

when the law is wrong, incoherent, and unjust. When there's no legitimate way to apply the law,

when the law is unintelligible, you have to disregard it. To be clear, jurors should not disregard

a law because they identify with the race or gender of the defendant, like what happened with

the OJ jury, for example, they disregard the law. They disregard the evidence simply out of racial

tribalism. That can't happen. I mean, it does happen all the time, but it shouldn't.

They shouldn't disregard the law because they've been bribed or because they have some hidden bias

in the case. But in cases where a jury is being asked to follow rules that don't make any sense

and are unintelligible and incoherent in self-contradictory, and that prevent the prosecution

from winning the case by default, then it's their right to vote guilty.

This is one of the few benefits of the jury system that we currently have. It does at least

still allow common people to serve as a bulwark, a last line of defense against ridiculous laws

and deranged government policy. There's plenty of Massachusetts precedent on this question,

by the way, which I've found in about five minutes. Here's a case called commonwealth

the Hebert from 1980, which is still cited by courts today. Quote, although it's in proper for a

juror to disregard the law is given by the judge. It remains within the power of a juror to vote his or her

conscience. So that case is about a juror who refused to convict a man for gun possession, even

though she knew he had violated the law. The issue was that the man simply wasn't aware of a

brand new law requiring him to carry a firearm identification card when he carried the gun. So it

was a ticky-tack charge and the juror thought it was stupid, so she wanted to acquit. It was basically

jury nullification. In response, the judge should have accepted the holdouts decision and declared

a hung jury in a mistrial, but instead the judge berated this person, said that she should have

followed the law and basically ignored her and accepted a perverted guilty. The judge was overturned

because in our legal system, jurors have the ability to vote in accordance with their conscience.

There's really no way to prevent them from doing so. Now, it's true that if a juror explicitly

refuses to follow the law and decides not to participate in deliberations at all,

if the juror were to say, I'm not even going to do this because I don't care about the law and

I'm not going to deliberate. Well, then yeah, in that case, the judge could have the juror dismissed

and should. But that's not what happened here. It's also true that it's technically improper for

jurors to ignore the law, but at the same time, judges are not allowed to grill the jury about their

reasoning during deliberations and throw out anyone on the jury who doesn't have the correct arguments.

Once that starts happening, there's no longer any secrecy in deliberations. There's no way to

ensure that jurors won't be intimidated into changing their minds and there's no way for jurors to

serve as a last line of defense against the government. Might as well not even have juries.

Maybe more importantly, there'll be no way for jurors to serve as a last line of defense against

the TikTok mob. Because whoever this hold out is, he put himself an extraordinary jeopardy to do

what's moral and lawful, which is to ensure that no woman who deliberately murder her children

can just walk away or roll away as the case may be like nothing happened.

It's a profound failing of our civilization. Maybe the greatest failing imaginable that were

apparently relying on only one juror to make this stand. So again, even if this brave member of the

jury did disregard the law, this brave man, he would have been totally justified in doing so

in my view, but he did not actually disregard the law. In fact, even by the totally ridiculous

standards of Massachusetts law and even with the existence of the insanity defense,

a defense that shouldn't be allowed in the first place, but it is. Still, Clancy's guilt was still

clear beyond the faintest shred of reasonable doubt. The evidence is overwhelming

that she planned the murder and then carried it out methodically and systematically over the course

of several minutes. There is no reasonable doubt about either of those things.

The notion that a person can engage in planning and forethought and then act methodically and

systematically and also have no idea what they're doing is incoherent. Clancy engineered a window

of time to murder her children. This is a matter of the digital record. She sent her husband away

because she knew that murdering her children was wrong and that her husband would try to prevent it.

You see, if she were actually insane, that would mean that she didn't, she doesn't know that it's

wrong to murder her kids. And so then she wouldn't have needed to send her, her husband away.

She wouldn't, she wouldn't have waited for her husband to be gone to do it. She would have just

went and done it. But she did wait because she wasn't insane. She also confessed thoughts about

harming her children to her family, demonstrating that she knew the thoughts were wrong.

And then she did not confess those same thoughts to her doctors again because she knew those

thoughts were wrong. And through the course of the murder, she not only had to make the willful

choice to do it, but she had to reaffirm that choice three times as she systematically slaughtered

three children. And she murdered them in a way by strangulation that would have required continued

determined willful action for an extended period of time. And she did this again and again and again.

And then she attempted suicide either because she felt guilty, demonstrating that she knew that

what she did was wrong or the attempt was fake, which is my theory, which even more demonstrates

that she was sane and lucid. So either way, these are all facts that altogether remove reasonable

doubt. And if they don't, then again, we don't have enough certainty to convict anyone of anything.

If a person can function, act, speak, and in every way appear and behave sane as in lindsey

clansier's case. And yet in some mysterious way still be insane, then the word insane has no

meaning at all. And it's impossible to ever know whether someone is sane or insane.

You know, this is one of the claims that the defense's experts made, which is that, yeah,

someone can, by all appearances, be totally sane, but actually be not sane.

Okay, well, then we, then you can literally just never know about anybody.

I mean, if we cannot prove insanity, or if we can't prove sanity based on someone's words,

actions, and behaviors, then you can never prove it, ever, ever. That makes it an incoherent

standard, and it would make it impossible to prosecute any crimes. So if that is actually the

standard, then again, any member of the jury would have not only the right, but the moral obligation

to disregard it. Lindsey clansier by any reasonable standard, by any moral standard, by the standards

of any decent, rational, intelligent person, deserve to be convicted and thrown in a hole to rot and

die. But instead, we're left with a mistrial, which itself was somehow a positive outcome when

compared to the alternative, but that silver lining view does not erase the dark cloud,

you know, that that is in the middle of that silver lining. A dark cloud where 11 people

wanted desperately to let a woman escape consequence for slaughtering all of her children,

and where a defense lawyer demonizes an attempt to intimidate a juror, and where thousands of

women flock to the murderer and defend and celebrate and canonize her, rallying to her side,

writing her fan mail to gush over. This trial has truly been one of the bleakest, most eye-opening

criminal cases in modern American history. This is an evil that can only be countered by men who

are totally unafraid of the mob and whatever consequences they might bring. There's at least one

man in this case who recognized that. And what we need now before more children are slaughtered

is many more like him. The prosecution has to bring this case once again. The jury should be sequestered

the second time around. And if we're going to have a worthwhile legal system, Lindsey Clancy must

be convicted and sentenced to spend the rest of her life in a dungeon. Precisely the kind of

hellhole where if she were actually a worthwhile human being, she would admit she belongs.

In all of my years of public life, I have never profited from public service. I welcome this kind

of examination because people have got to know whether or not their president's a crook.

Well, I'm not a crook. For more than five decades from my ran contra,

it's a monocleoansky to rush a gate. Every political scandal has been measured against one,

the Watergate affair. But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What if Watergate isn't what

it seems? What if hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony, memoirs, and newly released

government documents tell a different story than the one you learned in school?

I know America. In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern American history

with grand plans to remake the federal government. Two years later, he was out of office.

You were taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee had

quarters to spy on his political opponents. You were taught that when he found out, Nixon covered it

up. And if the cover up was worse than the crime. You were taught that two heroic Washington

Post reporters guided by a righteous FBI whistleblower brought the most powerful man in the world

to justice. But you were never taught what really happened. I shall resign to the presidency

effective at noon tomorrow. Real history of the Watergate scandal is available now with Billy Barplus.