Latest / The Matt Walsh Show / No News Is Bad News. The Clancy Case Should Be Over By Now.

Transcript

No News Is Bad News. The Clancy Case Should Be Over By Now. · The Matt Walsh Show

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: It's been four days now and a duly sworn jury
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: consisting of nine women and three men is unable to
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: decide whether murder is a crime in the state of Massachusetts.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: The judge dismissed the jury this afternoon after they couldn't
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: reach a verdict again. And although he's obligated to send
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: them back to reconsider and continue deliberations a couple of times,
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: it seems unlikely they'll ever reach a consensus. One juror,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: an older woman, was clearly frustrated at the judge's instruction
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: to go back to the jury room. Meanwhile, Two younger
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: female members of the jury reportedly smiled. And to make
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: matters worse, there's reason to believe that several of these
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: members of the jury, the ones who are clearly inclined
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: to let Lindsay Clancy go free after she murdered her
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: three children, may see themselves as part of the larger
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: deranged TikTok mob that gathers outside the courthouse every day
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: in support of women's constitutional right to do whatever they
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: want without suffering any consequences whatsoever. Particularly if you ever
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: bought into the lies of feminism, it's one of the
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: more depressing spectacles you'll ever see. A mass psychosis rooted
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: in narcissism, so pervasive it infects everything, even our juries.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: More than a million dollars has been raised for this
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: woman who executed her own kids. It's enough to make
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: you rethink the Salem witch trials all these centuries later.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: Remind me, who were the villains in that story again?
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Maybe that'd be a good topic for a real history
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: episode sometime.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: Until then, here's a thought experiment, one that up until
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: very recently in this country's history would have been extremely
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: straightforward and uncontroversial, albeit very disturbing at the same time.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: So imagine that one day you wake up from a
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: stupor to discover that while you were not consciously aware,
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: you had murdered all of your children. Now, this scenario is,
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: of course, morbidly absurd. The idea that a loving parent
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: could one day just wake up to find out that
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: against their will they'd executed their whole family is preposterous,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: but this is the scenario that Clancy's defense attorney and
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: her legion of female groupies want us to imagine. They
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: insist that Clancy was indeed a loving mother, a good mother,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: who was driven by forces outside of her control to
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: systematically slaughter her children. They tell us that this could
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: happen to any of us. Now, there's ample and conclusive
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: evidence that this scenario did not actually occur.
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: It's clear that.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Clancy intentionally murdered her children. There was no psychotic stupor.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: But for the sake of argument, let's imagine that something
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: like this kind of murderous days were to actually happen.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: So put yourself, as impossible as it is, into this
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: fictional nightmare scenario, the one that the defense and Clancy's
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: defenders want us to imagine. So put yourself there. You've
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: just killed your children through no conscious fault of your own. Well,
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: what do you do next? Okay, let's go through this.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Here are a few steps you would immediately take without
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: any doubt. First, you try to revive your children, even
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: if it's clearly a hopeless situation. I mean, this would
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: be the first inevitable step for any loving parent who
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: suddenly regained consciousness to find themselves in the middle of
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: this kind of horrifying scene. The first thing you do
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: is you would rush to your children and, you know,
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: try desperately to to revive them. Next, you would call
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: the police and you would explain the urgency of the
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: situation to the 911 operator.
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: That's a given.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: And then once you were confident that first responders were
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: on the way, you would do two things.
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: One of two things.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: One possibility is that you would either kill yourself with
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: 10 times the rage and determination that your unconscious, psychotic,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: evil self had used to kill your children, or you
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: would remain alive to face justice. And when I say
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: face justice, I mean you would beg the court to
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: give you the harshest possible penalty. You would forego a
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: trial entirely, not only because you wouldn't contest your guilt
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: because you would know that you did it, but also
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: for the sake of sparing the spouse whose life you
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: just ruined. You would not drag your spouse and your
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: family through a long, highly publicized trial, one where your
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: spouse would be demonized and become the target of conspiracy
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: theories by hordes of retarded feminist TikTok zombies. You would
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: simply plead guilty and you would go to prison in
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: shame and repentance. No loving parent would even want to
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: go on living a normal life out in society after
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: having done something like this. You wouldn't fight for your freedom.
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: You wouldn't desire freedom. You wouldn't desire anything but to
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: just crawl into the darkest hole in the jail that
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: they can give you and.
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: Just die as quickly as possible.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Okay, a loving parent on the other side of a
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: catastrophe like this could not ever find joy or purpose
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: in their life ever again. A loving parent would hate
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: themselves far more than any stranger could possibly hate them
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: and desire to see themselves punished far more than any
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: of us could desire that. But Lindsay Clancy, strangely enough,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: did not take any of these actions after she murdered
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: her children. On every point, she did the opposite. Around
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: the time she was committing the homicides, she took a
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: phone call from her husband, whom she had sent away
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: on an errand, demonstrating, of course, that she was not.
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: Out of her mind at the time. This was all planned.
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: After the murders were completed, she did not call the police.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: She did not attempt to revive her children or contact
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: emergency services. As the prosecutor pointed out in closing arguments,
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: she didn't even pick them up and put them in
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: their beds, at least giving them some symbolic shred.
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: Of dignity in death.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Instead, she left them face down on the basement floor.
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: This loving mother.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Then, having strangled her three children to death in a methodical, systematic, violent,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: determined manner, one by one with exercise bands that collapsed
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: their airways and forced their eyes to bulge in their heads,
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: Clancy suddenly became extremely tentative and apprehensive in her alleged
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: suicide attempt that followed. Armed with a knife, Clancy somehow
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: managed to cause only superficial injuries to her wrists when
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: she was supposedly trying to end her life. And for
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: her grand finale, Clancy jumped out of a second-story window. Yes,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: a second-story residential window. I mean, short of, I don't know,
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: shooting yourself with a Nerf gun, it would be hard
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: to imagine a more cartoonish, ineffective, unserious way to kill
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: yourself than jumping out of a second-story residential window. But
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: that's how Lindsay Clancy attempted to leave this world, or
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: so we're told. Immediately after she methodically murdered her own children,
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: applying the necessary force while she determinedly snuffed the life
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: out of one child, then the next, then the next,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Clancy transformed into a kind of bumbling idiot who simply
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: couldn't figure out a way to die. And then for
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: several years up to this very day, as the trial
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: now moves into tomorrow, now that they ended the day
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: without a verdict, So up to this very day, she
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: has done everything in her power to reduce the amount
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: of time she has to spend in prison. She hired
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: the fanciest defense attorney money could buy and fought for
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: her freedom. Her defense attorney has said multiple times during
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: deliberations when he's been asked by the media how Clancy
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: is doing, he has said multiple times that she's nervous,
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: she's scared about the verdict. But what would a loving
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: mother be nervous or scared about in this situation? I mean,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: you're only nervous or scared about a verdict if you're
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: hoping desperately that you won't be found guilty. But why
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: would a loving mother who knows what she did have
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: any desperate hopes for her future at all? I mean,
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: at a minimum, wouldn't a loving mother in this situation
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: be totally indifferent to what the jury verdict is? Your
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: life is ruined and you're in a living hell no
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: matter what. What do you care if you go to
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: prison or not? But she does have hopes for the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: future because she's an evil, she's psychotic. She's a psychopath, rather.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: Just like many mass murderers and serial killers before her. Now,
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Clancy supporters could claim that she was insane when she
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: committed the crime. That's certainly nonsense, but none of us
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: were there reading her mind when she did it. Not
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: that it matters anyway. She deserves to fry no matter
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: what was going on in her mind at the time
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: of the murders, as we've established. But we can all
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: observe what she's doing right now. Starting with hiring a
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: very savvy lawyer and fighting for her freedom. These are
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: not the actions of a loving mother who accidentally executed
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: her entire family, even if I could accept that one
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: might accidentally do something like that, which I don't. If
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Clancy was actually a loving mother who killed her kids
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: through no conscious fault of her own, then she would
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: be in total despair right now, utterly indifferent to the
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: jury verdict. And if she had any hopes or plans
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: for the future, it would just be the hope that
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: she could find a way to kill herself in jail, okay?
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: To be very frank about it.
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: That's the only hope that I can imagine any parent
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: who's actually a loving parent in this kind of situation
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: could possibly have. Now, to be clear about this, the
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: mere fact that Clancy half-assed the suicide attempt and is
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: now fighting for her freedom tells you everything you need
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: to know. I mean, you don't even need to get
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: into the fact that she failed to mention you know,
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: that she killed her children when her husband showed up
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: or the way that she went doctor shopping for pills
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: or her Google search history showing that she had planned this.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: The fact that she had an extraordinarily robust support system,
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: despite what people claim, including a nanny. You don't even
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: need to think about the voice she supposedly heard in
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: her head telling her to murder her children, a voice
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: that had never appeared before that moment or since, and
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: one that, even if it did appear, which I don't
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: think it did, she could have just said no to
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: the voice. You don't even need to think about any
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: of that. The way Clancy behaved after the murders, by itself,
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: is enough to conclude that she was not in the
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: throes of some horrible, mystical, temporary psychosis that briefly controlled
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: her mind. Lindsay Clancy is exactly what she appears to be.
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: A demon. I mean, she's the reason we had witch trials.
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: And the jury in her murder trial should have concluded
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: in less than an hour that she should spend the
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: rest of her life in prison for first-degree murder, which
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: would still be a sentence far more lenient than what
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: she deserves. But after three and a half days of deliberations,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: the jury still has not returned a verdict, as they
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: head now into the next day. According to courtroom reports,
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: there are nine women and three men on the jury,
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: and you can only imagine what those three men have
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: had to deal with over the past few days. This
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: is not exactly 12 angry men we're talking about here.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: This we can only assume is a kind of TikTok jury.
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: Maybe some of the women are probably debating astrology or
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: fantasizing about how the husband really did it. Meanwhile, the
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: men are saying, no, wait a minute, you can't just
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: murder your children and get away with it. And They're
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: fighting a losing battle. Now, in short, this is a
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: trial that threatens to set the American legal system along
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: with the women's suffrage movement back about 150 years or so.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: There is now a very real possibility that the jury
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: will not reach a verdict in this case because several
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: jurors want to acquit Lindsay Clancy on the basis of
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: her alleged mental illness. And actually, that might be the
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: best case scenario at this point. It's also possible, of course,
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: that the jury simply finds her not guilty by a
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: unanimous verdict, or that the prosecutors decide not to retry
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: the case after a hung jury. In any of these scenarios,
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: the odds are substantial that before long, Clancy will be
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: a free woman, which she apparently wants to be because, again,
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: she's not in any kind of despair over having killed
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: her kids.
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: She doesn't care because she's an evil psychopath.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: And that's because in Massachusetts, once you're found not guilty
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: by reason of insanity, you're released from jail the moment
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: psychiatrists determine that you're no longer a threat to yourself
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: or others. There's a 40-day evaluation period followed by a
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: six-month period of commitment, which has to be renewed endlessly
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: in one-year increments if the prosecution wants to keep you
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: in prison. But as soon as a doctor determines that
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: you're not crazy anymore, you're free. It's as if you
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: never murdered anybody. If a doctor says that Clancy was
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: suffering from postpartum psychosis, then in all likelihood, she'll be
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: out of prison within a year.
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: Maybe she can go have more kids. Well, I've decided
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: as a society.
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: In that case that women occasionally become so overwhelmed with
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: hormones that they aren't responsible for anything they do, even
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: slaughtering their own children in a premeditated triple homicide. We
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: will have determined as a matter of law that women
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: simply cannot control themselves and therefore should suffer no consequences whatsoever.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: That's the argument on that side of it. If a
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: voice tells them to do something, then they have no
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: choice but to comply. Well, if that's the case, if
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: that was the case, then why would we ever entrust
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: a woman to do anything?
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: Run a business, lead a country, treat patients?
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: What's to stop the first female president from launching all
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: of our nuclear warheads in a moment of postpartum psychosis?
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: If something like that happens, who are we to judge?
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: She couldn't control herself. She was struggling. Men wouldn't understand.
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: So the feminists defending Lindsay Clancy are, by their own arguments,
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: these are their arguments. They're making the strongest case for
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: the patriarchy that anyone could ever make. So in summation,
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: the defense of Lindsay Clancy is, to put it mildly, self-defeating.
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: But it's a very widespread belief among women right now,
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: which is why this case has blown up on TikTok.
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: And indeed, there's a very obvious split in this case
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: between men and women. Men generally believe Lindsay Clancy deserves
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: to die for what she did. Women, many of them
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: are saying she's not responsible. This is from Savannah Hernandez.
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: Watch.
• 14:53
  Speaker 4: The jury is deliberating on a verdict for Lindsay Clancy.
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: And so we are asking people today whether or not
• 14:58
  Speaker 3: they think that she's innocent or guilty.
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: I think she's innocent. I think if she was guilty,
• 15:02
  Speaker 4: I think it needs to be a state of psychosis.
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: She does not deserve prison time.
• 15:05
  Speaker 4: Based on all the evidence I've seen, the time stamps
• 15:08
  Speaker 4: just doesn't add up. I don't think she had enough
• 15:10
  Speaker 4: time to kill all three kids and harm herself. Whether
• 15:12
  Speaker 4: or not she did it from a state of sanity,
• 15:14
  Speaker 4: she killed her kids.
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: She shouldn't be walking free, probably. Lindsey Clancy trial. Have
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: you guys been following it? My girlfriend has. I know
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: nothing about it, but she's on TikTok for like three
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: hours in the morning. What does your girlfriend say about it?
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: She thinks she's innocent. What do you think? I don't
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: know enough about it. I just know what she says.
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: I wish I knew something about it.
• 15:34
  Speaker 4: The guilty party is like the medical system that failed
• 15:36
  Speaker 4: both her and the children. I hope that Lindsay Clancy
• 15:39
  Speaker 4: not only gets strapped to an electric chair, but that
• 15:41
  Speaker 4: they lethally inject her three different times. And here's the
• 15:44
  Speaker 4: crazy part about the Clancy trial, and I could go
• 15:45
  Speaker 4: on for days in this.
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: Two things. Number one.
• 15:47
  Speaker 4: If you think that men are holding women to too
• 15:49
  Speaker 4: high of standards and your poster child is Lindsay Clancy,
• 15:52
  Speaker 4: how low do you want the standard to be? The
• 15:53
  Speaker 4: only thing we're asking she refrain from doing is killing
• 15:56
  Speaker 4: the kids when her husband goes out to get her Midol.
• 15:58
  Speaker 4: Is that too much to ask for? Is that a
• 16:00
  Speaker 4: Leviathan lift for you? Please don't kill the kids while
• 16:02
  Speaker 4: we're out getting bananas? And number two, you can't have
• 16:04
  Speaker 4: it both ways, okay? The same women that are standing
• 16:06
  Speaker 4: outside of the courthouse railing on and on about how
• 16:08
  Speaker 4: her husband should have intervened. and taken control of her medications,
• 16:11
  Speaker 4: and God forbid, involuntarily had her committed and separated from
• 16:14
  Speaker 4: her children, would have been the same women who, if
• 16:16
  Speaker 4: he had done that, would have said, handmaid's tale.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: Do you feel like men's response to this trial has
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: been fair?
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: No.
• 16:23
  Speaker 4: I don't think a man should have any say in it, honestly.
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: Now, speaking to Caitlin Bennett, some Clancy supporters openly admitted,
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: seemed to openly admit, that they would potentially harm their
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: own children.
• 16:36
  Speaker 3: Watch.
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: Do you stand with her, yes or no?
• 16:40
  Speaker 4: I don't think she did it.
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: We feel she's very sleep deprived. Her job as a
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: labor and delivery nurse working night shifts and three children
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: is a lot. Do you have children?
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: Would you ever hurt them?
• 16:51
  Speaker 4: Yes and no. As a mom or as a dad,
• 16:54
  Speaker 4: I think that you are not perfect.
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: So what are the consequences she should face for this?
• 16:59
  Speaker 4: Obviously, she's already in a wheelchair.
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: He should go to jail for negligence.
• 17:03
  Speaker 4: He needs to take care of his kids.
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: Now, there hasn't been a poll on this officially, as
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: far as I know, but it's apparent that a large
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: preponderance of women in this country are supportive of Lindsay Clancy.
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: And that's why these videos are so easy to find.
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: It's also why mobs of Clancy supporters, almost all of
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: them women, have been gathering outside the courthouse wearing pink
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: as a show of solidarity. They say they're trying to
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: break the stigma surrounding postpartum psychosis. They claim the healthcare
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: system failed Lindsay Clancy. But they're clearly projecting themselves onto Clancy.
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: They see this case as a potential vindication for all
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: of their own deluded, narcissistic, psychopathic behavior in their own lives.
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: A not guilty verdict for Clancy to these women is
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: also a retroactive justification for their own horrible parenting. It's
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: an official statement from the court that when they mistreat
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: their spouse or their children, They're actually blameless. They have
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: no agency. They have no ability to control themselves. That's
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: why so many of these women have taken an interest
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: in the case. Lindsay Clancy is, you know, she's not
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: a supermodel. She's not an actress. She's a woman of
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: kind of average looks, if also somewhat witch-like in appearance,
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: and therefore she's the perfect avatar. Any self-absorbed woman can
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: easily see herself in Lindsay.
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: Clancy, as they've said that they do. And this footage
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: makes the point for me.
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: Watch as women mob Clancy's lawyer outside of the courthouse,
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: treating him like some kind of celebrity, and listen to
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: what they tell him.
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: We came from Houston to watch you. Thank you.
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: I wish someone would have helped my daughter.
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: Where should we go eat a steak?
• 18:57
  Speaker 4: We want to take you out for a steak dinner, Mr.
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: Reddy.
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: I had my mental health weaponized against me and family.
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: I had an issue whenever my son was postpartum.
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: Or whatever, I was most part of it.
• 19:11
  Speaker 3: My second son was eight months old. You're the voice
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: of so many morals. I know what Kelly went through.
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: Sorry, Lindsay went through it. I know what she went through.
• 19:20
  Speaker 3: I feel it.
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: I've watched you every day, and I've just been like,
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: I wish.
• 19:25
  Speaker 4: I had more of that representation.
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: Now, notice how they're all talking about themselves in the
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: most pathetic way imaginable. They're not even really interested in
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: the case. They're interested in prattling on about their own problems. Clancy,
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: as I said, is an avatar of And as always,
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: they have no self-awareness about that whatsoever. Most of the
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: women rallying around Clancy don't even know why they're doing it.
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: They don't understand their own psychology, let alone hers. And
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: now these freaks want to buy this slimy lawyer a
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: steak dinner as if he wants to be anywhere near them.
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: But now that they've burned through every other relationship in
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: their lives, they're desperate for any dinner date they can get,
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: I guess. And of course, the great concern is that
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: the crazy feminist women aren't just outside the courthouse or
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: on TikTok. They're also sitting on the jury. And although
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: we can't know for sure right now, there is reason
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: to be concerned about that. This is a post from
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: Justice Serve TV, which was in the courtroom on Monday.
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: So that's two jurors who are wearing pink to the courtroom,
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: you know, Women wear pink sometimes.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: It could be that.
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: But also, Clancy supporters are wearing pink outside the courthouse
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: to signal their support for child murder. Is that what
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: these women are signaling?
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: At L.A.
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: Magazine, a reporter named Lauren Conlon had the same observation, quote,
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: On Monday morning, jurors shuffled to the courtroom looking more
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: dressed up than usual. Several male jurors wore collared shirts,
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: including one with a tie, while several female jurors wore dresses. Notably,
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: two females wore pink, one in a pink sweater, another
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: in pink pants. The color choice stood out as supporters
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: of Lindsay Clancy have previously worn pink as a show
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: of support. This is like something out of, you know,
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: Runaway Jury, and it raises an obvious question, which is
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: why is the judge allowing this? Why didn't he ask
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: any of these jurors about the clothes they were wearing?
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: Why didn't he immediately dismiss these jurors and install the alternates?
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: I mean, if there's even a suspicion that they're biased
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: in that way, that's enough reason to kick them off
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: the jury. There was reporting that the judge did pull
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: each juror aside for questioning under oath after the August
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: 20th demonstration outside the courthouse where the demonstrators all wore pink.
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: And the judge asked each of the members of the
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: jury whether or not the protests had affected them or
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: their ability to remain impartial. But obviously this doesn't go
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: anywhere near far enough. none of these women are going
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: to tell the judge, yeah, my brain is fried on
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: TikTok slop. I can't be an impartial juror anymore. When
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: a trial involves this much publicity to the point that
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: members of the jury can't avoid hearing about it on
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: social media or seeing the protesters when they drive up
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: to the court in the morning, then the judge has
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: an obligation to take some affirmative action to ensure a
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: fair trial. And I'm not saying the judge could have
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: solved all the problems with this trial, but he could
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: have done a lot more than we've seen so far?
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: Like for starters, the jury should have been sequestered from
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: the beginning of the trial. They should have had no
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: access to the internet whatsoever from the moment testimony began.
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: This is the whole point of sequestering the jury. It's
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: for very high profile cases like this one, where there's
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: no realistic way for the jury to avoid seeing information
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: about the trial when they leave the courtroom. If you
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: can't sequester the jury in this case, then there's no
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: situation where you can do it.
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: If not now, then when? Now, it's inconvenient for the jury, sure.
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: I mean, nobody likes being locked away in a hotel
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: under armed guard without the ability to contact the rest
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: of the world or to browse TikTok. But in this case,
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: more than any other case in recent memory, I mean,
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: that's precisely what the jury needed. Think of it more
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: like a TikTok detox than sequestrations. You know, these people
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: needed to be forcibly prevented from scrolling their feeds and
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: rotting their brains even more than they probably already have.
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: And who knows, after their fifth week of being imprisoned
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: in a Holiday Inn, maybe these people would have, some
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: of them started to use their own brains again. Maybe
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: they'd develop an attention span and critical thinking skills. This
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: is actually something that would do almost any of us
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: some good. Be sequestered away from the brain rot for
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: five weeks. I think we could all benefit from that.
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: As far as I know, no one's ever run this experiment.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: No one's ever, you know, jailed brain rot obsessed women
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: and taken their phones away for a month and observed
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: the effects. So this trial could have a perfect opportunity
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: to give that a shot. At some point, eating became
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: a research project. You're supposed to track everything, measure everything,
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: read 17 conflicting studies and somehow construct the perfect diet
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: every time. Most people aren't going to do that. That's
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: part of the appeal. of Balance of Nature. It's a
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: simple way to add more whole fruits and vegetables to
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: your routine with 31 fruits and vegetables in their fruit
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: and veggie supplements. Simple ingredients, simple routine. That's generally a
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: good philosophy. Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: to get 10% off any subscription plus a free guiltless snack.
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: There are companies that reward you for being a loyal customer,
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: pay with a specific credit card and earn miles, then
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: you get upgrades on flights.
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: That makes sense.
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: And then there are wireless companies where loyalty often means
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: you've quietly paid them too much money for 10 years.
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: Maybe stop doing that.
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: Pure Talk offers affordable wireless service with 100% U.S.-based customer service,
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: no service contract, no cancellation fee. And right now, for
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: just a few more weeks, any plan is just $ 15
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: a month for your first three months. Go to puretalk.com
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: slash Walsh. See how much you could save. It's not complicated.
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh. But as best I could tell,
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: for reasons that aren't clear, the state of Massachusetts never
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: sequesters its juries.
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's an option that's.
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: Available to judges and it's left up to their discretion,
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: but they never seem to actually exercise the option and
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: force jurors to stay in a hotel. And that's strange
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: because there's plenty of precedent for sequestering juries in long
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: trials in other states. And it can have a very
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: significant impact. So consider the trial of Bill Cosby, for example.
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: So the jury was sequestered for nearly a month at
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: the height of the Me Too panic. You couldn't turn
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: on a TV or scroll your phone without seeing some
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: reference to the Me Too movement and how it was
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: finally time for a reckoning in Hollywood and so forth.
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: And yet, because the Cosby jury was sequestered for the
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: entire length of the trial, the jurors said that they
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: didn't hear anything about the Me Too movement.
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: This is from ABC.
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: Following the verdict, quote, Moreover, while many speculated that the
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: Me Too movement loomed large and perhaps swayed the jury
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: in the Cosby trial, Harrison Snyder said he doesn't believe
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: it played a role in the jury's decision at all.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: I didn't really even know about the Me Too movement,
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: he said. I really only found out about that after
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: I got home. Then I looked online to see what
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: everything was. Yes, in a centerpiece trial of the Me
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: Too movement, the jurors, who were locked away in a
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: hotel room, didn't even know what the Me Too movement was. Now,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: assuming this guy is not lying, it's a very relevant
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: data point when you're deciding where to put a jury
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: during deliberations on a high-profile trial. Would sequestering the Clancy
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: jury have had a similar effect?
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: We have no idea.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: The case was receiving a lot of attention prior to
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: the jury being seated. It's very possible some of the
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: jurors were already prejudiced in favor of Clancy before the
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: testimony even began.
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: All the same, it was clearly worth a shot. There's
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: no reason not to do it.
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: As it stands throughout the entire trial and deliberations, the
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: jurors have had constant access to people who want to
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: sway their verdict. And while we're on the topic, a
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: change of venue was obviously appropriate as well. This was
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: actually something the defense wanted on the grounds that Clancy
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: had demonized, been demonized by the local press in Plymouth, supposedly.
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: So they wanted.
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: The trial to be moved to Boston, which was denied
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: because the judge thought Plymouth had a diversity of opinions
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: on the matter. But the real problem with this motion
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: for a change in venue is that it didn't go
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: nearly far enough. The trial should have been moved to
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: the single most remote location the judge could find. Pick
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: a jury on St. Matthew Island in the Bering Sea
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: and hold a trial there. Yes, it's an uninhabited island,
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: but you could easily find some commercial fishermen nearby or
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: maybe a few search and rescue pilots. I guarantee you
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: a jury in the Bering Sea is not going to
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: care about TikTok conspiracy theories about Lindsay Clancy. It would
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: be the least prejudiced jury in the entire country. They
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: listened carefully to the facts of the case, which are undisputed,
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: and they would return a verdict in about 30 seconds.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: And then they would return to their lives and nobody
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: would have to think about this infernal trial ever again. Now,
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: although they don't realize it, this would be the best
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: possible outcome for Clancy's supporters as well. Yes, it could
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: be intoxicating to absolve yourself and your gender of all
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: personal responsibility. But in the long run, it leads to
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: a lot of very uncomfortable questions for these people. For example,
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: this was an incident that unfolded yesterday in Times Square.
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: An obese woman stabbed someone to death, then threatened to
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: stab the NYPD officers who were gathered on the sidewalk
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: to confront her. You'll note that most of the officers
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: are standing around with their hands in their pockets, which
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: is obviously a very tactical posture. As the woman charged
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: at the officer, she was shot by one of the
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: few officers who was paying attention to what was going on,
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: and she died shortly afterwards. Let's say that instead of
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: getting shot to death, this woman survived and was put
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: on trial. But what exactly is the argument for sending
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: her to prison? If you're a Lindsay Clancy supporter, why
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: not send her to a mental hospital for a few
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: months and then release her back on the streets? If
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: you're going to let Clancy walk because of postpartum psychosis,
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: who's to say that this obese woman wasn't suffering some
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: kind of psychosis as well? Maybe her hormones were out
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: of whack.
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: Who knows?
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: Maybe she had a child at some point in the
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: last five years. Clearly, she wasn't acting like a sane person.
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: So how can we hold her responsible for stabbing random
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: people to death and trying to decapitate a few police officers?
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: These are not rhetorical questions.
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: I mean, these are precisely the kinds of obvious problems
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: you run into when you start pretending people have no
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: agency or responsibility. Every single killer who's ever lived has
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: had various biological factors you could point to, as an
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: explanation for what they did. Maybe they were impulsive by nature,
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: thanks to their genetics. Maybe they had an unexpected surge
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: of testosterone that made them more violent. Maybe they were
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: irritable because they had low blood sugar. Maybe they're simply
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: too dumb to understand the consequences of their actions due
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: to a lack of brain cells. All of these factors
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: may have contributed to the killer's state of mind in
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: like thousands of crimes. But none of these factors can
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: ever justify murder. They don't mean we have to live
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: around these people either.
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: When you reach the opposite.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: Conclusion, when you excuse murders because of some biological imbalance
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: you think you've identified, then you're effectively legalizing murder as
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: a category. There is no limiting principle you can apply anymore.
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: You're endangering all of society and providing a massive incentive
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: for people to murder anyone who inconveniences them. And you're
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: doing it all for what purpose exactly? Well, the Lindsay
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: Clancy case is what happens when you tell millions of
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: people that they're oppressed on the basis of characteristics they
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: can't control. And then you give those people immense power
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: in society, power that they've never had at any other
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: point in human civilization. You know, we're approaching the logical
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: endpoint of the 20 different waves of feminism, the legalization
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: of post-birth abortion, of murder on demand. Yes, it remains
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: possible the jury will ultimately reach the correct verdict in
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: this case, although at this point it doesn't look very likely.
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: But what we do know, and what I didn't realize
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: until this case went mainstream, at least did fully realize,
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: is that a not insignificant number of women have at
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: least considered harming their own children. I mean, that's what
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: many Clancy defenders have admitted, sometimes implicitly, but also sometimes explicitly.
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: And whatever happens to Lindsay Clancy.
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: We have to confront the fact that these people are
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: living among us. They're living with children in many cases.
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: They're sitting on juries. They hold elected office. They're judges
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: and police officers and DMV clerks and bus drivers. And
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: they are harboring murderous desires in their hearts. They're the
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: kinds of people who look at a monster like Lindsay
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: Clancy and find common cause with her. And because of
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: this case, These kinds of women are now realizing all
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: over the country that should they ever act on those desires,
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: they can probably get away with it and become famous
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: and wealthy in the process. And that's why whatever the
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: jury ultimately decides in this case, the mere fact that
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: deliberations have taken so long basically guarantees that very soon
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: we'll all find.
• 32:47
  Speaker 2: Out how depraved these people can get.
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: And particularly if there's a Lindsay Clancy supporter in your life,
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: for your sake and your children's sake, you should be
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: very worried about that.
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
• 33:02
  Speaker 2: Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.
• 33:11
  Speaker 3: But in all of my years of public life, I
• 33:14
  Speaker 3: have never profited from public service. I welcome this kind
• 33:19
  Speaker 3: of examination because people have got to know whether or
• 33:22
  Speaker 3: not their presidents are corrupt Well, I'm not a crook.
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: For more than five decades, from Iran-Contra to Monica Lewinsky
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: to Russiagate, every political scandal has been measured against one,
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: the Watergate affair.
• 33:34
  Speaker 2: But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What
• 33:37
  Speaker 2: if Watergate isn't what it seems?
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: What if hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony, memoirs,
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: and newly released government documents tell a different story than the.
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: One you learned in school?
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: American history with grand plans to remake the federal government.
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: Two years later, he was out of office. You were
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: headquarters to spy on his political opponents. You were taught
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: that when he found out, Nixon covered it up, and
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: that the cover-up was worse than the crime. You were
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: taught that two heroic Washington Post reporters, guided by a
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: righteous FBI whistleblower, brought the most powerful man in the
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: world to justice.
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: But you were never told what really happened.
• 34:24
  Speaker 3: I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: The real history of the Watergate scandal is available now
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: On Daily Wire +.