Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Sep 4 2026

The hosts analyzed reports of a pending mistrial and extraordinary courtroom drama surrounding jury deliberations. Clay and Buck focused extensively on allegations that an 11-1 jury split had emerged, with one juror reportedly refusing to join the majority in finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. The hosts examined the defense team's unprecedented effort to seek intervention from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and remove the lone holdout juror, arguing that the juror was allegedly failing to apply the law as instructed. Clay and Buck discussed the legal implications of juror independence, mistrials, reasonable doubt standards, jury misconduct claims, and whether courts should ever intervene in deliberations when a single juror disagrees with the majority.

The conversation centered on dramatic courtroom exchanges between the defense attorney and trial judge, including arguments over emergency appeals, requests to delay a mistrial declaration, and disputes regarding jury instructions. Clay, drawing on his legal background, and Buck, offering a broader public perspective, questioned whether the defense was improperly attempting to overturn the jury process simply because one juror would not yield. They characterized the situation as highly unusual and debated what information from inside the jury room may have prompted the defense's claims that the holdout juror was disregarding legal standards.

The hosts also explored the broader significance of the reported jury split and what it revealed about public attitudes toward the insanity defense. They repeatedly returned to the possibility that the overwhelming majority of jurors appeared prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity while one juror remained opposed. Clay and Buck discussed the pressure facing a lone holdout juror, the dangers of exposing jury deliberations to public scrutiny, and whether the disclosures themselves represented an extraordinary breakdown in the normal judicial process.

A major theme throughout was criticism of the prosecution’s apparent passivity during the courtroom battle. Clay suggested that prosecutors seemed reluctant to aggressively challenge the defense’s motions, potentially indicating an expectation that a conviction would be difficult to obtain in any future retrial. Both hosts debated whether Massachusetts prosecutors would realistically pursue another trial if a mistrial were declared, particularly given indications that the jury was overwhelmingly leaning toward an insanity verdict. They examined possible outcomes ranging from retrial to plea negotiations and questioned how likely it would be for a second jury to reach a dramatically different conclusion.

The program also delved into the broader cultural and political implications of the case. Clay and Buck discussed public reactions to postpartum mental health defenses, gender differences in criminal responsibility, and the debate over whether society applies different standards to men and women accused of violent crimes. The hosts argued that the case had evolved beyond a local criminal proceeding into a nationally followed legal story, comparing public fascination with the trial to other landmark criminal cases and discussing the intense emotional reactions it has generated across the country.

The hour also featured a live interview with Congressman Jim Jordan, who joined the show to discuss both the Clancy case and the political landscape heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Jordan commented on congressional battleground districts, Republican campaign strategy, economic messaging, affordability concerns, border security, tax policy, school choice, and Democratic socialism. He argued that Republicans should focus on communicating policy achievements while contrasting their agenda with what he described as increasingly left-wing positions within the Democratic Party. Clay and Buck questioned him about competitive House races, voter sentiment, and the issues likely to shape the remainder of the campaign season.

During the interview, breaking news emerged that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had agreed to hear arguments from Clancy's defense team regarding the disputed juror. Clay and Buck reacted in real time, discussing the extraordinary nature of the appeal and debating whether higher-court intervention could alter the trajectory of the case. The hosts argued that removing a juror because of disagreement over the verdict could fundamentally undermine the jury system and continued to provide updates as developments unfolded.

The guys did an extensive interview with attorney and commentator Katie Zacharia, who joined the show to discuss the legal, cultural, and societal implications of the case. Drawing on both her legal background and her experience as a mother of four, Zacharia  argued that the central legal question involv

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome in to the Friday edition of Clay and Buck.
We predicted that this would be the likely case, but
as we head into the Labor Day weekend, There is
a pending mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, and every
network is covering right now live in the courtroom. It appears, well,

(00:26):
let me play a couple of audio clips for you,
and then we will dive into what is going on.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
And frankly, I've never heard of this before.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
The defense is appealing to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to
argue that a juror should be dismissed. for I'm not
sure exactly the grounds that they are citing, but it
has to do with his behavior as part of a
jury process. And it looks like, Buck, and again, I'm

(00:56):
going to play the audio, that based on the way
all of the audio you are hearing is being reflected,
that 11 jurors, have essentially agreed that Lindsay Clancy is
not guilty by reason of insanity. That is, she killed
all three of her kids, and she's not responsible for

(01:17):
that because she was temporarily insane. Her hormones made her
do it, basically. And right now, it appears there is
one lone juror who is refusing to sign on with that.
And for the past couple of days, people have just been...
attacking him, I would imagine, in the jury room, and

(01:40):
the pressure has been ratcheted up outside. I've never really
seen anything like this, and maybe there's some trial attorneys
out there listening to us right now that have had
an experience similar to this. I've never really heard of
anything like this, Buck. I've never really seen anything like this.
And again, this is just analyzing the legal situation, not
getting into opinions surrounding it.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
So again, this is great because you've got Clay, who's
actually a lawyer, and me, who's a, I would like
to think, well-informed civilian, but not actually a JD. And
so I'll come at this from the perspective of just
pure common sense. Clay has the procedural, legal procedural expertise.
So this is where I'd say I know, and this

(02:25):
comes from, I'll be honest, watching Law & Order episodes,
that you can have a For example, a judge can
set aside a jury verdict, which is shocking when people
find this out. It is extremely rare, but a judge
can just say, no, I'm actually– and there has to
be some greater reasoning or rationale beyond that. But that

(02:49):
is a real thing that can happen that very few
people know about. There's also, Clay, like the writ of mandamus.
where you're basically going to another court saying, immediately I
need you to weigh in on this, this is critical,
I need the appeals court to come down and say,
what's going on here is outrageous and needs to be stopped.
And then you have, and again, that's just a civilian

(03:10):
point of view of these things. I'm sure there's greater
explanation and understanding of it out there. But in this case, Clay,
you would just say to yourself, Hold on a second.
The defense wants another judge to remove a juror.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
What is the point of the jury if the defense
can just say, I don't like this guy who is
not giving me the verdict that I want? You know
what I'm saying? On what basis... They're saying refuses to
listen to the law. That is an entirely subjective judgment
that they are making based upon outcome, not upon reasoning

(03:51):
or rationale.

Speaker 3 (03:52):
The judge here has had to deal with the defense attorney.
And this came out yesterday, so we kind of knew
what was going on. The defense attorney said 11 jurors
have made a decision and one juror will not apply
reasonable doubt. No, that's not actually what's happening here. That
juror is allowed to have his own, and we know

(04:15):
it's a him, because the defense counsel also kind of
outed him, but we also knew that in the first place.
But Clay, his application of the reasonable doubt standard is
different than the other jurors, and he's not budging on that,
because too much is at stake. But you see what
I mean about this being, it's just an end run
if this were to be granted, but I don't think
it will happen. Sullivan has treated this as a disagreement

(04:38):
inside deliberation. It's not juror misconduct. The defense is calling
for this as though it's juror misconduct, like a juror
got a note from somebody outside or the juror took
money or did something that's illicit as part of the process.
The notion that you would remove somebody based on an
emergency appeal is outrageous.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
The fact that defense even tried this is kind of crazy, honestly.
So I've got so many thoughts on this. Let's play
the cuts so you can get a sense for why
we believe what is going on is going on. And again,
you have to use the context clues that we have,
which are the open mic moments in the courtroom. Let's

(05:20):
start with this because I think there's probably some people
out there who are not that familiar with the absolute latest.
Here is yesterday. I believe this is Lindsey Clancy's attorney,
Kevin Reddington. saying there's one juror who refuses to listen
to the law. This is cut for.

Speaker 4 (05:39):
There's one juror who refuses to listen to the law
that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And
I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave
them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the
law as I instruct you, does not work. focus on
the issue and if we come back here in a

(06:00):
half an hour with a mistrial because of a because
of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of
this court it's a shame it's a real.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
Shame okay so he's telling you a lot there when
he's saying if we come back with a mistrial because
of one juror he's letting everyone know basically 11 people
have agreed and for the defense attorney to be making
this argument The only reason he would be making this
argument is if he's trying to get the unanimous 12

(06:30):
not guilty. Now, the judge fired back at that. This
is him today, a little bit earlier in the courtroom,
cut three.

Speaker 5 (06:41):
Clearly, I would.

Speaker 4 (06:42):
Ask that you not just give them, as I described
it yesterday, a soft inquiry. Listen to my instructions. I
would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof
beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully.

Speaker 5 (06:59):
I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?

Speaker 6 (07:00):
Yes.

Speaker 4 (07:02):
You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't
do it forcefully.

Speaker 5 (07:05):
What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?

Speaker 7 (07:09):
I read the instruction as written by the SJC.

Speaker 5 (07:14):
The fact that I perhaps.

Speaker 7 (07:15):
Didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that.

Speaker 5 (07:19):
I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions.

Speaker 3 (07:23):
Okay, Buck, a couple more here. Defense is acting in
histrionics here. This is absurd.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
But I have to say, the prosecutors not fighting back
against this in an aggressive way lets you know that
basically they feel like they've lost the case.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
Now, a couple more things. This just happened.

Speaker 1 (07:42):
The defense, as the judge is declaring a mistrial, says, hey,
give us an hour.

Speaker 2 (07:48):
We're in the middle of that hour.

Speaker 1 (07:50):
I don't know when the hour officially runs out We'll
explain exactly what's going on there, too. But this was
just the explosives in the courtroom. The explosive arguments cut one.

Speaker 7 (08:00):
Over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial
at this point.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
But I'm asking for his time to file a single
justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for.

Speaker 7 (08:12):
So you're asking for an emergency stay at this point?

Speaker 4 (08:14):
Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow.
They can be told at they don't even have to
come back if I lose the motion. But if I
win the motion, then obviously they would have to come
back Tuesday.

Speaker 7 (08:28):
If you want to go up and petition to the
SGC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before
we bring the jury back down. I think you could,
it's just a request for the stay of the declaration
of the mistrial. So I'll hold off for an hour
and then we'll come back in in regards to that.

Speaker 3 (08:47):
Clay, this defense is abusing process here. This is nonsense.
He doesn't like the outcome he's getting. So he's acting
like there's some malfeasance that a court what court is
talking about the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
That's the SJC. What court is going to say, yeah,
we're not even really on this case. We're going to
look at it and just decide to overrule the verdict.

Speaker 7 (09:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (09:12):
Let me play cut to this is his argument, because
whether you like it or not, this is what the
defense is saying. If you're saying what in the world's
going on here, they are saying basically that this juror
should be dismissed.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
Cut to clearly judge.

Speaker 4 (09:27):
We have a person who under their oath stood in
front of you yesterday when you did the individual idea.
And according to this information under oath, look you in
the eye and lied. That juror told you that he
would be able to apply the law to the facts

(09:49):
as you asked him. And based on this note from
this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are
basically 11 to 1. 1. And this person will not
apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not
guilty verdict.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
OK, so this first of all, to me, Buck.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
I got so many thoughts on this, but this part,
I think, is the most.

Speaker 2 (10:19):
Intriguing here.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
Knowing exactly how the jurors are voting and to have
a note where, again, he says he so we know
it's one of the three men on this court on
this jury is refusing to find not guilty and to
be trying to get him dismissed. So that the other
11 jurors all in agreement can say not guilty. It

(10:44):
sounds like he's basing this on reports that are coming
from inside of the jury deliberation room where basically other
jurors are telling on this guy and saying he's not
behaving appropriately as a juror and therefore he could and
should be dismissed because the rest of us have a

(11:06):
unanimous verdict.

Speaker 3 (11:07):
Well, I think it's just pure inference, Clay, because if
he's getting information from the jury deliberations, that's going to
be a mistrial alone right there. I don't I don't
think it's inference. I think he's basic.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
I mean, he said there they have sidebar conversations. So
the juror note must say we're I mean, he's basically
let it all be known now. What I'm surprised by
is that they've let the full deliberations of the jury
now go out into the public. And there is one
guy who is refusing to be clear. And now it's

(11:37):
all public. But his reason, Clay, it has to be
inference as to why the guy is refusing. We know
it's 11-1, but the other jurors, their opinion of his
application of the law would be absolutely irrelevant. They have
no standing to say, we think this juror.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
The whole point of the jury is that everybody gets
to decide based on the evidence for themselves. This whole
thing is trying to basically muscle through the jury process
to stack it so that they get the... By the way,
it wouldn't... She doesn't walk... What they want is a
not guilty by reason of insanity, and she goes to
the insane asylum. That's what would happen if this guy folded.

(12:14):
She goes to the nuthouse. She doesn't get found guilty
of murder. Clearly, this guy, Clay, thinks, because she did, obviously,
she killed her three kids. He won't be a part
of this, and he is standing against this.

Speaker 3 (12:25):
All this stuff that the defense attorney is saying, but
he's not applying the law, that's just the defense attorney's analysis.

Speaker 1 (12:32):
I think he knows that that's what the jurors are
telling them.

Speaker 2 (12:36):
But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because that juror
is allowed to think whatever he wants about the law.

Speaker 1 (12:40):
I think the argument is that– I'm guessing. Again, we
usually don't get this degree of specificity from inside of
a jury, which is a sign that this thing is
totally off the rails, and now the judge– even as outing, sorry,
the defense attorney is saying he, yesterday he tried to
say he or she, today he is saying he, so

(13:01):
we know it's one of the three men based on
the way that he is talking here. My presumption is
that what is occurring is the judge is giving them
a charge and saying this is what you are called
to do. And my bet is that this guy is
saying in the jury room, I'm not applying reasonable doubt,
I'm not applying any of these standards, my bet, is

(13:23):
he's saying she's a mom and she killed her three
kids and we know it happened and I don't need
to know anything else. And so they are saying that
he is refusing to take the instructions from the judge
and apply them to the facts of the law. This
is my surmiso based on all this evidence and that
therefore he is violating his oath as a juror. and

(13:48):
should be removed from the case, which sometimes does happen. Now,
I think this is outrageous that we have ended up
in this situation, and certainly if I were on this jury,
I give credit to this guy because it's hard. It
might have been 11-1 for six days, Buck. Imagine what
it's like to be in that jury room. All he
has to do is say yes and he can leave,

(14:09):
and this guy is refusing to relent to the other jurors,
and now they're.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
Telling on him.

Speaker 1 (14:15):
And saying he's not actually applying the law as he's
required to do so, judge, and as a result, the
defense is saying he should be off the case. Right,
but my fundamental point here stands, which is that A juror,
a person on the jury is allowed to interpret the
law as he or she sees fit. The rest of
the jury saying this guy doesn't understand the law because

(14:37):
they're not getting their way cannot be.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Otherwise, you'd never have a mistrial. You just boot the
guy out who doesn't agree.

Speaker 1 (14:44):
Imagine that he said, hey, I don't think a black
person could be guilty of murder. and therefore I will
not find a black person guilty of murder. That would
be juror misconduct, right? The juror, in theory, would be removed,
even though his position is one that is valid inside

(15:04):
of the... You have an obligation as a juror to
apply the law in some way, right? You can't just say,
I won't convict somebody who is.

Speaker 3 (15:14):
But this is clearly a very contentious area of the
application of law in this case. So you're coming up
with like... If this guy is completely insane and says
something crazy, then he should be removed. We're talking about
something that 50% of the country disagrees with the other 50%
on right now.

Speaker 2 (15:29):
Potentially.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
I'm just saying this is unprecedented to have the actual
votes of the jurors out there. I agree with the
guy who is saying not guilty. He may just be
not very articulate in the way he's saying it. If
he's saying I refuse to apply the law as part
of the way that he is voting, then he is

(15:51):
potentially opening himself up to a mess. There's, I mean,
I don't think anybody in the jury room is so
stupid as to be like, I'm not a plug.

Speaker 2 (15:58):
Why hold out? If you're going to say that, do
you know what I'm saying? You wouldn't, there's no, that's crazy.
I get it.

Speaker 1 (16:04):
Um, but I'm trying to explain what I think is
going on here because the judge decided to not have
the mistress posted by eight minutes.

Speaker 3 (16:11):
It's extremely unusual to your point. They, the only thing
can be these notes. The notes can be basically whatever
they want. It goes to the judge first, then to
the defense.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
Clay, It is extremely unusual, according to all the research
that we can do on the fly here, for a
jury to single out another juror and basically say this
person's a moron.

Speaker 1 (16:31):
I've never I've never heard of it before, which is
why I'm saying like this whole scenario is just absolutely bonkers.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
I wonder if that alone could be grounds for some
kind of a mistrial. We went so long. We've got
to go to break.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
We'll have a short segment here.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
We're fired up. 800-282-2882.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
Eight minutes away in theory from the judge coming back
and updating us on this.

Speaker 2 (16:54):
Laugh, learn, and hang with the guys.

Speaker 5 (16:57):
Clay and Buck. Preset on the iHeart app.

Speaker 1 (17:01):
Welcome back in. We were talking off the air. I
think this is important to point out, too. Where the
heck is the prosecution? The defense is dominating every one
of these motions, creating huge storylines, letting it be known
how the jurors are voting, everything associated with it. To me,

(17:21):
this is a sign that the prosecution actually is OK
with her being found not guilty because they don't want
to have to retry this case. And if she's found
not guilty once and for all, this is decided. If
it's a mistrial, then the pressure goes to the state
of Massachusetts to potentially retry her. But if you've already

(17:42):
lost basically 11-1 in the first trial, what are the
odds that you're going to get a 12-0 the other
direction in the second trial?

Speaker 2 (17:53):
I think that's tough.

Speaker 3 (17:54):
I also just think we need to keep. Letting everyone know,
first of all, I think it's no surprise to you.

Speaker 2 (17:59):
If I were on that jury or Claire was on
that jury, it would be guilty of first degree murder.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
OK, I mean, meaning our votes. So that's just so
everyone just to get on the record. But I also
think we need to point out it's not not guilty, period.

Speaker 2 (18:12):
She walks.

Speaker 3 (18:13):
It's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity. And therefore
she is guilty. put into a mental facility. She doesn't
just walk out of there like nothing happened. Now, I
don't think that's the proper outcome. I think that's outrageous.
But not guilty to a lot of people, Clay, sounds like, oh,
she walks, right?

Speaker 2 (18:28):
She doesn't walk.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
It's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity, which under
Massachusetts law means she is involuntarily committed to a criminal
psychiatric facility.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
Unless I'm missing something. Yeah, that's right. But she could
be out in as few as 40 days.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
This is very much like Primal Fear, the movie with
Richard Gere and Ed Norton, where he basically works in
insanity defense. I'm going to spoiler alert, works in insanity
defense into an extremely brutal murder trial. And at the end,
it's like he was actually just playing a game and
they realized, oh, this guy could be out in 90 days.

Speaker 6 (19:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
And that's the whole thing.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
Again, that is if she is found mentally capable, she
would be out of the insane asylum and 100 percent
free in as little as 40 days. Now, it's possible
that the state of Massachusetts is going to keep her
there longer. But all of this is chaos and we

(19:29):
are following it in real time. And not surprisingly, a
lot of you have questions. And to be fair, I've
never seen anything like this. I don't imagine most attorneys
out there, even ones who have been doing trial work
in a criminal capacity for a long time, have been either.
And sorry, I'm watching right now in real time trial work.

(19:50):
to assess, they keep running the same footage. Is it
live live, uh, inside of the courtroom or not? Um,
I think we're not live with the juror, with the
judge right now, but guys, um, if you in our
New York City studio can also help me with this,
so that do we have, I believe we do, the
capacity to take this live. If they are going back

(20:13):
to the judge live with any of this officially inside
of the courtroom, we will be able to go to you.
A bunch of calls. Michelle in Tennessee, fire away.

Speaker 8 (20:23):
I think that they've got it wrong. I think the
loan dissent is... is a not guilty and the reasonable
doubt inference is being scrutinized because you don't have to
find somebody guilty. It doesn't have to be absolute guilt.
It can be a reasonable guilt. And I think that

(20:45):
that's what's going on here is that 11 people see
that she is definitely guilty, and the one holdout is like, well,
you've not proven it to be absolute guilt.

Speaker 1 (20:54):
That doesn't make any sense, Michelle. I appreciate the argument.
It doesn't make any sense. Let me explain why. The
defense is making this motion to get this juror kicked
off the jury. If the defense were trying to kick
off the one person who was on the side of
the defense, that would mean that the client was going

(21:16):
to be convicted. Her attorney should then be immediately disbarred
because he's too dumb to be able to represent a client.
I appreciate the call. This is not that. Now, if
you want to argue, and I do think this again,
I'm surprised more people aren't asking this. The prosecution just
kind of meekly sitting in their chairs and letting the

(21:39):
defense say, I'm appealing this to the Supreme Court and
not standing up and saying, this is outrageous, Judge. What
in the world are you attempting to do here? This
is unprecedented to me. It suggests that they just want
this case done and they don't want to try to
convict her again because if you had a mistrial, basically

(22:00):
it's like this thing never happened and you just go
for round two. They spent a month making the best
case they could and they lost at best 11 to 1.
How much better could the prosecution do? I think they're
probably sitting around thinking about this themselves and To get
a 12-0, this jury has to be a wildly outrageous,

(22:24):
outlandish representation of the jury pool, and they would go
get a different result with another 12.

Speaker 2 (22:31):
That doesn't seem likely to me. I agree.

Speaker 3 (22:34):
I mean, I think what you've seen here is that
the jury pool, particularly of women in Massachusetts on this issue,
you will have at least one who would not go
in the other direction and convict. There's no chance that
you're going to find 12 people that are going to
convict on first degree murder. So the issue here is,
I mean, I think I think Lindsay Clancy is going
to a mental facility one way or another. And I think, though, that, Clay,

(22:59):
they may have to retry it. And the only other,
all the only alternative would be to let her, um,
plead to a lesser charge.

Speaker 2 (23:07):
But if you're the defense attorney, why would you take that?
I think, you know, you don't take it.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
Cause you just basically nearly got a not guilty verdict. Uh,
unless it's something really minor, like, Hey, she's probably spent
time in prison already. I would imagine if they say, Hey,
you'll do two years in prison and then you'll be
free and clear. Um, that which in some ways would
be maybe even worse in a sense arguably yeah you

(23:34):
know then the other thing is i think the state
of massachusetts i by the way your your point about
the prosecution i think is is extremely um important right
now because the defense attorney is going wild he's demanding
the you know the the court come in from above
the uh the appeals court and And he knows that

(23:56):
he has all the leverage right now and that things
are going in his direction. And the prosecution, you pointed
this out, you're correct, is very kind of passive about
this because I think they realize they don't have a
better shot at the next round. It's astonishing to me
that only one person sees this case for what it
is so far on this jury and then beyond that, Clay.

(24:17):
I think it's just a really embarrassing, to anyone who
actually understands, well, I would just say reality, not even
the law. If the state of Massachusetts brings this case again,
only to send her to a psychiatric facility, not guilty
by reason of insanity, that looks really bad for Massachusetts too, right?
Just as a state prosecution and as the whole process unfolds.

(24:42):
So they're in the worst spot here. But, yeah, no,
I think Lindsey Clancy, she's going to the loony bin,
so to speak, and is not going to be found
guilty in this trial or the next.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
I think that's almost certainly where we are.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
I would also point out my wife has continued to
hammer this. She was talking about it this morning. She
was listening to a podcast about this case when I
walked in to brush my teeth and get ready to
come up and do the show. She is incredibly frustrated.
and thinks this is setting back women immensely. Because if

(25:17):
the argument is women are too emotional and they're too
hormonal to such an extent that they cannot be held
responsible for murdering their own three kids, how can you
argue that women need to be in positions of power
in any part of society There is no man. Can
you think of a man that has been able to

(25:38):
get away by just saying, hey, my testosterone levels are
too high. I was too mentally unstable. It is true
that she's being held to a standard that is far
more lenient in terms of her behavior based on her
inability to control her emotions than we would ever allow
a man to be held accountable in that same way.

Speaker 2 (25:58):
That's 100% true. She's absolutely correct.

Speaker 3 (26:02):
And I would just say, You've also seen a gender
tribalism on display here.

Speaker 5 (26:09):
I know.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
Can I just point out, I think it was last week,
people were saying, it's not even a story. Producer Ali
is in France right now, okay? Not to blow.

Speaker 3 (26:19):
Producer Ali is on a well-deserved vacation with her wonderful husband.
They're having a great time.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
Do you know what's on all the TVs in France
right now? The Lindsay Clancy trial verdict, okay? Everywhere.

Speaker 3 (26:31):
This has turned into, it was very quick how this happened,
but it's like an OJ-level TV criminal justice story in
terms of how much interest there is. So I just
want to note, you know, some of you, you can
send us your your right buck and clay, I'm sorry, emails.
But this is a huge story. It's a very troubling story.
It's really a gut punch of a story. And I

(26:52):
just think clay, this has shown, as I was saying,
a gender tribalism, where I have friends who are being
told by women in their lives, I'll just put it
that way, you don't get a vote on this, or
your opinion doesn't matter on this, which is a little
bit of an extension of, I will say, how some
women treat the abortion argument. But in this case in particular,

(27:15):
I would still make the case that that's about life
and it doesn't matter what one's gender is. But in
this case, so you get to kill your kids if
you're a woman because sometimes you get a little crazy?
And men can't? My thing all along here has been, Clay,
the state of Massachusetts... has an obligation. Those are three
human beings.

Speaker 5 (27:33):
Yes.

Speaker 3 (27:34):
That the force of the state, you know, men with
guns and handcuffs should be deployed to protect the people,
these three young people, and now, you know, after their
horrific murder, to arrest those guilty and to achieve justice
for them. They are human beings who were killed here.
It doesn't matter that their mother did it in terms

(27:56):
of the guilt of the individual.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
If anything, it makes it much, much worse. Much worse
than a stranger.

Speaker 3 (28:03):
But there's no special, you know, Clay, under ancient Roman law,
the male head of household could actually kill anybody in
his household. If I remember my Greco-Roman history, usually it
didn't happen with wives, but if you killed like a
slave in your household, slavery also existed 2,000 years ago.

Speaker 2 (28:21):
That's a whole other conversation. It existed thousands of years
before that.

Speaker 3 (28:25):
This is a little bit of shades of that where,
There are women who seem to think, well, look, postpartum,
things get crazy, and we've got to stand with our
postpartum sisters on this or something.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
This is loony talk. Yes. This is crazy. It's immoral.
It's demonic. It's dark. It's dark, dark, dark.

Speaker 1 (28:44):
And again, we're going to take a ton of your
calls and talkbacks. People are flooding us right now. The
other thing we should say is.
And I got texted by somebody who's a friend this morning,
and she said, hey, you and Buck need to be
talking more about the fact the husband actually did this.

Speaker 2 (29:03):
I have a dear friend who takes the same position,
just so you know.

Speaker 3 (29:06):
A female friend who takes the same position, Clay, and
I am jaw on the table shocked that that's where
we are. So here is what I would say, and
I have said this before, but just take it. The
defense did not in any way suggest that anyone else
was involved in the murder. That is because there is

(29:29):
no evidence that anyone else was involved in the murder.
The number one thing you do if you are in
a murder trial to defend your client is say it
was somebody else This was the theme of Remember the
Fugitive when Dr. Richard Kimball in the 1990s film, I believe,

(29:49):
was based on a 1970s Chicago area murder trial.

Speaker 2 (29:53):
It was based on a true story, yes, loosely.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
He said it was the one-armed man who actually committed
the murder, and I just came home and just found
myself there at that point in time. One of the
best defenses you can offer to reach reasonable doubt is
you have the wrong person held.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Here for this crime. They have not. Didn't they do
that on the OJ? Wasn't there an OJ theory that
there was somebody else that could have done it? Oh, yeah, totally.

Speaker 1 (30:18):
They tried to suggest, hey, it was somebody else who
committed the OJ trial, the OJ murder. And it's one
of the best ways to build reasonable doubt as a
defense attorney is to say you've got the wrong person
on trial, because if you're a juror, it's one thing
to think, oh, hey, are they responsible? What is the

(30:39):
mental culpability? All those things.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
But if you send the wrong person to prison or
to the death penalty, sometimes that's compelling when it comes
to reasonable doubt, it has been not even suggested by
the defense attorneys. Like all of you, I'm really looking
forward to this three day weekend. I know some of
you work through the weekends and that's greatly appreciated, but
for a lot of us, we get that extra day.
And in my case, we're going to be very family

(31:01):
focused this weekend. I'm actually out in the woods with
Carrie and speed and ginger spice. We're having a great time.
So yeah, We're going to have.

Speaker 3 (31:09):
100 or more photos and videos, I'm sure, of our
little guy and Ginger over the weekend. And that's great
because technology makes it easy. But back in the day
when I would go out in the woods for a
little family retreat with my dad, my mom, my siblings,
we didn't have that. In fact, my dad probably had
his 35-millimeter camera, his big old cassette VHS recorder thing
where he loved to do interviews on the fly. Um,

(31:31):
that's the stuff that you can't look at now because
you don't have any means to play it and you
don't know how to transfer it. You don't have the technology.
This is where legacy box comes in. Legacy box takes
that old media for you. And this is a company
with all the gear technology and know-how to easily digitize
19 different forms of old media, whatever you've got photos, videos,
however you recorded it back in the day, they can

(31:53):
take it for you and make it digital. They're so
good at this company's based in Tennessee, uh, We love
this company, what it stands for. Millions of families have
already used Legacy Box.

Speaker 2 (32:02):
I have. Clay has.

Speaker 3 (32:03):
It's a great thing this weekend for the Labor Day weekend.
Get together with your family. Pull together this stuff. And,
you know, get your Legacy Box. You put it in
the box. You send it in.

Speaker 2 (32:12):
Digitized. So easy.

Speaker 3 (32:14):
Go to LegacyBox.com slash Buck. They've got a special sale today.
LegacyBox.com slash B-U-C-K.

Speaker 5 (32:22):
Preset your pals. Clay and Buck on the iHeart app.

Speaker 7 (32:25):
All right.

Speaker 3 (32:25):
Welcome back in here to Clay and Buck. We're obviously
taking a lot of calls and talking about this Lindsay
Clancy trial. It's very upsetting to a lot of people.
It's a mistrial, so she was not found guilty. I
do think, Clay, they will try her again.

Speaker 2 (32:38):
To be fair, the mistrial is not yet effective.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
They're going to have a trial hearing again at 2.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court could still step in, and we
could have another crazy wrinkle here that could allow 11
jurors to let her walk. So the mistrial is not
effectively effective yet, even yet.

Speaker 7 (33:00):
Right.

Speaker 3 (33:02):
But I would say, realistically, you got like a 5%
shot that the court If we get to a place
where the mob of maniacs, they're on the 11 side here,
not the one juror, they can just be so adamant
in their lunacy that the appeals court of the state

(33:24):
of Massachusetts is going to remove a juror because he's
not giving the quote right verdict based on quote the law.
Now you're just saying that like this is I mean,
this is almost makes a parody of the entire system.

Speaker 2 (33:40):
Like, what's the point of having a jury in the
first place? We got Jim Jordan. I want to bring
him up.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
But Bill Malujan just posted the appeal that has been
filed to the Supreme Court. I want to read a
couple of sentences here for you, Buck. And I want
Jim Jordan. You can hear this as well. It says
a juror is refusing to follow the law. And here
the removal is particularly important because the juror's reasoning reflects

(34:07):
a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness,
a protected category. OK, Buck, what are the chances that
he is simply saying as part of these deliberations, you're
all retarded?

Speaker 2 (34:24):
Apologies for anybody who's offended.

Speaker 1 (34:26):
They are saying that according to this filing, the removal
is necessary because the jurors reasoning reflects a bias against
those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.

Speaker 2 (34:40):
Maybe it's not that they are likely.

Speaker 6 (34:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
Congressman.

Speaker 7 (34:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (34:45):
Congressman Jordan.

Speaker 6 (34:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (34:47):
Let's pass it to you. Thank you for giving us
your time. Obviously, the big news today. What do you
think about all this? You take it away.

Speaker 6 (34:53):
Well, no, I think you just said it, Buck. That's
the point. And if that's what this guy– what the
judge is saying about this particular juror or what they're
saying about this particular juror, that just makes absolutely no sense.
And I think the judge is probably accurate in saying
this guy's got to– he's got to go. Yeah, it's

(35:17):
sad when you see this greatest country in the world
and the system we've set up, our constitutional system, the
three separate equal branches of government and all the attacks
on all those and how it's now down to the
basic level where it's supposed to be a trial by
the jury of your peers, where that doesn't seem to
be working exactly the way it should be either. So, yeah,

(35:41):
we'll see. I mean, we'll just see what happens here.
I guess there's still... some deliberation to take place. I
haven't followed it as closely as you guys have here
in the last few hours.

Speaker 2 (35:52):
Can I just ask you, Congressman?

Speaker 3 (35:54):
I know usually you're here and you've got your congressman
hat on, not your congressman jacket, because you tend not
to wear a blazer, as we all know.

Speaker 2 (36:03):
Although the one we have of you has... I don't
even know.

Speaker 3 (36:05):
Who this guy is with a blazer on and the
photo that they put up on the screen on our YouTube.
But anyway, have you... Just in your day-to-day experience, whether
in D.C. or at home in Ohio, come across people,
particularly women, who think like the husband did it or

(36:26):
that they're very– and have you been surprised by this?
Or have you just been away from this entirely and
haven't really had much personal experience of it?

Speaker 6 (36:34):
No, it's been the latter. I haven't– I have not
talked to anyone particularly about this and been following it
in the news somewhat. And then just got on here
in the last couple of minutes and listen to you
guys recapping. I'm thinking, oh, I didn't know that. That
sounds kind of crazy to me. So, no, I've not
been followed that closely.

Speaker 2 (36:50):
All right. Let's go ahead, Clay.

Speaker 1 (36:53):
Yeah, no, I was going to say, let's go in.
You're on the road right now. There are only and
I'm curious if you would sign on to this because,
you know, the story on the ground better than than
certainly we do. There have been reports that there are
about 20 toss-up House seats. That is real battlegrounds. You're
traveling the nation working on these battlegrounds. Do you think

(37:16):
that's right? Are there about 20? And how do you
see what's the ground look like from your perspective?

Speaker 6 (37:23):
No, it's maybe a few more, but there aren't as
many as in the past because of the redistricting and
the gerrymandering that the Democrats have done and the redistricting
we've done here in this past cycle. So, yeah, it's
a smaller number of seats. But I think we can
pick up– last night I flew back into Ohio and
did an event for Derek Marin, who's running against Marcy Kaptur.
That's one of the pickup opportunities we have where we could–

(37:45):
that district was redrawn. It's now more favorable to Republicans.
So I think we've got a chance. But our message
over these last 60 days, in my judgment, has got
to be plain and simple. If you allow Democrats to win–
Here's where they're going to go, all the crazy policy,
and we have to just lay that out. I mean, remember,
nine months and four days ago, Mom Donnie was sworn

(38:07):
in as mayor of our largest city, and he said
in his speech, I was elected as a Democrat socialist.
I will govern as a Democrat socialist. We have to
replace the virginity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.

Speaker 5 (38:19):
He believes it.

Speaker 6 (38:20):
He told us he's going to do it.

Speaker 5 (38:22):
He's implementing that.

Speaker 6 (38:23):
And frankly, the party, the once great party of FDR
and JFK is now run by these Democrat socialists. And
they they're bent on doing what they told us they
were going to do. And it is scary. So I
think we have to tell our our voters to persuade
Republicans and like minded independents come out. We have to
tell them how real this is and that they are

(38:44):
their intent on doing what they said, which is very,
very scary in my judgment.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
Breaking news, Buck.

Speaker 1 (38:51):
CNN is reporting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has granted
a hearing for Lindsey Clancy's defense.

Speaker 5 (39:01):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yeah, that is coming down right now. Sorry, Congressman.

Speaker 1 (39:06):
I know we'll continue, but I just want to give
people the absolute latest there. Again, CNN breaking news banner
right now. Massachusetts Supreme Court grants a hearing. For the
Clancy defense to try to get the one juror kicked
off who is preventing a not guilty verdict.

Speaker 3 (39:23):
I would like to think, sorry Congressman, just a quick
reflection on this one. I would like to think that
this is just to show. that they are being given
a hearing and process if they actually remove this juror
the whole thing is a farce and this is just
the frenzied mob with pitchforks and torches getting their way

(39:44):
which in this case is it's kind of the reverse
of a lynching situation. They want the guilty person to
go free. They're not trying to take an innocent person
and make them guilty. They want a guilty person to walk.
It's disgusting, Clay, honestly. So that is the latest. Okay,
back to, we're talking to Congressman Jim Jordan. Thank you,

(40:06):
by the way, for your super great quotes from the
Wall Street Journal profile that is out online but is
coming out now on Saturday, Sunday. I was saying on
the air, Congressman, it only took 22 years of me
being in media for someone to write something nice about me.
So thank you for the quotes. That article came out
pretty well.

Speaker 6 (40:27):
No, it was a great article and well-deserved for you guys.
But they only took like one. I had a whole
bunch of great things I said about y'all because I
really think you guys do a tremendous job. And I
tried to put some funny things in there, but maybe
they didn't think it was funny. I was talking about
Buck's serve of 189 miles an hour. I was talking
about sports and everything else, but they just went with
one kind of basic generic one in the online piece. But, no,

(40:49):
it was a great piece and well-deserved for you guys
and the good work that you do.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
Thank you. We appreciate it. Now, back to politics, if
I can. No, really, it was very nice. Very nice.

Speaker 3 (41:01):
Some people are saying Jim Jordan, very nice. But talk
to me about how you think the GOP messaging is
going on– It's a word that we've said so many
times that I think people are sick of hearing it.
But all of what we can see in the polls
says that this is what the election will turn on.
This is what the midterm will turn on. It's affordability.

(41:21):
How do you think the GOP is doing on this
right now?

Speaker 2 (41:23):
Do you think that there need to be some tweaks
made or is it just stay on message, stay on task,
and we should be able to defend the House and
Senate majorities?

Speaker 6 (41:33):
Well, I always say, you know, we make the job
too complicated. It's pretty basic. What we tell the voters
we're going to do, and then, you know, if they
elect you, go do what you said. We've done that.
We told them we'd cut taxes. We did. We told
them we'd secure the border.

Speaker 9 (41:44):
We did.

Speaker 6 (41:45):
We told them we'd be for school choice. That was
in the big, beautiful bill. Also, this welfare reform that
we put in, it's actually making a difference in people's
lives and all. So I think that's message one. Message
two is we understand things cost too much. We get that.
But it's not all bad out there. You saw the
jobs report, the jobs numbers today were way above what

(42:05):
most people thought they would be. So our economy is
pretty good. But again, things cost too much. So we
have to, I think, recognize that. But I do think
what I said earlier is the key message, particularly now
that we're down to less than nine weeks until Election Day.
It's they want to ruin what this country has always
given its people. This simple idea, you got a goal,
you got a dream, you work hard, good things happen.

(42:27):
They will ruin that with their crazy left-wing policies. Mamdani
talked about the warmth of collectivism. I was giving a
speech out at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Vegas on Sunday,
and I said I've seen the warmth of collectivism. I
wrestled in the Soviet Union in 1987. I mean I
tell people I was in Moscow in February. Moscow in February,
it's like 200 below zero. There is no food in

(42:48):
the stores. There's just a terrible, gray, dismal place. That's
where this left-wing craziness will take us. And we have
to let voters know that and how we're for the
principles and the policies that we think make America special.
So I do think that's a central theme, and we
have to pound that over these next eight and a

(43:09):
half weeks.

Speaker 3 (43:11):
Congressman Jim Jordan, appreciate you being with us, sir. Thanks
for making the time, as always, and have a great
Labor Day weekend.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
All right.

Speaker 6 (43:18):
Take care. You guys, too.

Speaker 1 (43:21):
That is always good to hear from Jim Jordan. The
court is in recess until 2 p.m. Eastern, so that is, what,
15 minutes from now. And, again, CNN is reporting that
there is a hearing underway right now with the Massachusetts
Supreme Court. They've changed their headlines somewhat. I can't hear it, Buck.

(43:44):
So the team in New York, they can turn up
the sound.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
If this Massachusetts appeals court weighs in and says that
they're removing that juror and then they're pushing for a verdict,
the whole thing is rigged and it's a joke and
it's preposterous.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
It's a deeply unfunny joke, but it's a farce. So
that's where we are. We'll see.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
Look, we got a headline a week ago about the
USDA changing the way American beef producers can get their
products to easier get product in. Eighty five percent of
all beef and all meat products are now coming from
out of the country. If you are out there right
now and you are trying to make sure that you

(44:27):
have the best possible meat for your family and you
want it coming, in from the United States only. You
want U.S. grown beef. You want to be able to
take care of everything. Good Ranchers is making a difference
for you. It's only Only American meat for you and

(44:47):
your family. The number one company delivering 100% American meat
to your door with 25,000 five-star reviews on Trustpilot. For
a limited time, you can get a free ground beef
bundle with your first Good Ranchers. Order four pounds of 100%
American Angus ground beef to stock in your freezer. Visit

(45:08):
goodranchers.com slash clay to claim your free ground beef bundle. Plus,
When you start a plan, you get free meat with
every order.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
This is amazing.

Speaker 1 (45:18):
Four pounds of 100% American Angus ground beef right in
your freezer when you order today. Good Ranchers dot com
slash clay free four pound ground beef bundle. That's Good
Ranchers dot com slash clay. Good Ranchers dot com. American
meat delivered.

Speaker 2 (45:37):
Laugh, learn, hang with the guys right there when you
need them most.

Speaker 5 (45:42):
Clay and Buck, just preset them on the iHeart app.

Speaker 1 (45:45):
Welcome back in, Clay and Buck. Appreciate all of you
hanging out with us. We are rolling through the Friday
edition of the program. We are waiting to see if
the Lindsay Clancy trial is going to be updated in
any way. If you are just getting in your car

(46:06):
right now and catching up with everything that is going on,
we have got... Really, Lindsey Clancy, all talk.

Speaker 2 (46:16):
It has taken over. Earlier today, the jury was.

Speaker 1 (46:24):
And there was a mistrial that was declared that was
then held in abeyance to allow a last second appeal
to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to try to get a
juror kicked off the trial. And now we are, according
to the headlines that I am seeing, the Massachusetts Supreme
Court is weighing the emergency request that has been filed

(46:47):
by the defense to get this lone juror kicked off
of the trial. So that is where we are. There
appear to be 11 votes to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty.
Only one who it appears is one of the three
men on the trial that is willing to say, no,

(47:07):
she is in fact guilty. And so we are waiting
to see what is going to be the result of
this trial. Okay, I believe we are joined now by
Katie Zachariah.

Speaker 2 (47:22):
She is with us right now. Katie, you are a
mom of four.

Speaker 1 (47:27):
I want to read you what I tweeted earlier because
I'm quoting her. My wife, Laura, a mom of three,
she's furious with the Lindsay Clancy case. She was talking
about it with me this morning. She said it's the
worst thing possible for women because if women are so hormonal,
They can't keep from killing their own kids. How can

(47:49):
women argue they deserve any positions of high responsibility? She
says it's anti-woman to favor not guilty. And she also
has been saying no man is ever able to cite
his own hormones as justification for committing a murder. And
no one would even take it seriously if men tried
to do it. You are a mom of four. As

(48:14):
I just said, do you agree with her take? What
is your take on this?

Speaker 5 (48:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (48:20):
You know, when we first started talking about Lindsay Clancy,
I was under the incorrect assumption. This is months ago
that we all knew she was guilty of killing her children.

Speaker 10 (48:31):
And it was a discussion, a legal discussion.

Speaker 9 (48:33):
I'm also a lawyer as to whether or not the
prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that Lindsay
Clancy had the capacity, right?

Speaker 10 (48:41):
So that only.

Speaker 9 (48:42):
Looks at murder one, murder two, and manslaughter. This is not,
she didn't do it. And to see this hyper focus
on these pink shirt women that are rallying, not just
saying Lindsay Clancy didn't do it, but the husband may
have done it. And this kind of hyperbolic and almost
insane presence of the toxic feminism is to what you

(49:05):
were just discussing is to the point That so much
of the time, if a woman is engaging in this
type of discussion, you cannot be taken seriously. A serious
discussion is capacity and whether or not the 13 psychiatric drugs.
and their contraindications diluted her ability to understand or appreciate
the wrongfulness of her conduct, which is that she murdered

(49:28):
three of her children, that she killed three children. Look, Clay,
she sent her husband out On an errand. And she
intentionally took those three children down to her basement and
killed them. This is not up for discussion. And a
society as a whole should be treating this and Lindsay
Clancy truly as she is not the victim. She is
the perpetrator and she destroyed three lives for it. But again,

(49:51):
to your point, women will not be taken seriously if
they start excusing every hormonal or hormone or postpartum depression.
It alleviates all responsibility from women, which then makes them
not serious candidates for.

Speaker 10 (50:05):
Positions, as you just said.

Speaker 3 (50:08):
So, Katie, appreciate you being with us. And we were
going to talk about the economy and things like that.
But because of the news today, we've got to get
you to weigh in on this. But as has been stated,
you are a mother of four. You are clearly a
woman and you are also a lawyer to the degree
that you can take us into the mindset of some
of the pink shirt wearing supporters here of Lindsay Clancy.

(50:32):
You're also a Californian. You come on a lot to
talk to us about what's going on with the Golden State.
I assume you have been exposed to, if not in
your immediate circle, women in your area, whether out protesting
or just from conversation, who are Lindsay Clancy supporters. supporters
what is going on there like what is it that

(50:52):
these women are think why has this turned into a
a case of a national solidarity from a lot of
women millions of them it seems who are are almost
fans of lindsey clancy or you know view it as
like some extension of their own problems in life what
i know it's very complicated it's a weird situation what

(51:15):
are they thinking Well, yeah, first.

Speaker 9 (51:18):
Book, the thing is that I've noticed, and it must
be said, is that this really hasn't gone down on
Republican or Democrat lines. I've had actually a lot of
women on the Republican, like conservative women, come out in
support of Lindsay Clancy.

Speaker 10 (51:34):
And even to my surprise... my more.

Speaker 9 (51:37):
Liberal side of the equation has, at least from my
vantage point, have come out against Lindsay Clancy. So it's
not always and completely on partisan lines right now, which
I think is an even more interesting investigation that needs
to be looked at.

Speaker 10 (51:54):
What are these women watching? What are they looking into?
And what are they reading?

Speaker 9 (51:57):
And who's challenging their thought process? And from what I
have seen is most women are against Lindsay exonerating Lindsay
Clancy because it will not allow for women to be
taken seriously on the greater scale, but also because if
you are a mother, you understand that this woman appreciated

(52:18):
the wrongfulness of her conduct and murdered her kids.

Speaker 10 (52:21):
And I have four kids. I had sleepless nights.

Speaker 9 (52:25):
I never thankfully had postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis.

Speaker 10 (52:28):
I had what many have said, postpartum euphoria. But there
are long sleepless nights.

Speaker 11 (52:34):
And to give this woman an excuse for her behavior
will show other women that they can do whatever they
want with their children and they.

Speaker 10 (52:44):
Won't be held accountable.

Speaker 9 (52:45):
And I think to end here, The problem with our
society right now is that we are finding reasons to
excuse a woman who killed her children. And it's mostly
women that are finding that space to excuse her. But
there are some men that are coming out in support
of her.

Speaker 10 (53:02):
And whether that juror.

Speaker 9 (53:04):
11-1, where you have even two men that have gone
over to the non-guilty trial, There is there is something
happening in a society that says you can harm your
kids and not be held accountable. And that is what
we need to get at. We need to get at
the root of this really, really toxic ideology.

Speaker 1 (53:21):
I think that what you said is important because really
what it comes down to is individual responsibility. And it
feels like we are increasingly coming up with reasons why
people are not responsible.

Speaker 2 (53:31):
Here's my concern. When, unfortunately, we see.

Speaker 1 (53:36):
Kids commit suicide in high school, for instance, oftentimes there's
an echo effect. When one kid commits suicide... Unfortunately, several
others often do the media attention, the just, again, sort
of the reverberating impact of this. My concern is something
you just hit on there, Katie, which is other women

(53:59):
out there who might be struggling. See her and see
the way that she is being supported. And I fear
that it makes it more likely that we could see
an echo effect of this similar to what we see
with suicides where other young children are killed because Lindsay Clancy.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
Is in the mind of so many moms out there.

Speaker 10 (54:22):
Absolutely.

Speaker 9 (54:23):
If you look at this pattern on TikTok and I
will not repost it and I will barely even look
at it. But there are videos that are going viral
of accidental suicide. deaths where they're holding a baby doll
and throwing them down the stairs or tripping. And it is,
as a parent, horrifying to even imagine pretending that you

(54:44):
would hurt your child or that you would hurt an
innocent life.

Speaker 10 (54:47):
Nonetheless, these people.

Speaker 9 (54:49):
Are getting viral retweets and feedback and moms are all
recording themselves crying.

Speaker 10 (54:54):
And it's, It is a true online psychosis. This is
not accidental.

Speaker 9 (55:01):
This is what happens when a society starts telling you
from the beginning that abortion is okay up until 41 weeks.

Speaker 10 (55:09):
That's late-term abortion. That child can survive outside.

Speaker 5 (55:11):
Of the womb.

Speaker 10 (55:11):
That just happened in Massachusetts.

Speaker 9 (55:13):
It's no mistake, in my opinion, that we are now facing,
you can kill your three children and we.

Speaker 10 (55:20):
Can exonerate that behavior.

Speaker 9 (55:21):
And then we're going to have viral videos of other
mothers Essentially, buffering that behavior and lightening it by making
a TikTok video to light music of their baby falling
down the stairs that they accidentally dropped.

Speaker 10 (55:35):
This type of stuff has to.

Speaker 9 (55:37):
Be immediately called out and it has to be completely
disregarded in society as what it is.

Speaker 10 (55:44):
Is it sick and toxic?

Speaker 9 (55:46):
And if enough women push against it and enough men
together with women push against it, I think people will
realize that they are on the fringe of society. But
what happens with social media is some little small part
of society puts these viral videos out and it makes
everyone think that everyone's going through this, which a majority
of mothers, look, I have a lot of friends who
have four plus kids, okay?

Speaker 10 (56:08):
I don't know anyone who went through this.

Speaker 9 (56:10):
So to think that this is some mainstream problem, it
is not a mainstream problem and we need to treat
it like the psychosis, toxic ideology, psychotic, toxic ideology that
it is.

Speaker 3 (56:22):
So Katie, where do we go from here? What do
you think the response from those who see this for
what it is? How do you, I just, again, as,
as a mom of four and somebody who I think
very importantly, you pointed out, because this has been my
experience too. This is not a hard partisan separation, right?

(56:43):
There's definitely a hard gender separation overwhelmingly. There are some
men maybe who are more supportive of Lindsay Clancy, but
overwhelmingly it is women. It is not all left-wing women.
There are, I have experienced this, people, women who are
right of center. How do we get back to a
society that would understand unanimously that there's nothing worse than

(57:07):
a situation where a parent kills their own children and
that we all have to be accountable.

Speaker 2 (57:12):
For our actions?

Speaker 5 (57:14):
Right.

Speaker 9 (57:15):
You asked the more than million dollar question here, Buck,
because what I view my responsibility here is to call
out truth and to argue. each component of this reasonably
and intelligently. And where we lost the conversation is when
everyone thinks that they can talk about very complicated legal

(57:36):
topics in a.

Speaker 10 (57:38):
Very lighthearted or let's.

Speaker 9 (57:41):
Just say infused with so much emotion that you actually
don't have any ability to see the legal framework. that,
for instance, these jurors were given beyond a reasonable doubt.

Speaker 10 (57:51):
Everyone thinks that they can talk about capacity.

Speaker 9 (57:54):
Everyone thinks that they can talk about exactly what's happening
in the minds of these jurors or the prosecution or
the defense.

Speaker 10 (58:00):
But the facts are is that this is a very,
I would.

Speaker 9 (58:03):
Say it's straightforward in certain ways legally, but there are
complicated factors when you deal with capacity in the psychiatric
meds and what the defense.

Speaker 10 (58:12):
Argues in the prosecution. But everyone wants to weigh in
on this case, Buck.

Speaker 9 (58:17):
And I think that is also the symptom of having
social media, right? And so what you and Clay are doing,
what I try to do, and what a lot of
other people do, is to contend in the battlefield intelligently, to.

Speaker 10 (58:29):
Provide reasonable arguments.

Speaker 9 (58:33):
You don't have to reasonably argue both sides, but a
lawyer can always go in and say, look, the prosecution
is going to argue this And here are some of
the things that the defense is going to bring up
that's going to make it hard for the prosecution to
get beyond that reasonable doubt. But I'm still not going
to deter from the fact that this woman is guilty
and needs to be held accountable for the death of

(58:53):
her three.

Speaker 10 (58:53):
Children that she caused.

Speaker 9 (58:55):
And I think you just have to be strong and
be willing to take the heat. All of us do
because we cannot let, again, we cannot let this toxic
ideology continue to fester because it will destroy us as
a society. You cannot kill your young children. You cannot
kill the elderly. You have to protect the infirm and
those that cannot protect themselves as a society, or you

(59:17):
are completely lost as a culture. And America needs to
be on the foreground and the forefront of this, Buck,
not in the background wondering what moral baton to hold.

Speaker 3 (59:29):
Katie Zachariah, always great to have you here on the program.
And thank you for bringing your legal perspective, your mom perspective,
and your just human perspective on this.

Speaker 2 (59:37):
Appreciate you.

Speaker 10 (59:37):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (59:41):
I talked to you about it before, guys. I'm talking
about it again.

Speaker 3 (59:44):
On a day like today, I can't imagine a better
way to turn toward the light and away from the
darkness after a trial like this has shaken so many
of us. And it seems like there is a darkness
that is spreading on many, many ways across the country.
You can turn a sword to light with pre-born. Pre-born
is saving babies right now. They have clinics open all

(01:00:06):
over the country and they have a very straightforward and
critical mission. It's to welcome moms to be with open
arms and say, hey, before you make a decision like
abortion for this baby, let's have you meet that baby
via ultrasound. Because over 80% of the time, It's free,
by the way, of course, when that mom has her
free ultrasound. And then it's provided with all the support

(01:00:28):
that pre-born offers for two years after the birth of
the baby as well. It's not just getting it to
actually be born. Then they stick around and they help
for years because they want these women to be able
to build beautiful families and to enjoy the little boy
or little girl that they've brought into this world. But
they need your help. They don't get a single dollar
of taxpayer money. They need you, the pro-life community, to

(01:00:52):
step up. So if you want to be a part
of this mission and help save some tiny babies today,
please support Preborn. A gift of $ 28 would sponsor one ultrasound.
It's 100% tax deductible.

Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
$ 140 would help five moms. Five different mothers with babies
in the womb would come in, meet their baby via ultrasound,
and get that love and support from Preborn. To donate,
use your cell phone and dial pound 250-say-the-keyword-baby. That's pound 250-say-the-word-baby.
Or visit preborn.com slash buck, preborn.com slash B-U-C-K, sponsored by Preborn.

(01:01:31):
When hanging, you're not just learning, you're also laughing.

Speaker 5 (01:01:35):
Playin' buck, just preset them on the IRN app.