September 12, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour 1 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show focuses overwhelmingly on the aftermath of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial verdict, with Clay and Buck delivering an extensive discussion of juror comments, public reaction, media coverage, and broader cultural and political implications surrounding the case. Drawing on newly released interviews with jurors, the hosts sharply criticize the decision to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity and argue that she should have been held criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children. They highlight statements from jurors who criticized the lone holdout favoring conviction, expressing disbelief that fellow jurors viewed his focus on the murders themselves as an obstacle to reaching a verdict. The conversation centers on questions of accountability, criminal justice, the insanity defense, jury deliberations, and whether mental illness should excuse acts of extreme violence.
Throughout the hour, Clay and Buck explore what they view as a significant divide in public opinion over the Lindsay Clancy case. They discuss reactions from listeners, social media users, and jurors, arguing that many supporters of the verdict are motivated more by identification with Clancy as a mother than by the facts of the case. The hosts repeatedly compare the Clancy verdict to the O.J. Simpson trial, suggesting that both cases reveal deeper societal divisions and identity-based reactions to criminal proceedings. They debate whether gender, ideology, and cultural attitudes toward motherhood influenced the outcome and analyze polling data showing stark differences in how Republicans and Democrats view Clancy's guilt.
A major theme of Hour 1 is the hosts' examination of the legal standards surrounding insanity defenses, reasonable doubt, and criminal culpability. Clay argues that the murder of children should be treated as a strict liability offense, eliminating mental-state defenses in such cases. Buck discusses historical uses of the insanity defense and questions whether Clancy's circumstances met the standards traditionally associated with legal insanity. Together, they explore broader questions about personal responsibility, criminal law, sentencing, and how juries evaluate mental health claims in high-profile murder trials.
The discussion also branches into cultural and political analysis as the hosts debate whether ideological beliefs influence how Americans interpret violent crimes. They examine polling data showing partisan differences in perceptions of the verdict and speculate about demographic trends related to gender, political affiliation, and attitudes toward criminal justice. The hosts argue that empathy, identity politics, and shifting views on accountability may be affecting public reactions to criminal cases, particularly those involving mothers and mental health issues.
Later in the hour, listeners call in to offer their perspectives. One caller with personal experience growing up around severe mental illness discusses the complexity of balancing mental health considerations with criminal responsibility and suggests manslaughter as a compromise verdict. Another caller references the classic film 12 Angry Men while discussing jury dynamics and the role of holdout jurors in deliberations. The hosts continue analyzing the composition of the Clancy jury, including the balance of men and women on the panel, and discuss how jury selection procedures may have influenced the trial's outcome.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB -
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in the Wednesday edition. Clay and Buck, appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We have got a
lot to discuss. The midterm convention in Dallas, Texas going
on with President Trump speaking tonight. I am sure we
will touch on that to a certain extent. There are
(00:21):
many stories out there that we will be following, but
the Lindsay Clancy story is Now that the jurors have
spoken is even worse than we might have anticipated. I
didn't expect to hear from the Lindsay Clancy jurors who
believe that she was not guilty by reason of insanity.
(00:43):
I didn't expect that they would be a particularly likable
group or a particularly rational group. But, Buck, as the
jurors have begun to speak, and we have a bunch
of cuts of that, if you have not already heard,
I was just on Fox News with Harris Faulkner, and
I said very much what I usually have said on
(01:05):
this program, which is I think Lindsay Clancy should be
in prison for the rest of her life. And we
talked about strict liability and how I think A parent
killing her kids is the worst thing that can happen,
and I immediately got an email from Suze that I
thought you would appreciate, Buck. You are a disgusting man.
When was your last period? When did you deliver a baby?
(01:29):
A lawyer? Don't think so. A clickbait attention seeker and
butt ugly. That is from Suze. That just came into
my email inbox. Thank you, Suze. I hope you're also
a Clay and Buck listener. as well as a Fox
News viewer. But if you want to adopt this from
(01:49):
a positive perspective, Buck, let me start with this. Can
you imagine the poor bastard who got screamed at for
six straight days by these crazy women who were convinced
that Lindsay Clancy should not be held accountable. Can you
imagine being in that jury room for six days? We'll
(02:12):
play some of the cuts. What you are seeing is
there were actually several people on the jury who initially
believed that she was guilty, but they succumbed to the
power of the browbeating. And as a result, they ended
up changing their opinions. But this brave soul who was
willing to stand up against all of these slings and
(02:36):
arrows for six straight days to avoid her being found
not guilty. Here is some of these jurors speaking out.
This is Kelly Farina, who is angry. He had the
hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed
her children. Do you think? Do you think maybe that
(02:56):
is a significant part of this case? Here's cut one.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I'm not sure if rogue is the right word, Sue,
but every one of us, in the hours of our frustration,
would get up and walk the room. Because you just
couldn't sit anymore. And we'd all go to the cart
with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the
cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat.
He would not interact with us and... Try to understand.
(03:25):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one
day in the end, why don't we have the judge
come in and read it again? And we were like, no,
we have it in front of us. we don't need
that and we would highlight it and you know so
(03:46):
and so this is the definition of reason above but
he had the hardest time getting off the fact that
lindsey viciously killed her children.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
That last line clay is astonishing because it actually summarizes
everything Who is this crazy man who just was so
upset about the premeditated brutal murder of three defenseless children
by their own mother? That's the question that she is asking.
(04:15):
She is mad at the man. She has no rage,
it seems, at all. In fact, nothing but sympathy, perhaps
even a degree of solidarity with Lindsay Clancy. Now, these jurors,
let's just for a moment, on the less serious side
of things... Yes, they look, sound, and think exactly the
(04:37):
way that we all knew they did before we saw
a single one of them emerge from this jury pool.
From the accents straight out of The Departed down to,
which we'd expect Massachusetts, but all the way down to
the way that they seem to be a lifetime like
Marlboro Red Smoking, spinsters, liberals.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
The whole thing, Clay.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Is exactly as the conservative commentariat, and I would just
say the rational same commentariat, had assumed it would be
this whole time. And it also goes to what a
hero this one guy is. You've never really seen people
before in a jury trying so hard to nullify a
(05:25):
fellow juror.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Let's just be clear.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
This is what I was saying, Clay, when the verdict
came down. There's no misconduct here. They keep saying, well,
reasonable doubt. We explained what reasonable doubt is.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
The women on the jury sound like Fauci to me.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
And I say, well, no, he's entitled to his vote,
if you will, on what is and what is not
reasonable doubt. You don't get to. The harpy mob in
that room does not get to just say, do what
we want. And that's very apparent from the interviews that
they've given. And the analysis that you get from the
(06:01):
people in the media on this too, they keep saying, oh,
mental illness has been around for, or the mental illness defense,
insanity defense has been around a long time. People historically
who have used the insanity defense in cases like this
were crazy people for a long, like everyone knew that
they were crazy for a long time. And it was
(06:21):
known that they would be considered crazy afterwards. And yet
here with Lindsay Clancy, we're supposed to think that she
had a momentary triple homicide moment and now she's good.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
That's crazy. Yes. And again, the fact that so many
women and I read that email because I went off
on Fox News about this and I've been talking about
it a lot on this program. We've gotten angry women
calling in and writing. It really is O.J. for white women.
And I think much as the O.J. Simpson case held
(06:55):
up a mirror to society and many of us recoiled
from what it showed, which was there's a substantial percentage
of black people that were willing to let O.J. Simpson
off because they saw it as some sort of connection
of an identity.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
It was a referendum on racism. It was a referendum
on racism. It was payback, actually, was the word that
you were hearing a lot, Clay.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Payback. That's right. And I mean, in fact, when the O.J.
Simpson verdict came down, a couple of different jurors did
a black power sign as if, oh, now we're getting
real justice in America. O.J. brutally murdered a random waiter
and his ex-wife and was found not guilty and had
(07:43):
no consequences despite overwhelming evidence that he did it. Buck,
the O.J. case... had far more reasonable doubt than the
Lindsay Clancy case does. We're not even disputing whether she
murdered her three kids in cold blood. They're just saying
that she was insane. And I think what you're seeing
is a lot of men are looking at the reflection
(08:06):
that it is showing us of women, and they are saying,
my goodness, their psychology right now is darker than we
even anticipated or understood.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
I think what we see with a lot of these,
with these female jurors so far, and I think it
would be the same thing with the rest of them
as they come out. I wonder, as a sidebar here,
I wonder if the other two guys, not the hero,
the other two guys were just so hectored, so completely beleaguered.
I don't think that they're, you know, Lindsay Clancy pink
(08:39):
t-shirt guys.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
They could be.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Those are rare. That's a rare thing. You see the
women outside the courthouse that are screeching in support of
her that.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
We're doing that. You really don't see guys doing that.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Maybe a guy brought there by his crazy wife because he's,
you know, just hanging on by a thread. But back
to the women that we see here, it is, I think,
apparent to people observing this case that there is a
mindset in America. And this is the broader theme. This
isn't just about some women in Massachusetts or one case
or one. There is a subset, the same way there
(09:11):
was with the OJ case, Clay, which I think is
a very important comparison. The OJ case was a super
high profile. People forget also. It was really the first
televised true crime obsession, national media. It was the biggest
news story in the world for a while, for months,
however long that trial went on.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
It really was. People forget, Buck, that also, remember when
they put the war on CNN and that made CNN
the first Gulf War? Yeah. This was the first time
that you could put a trial on television all day
and be able to utilize 24-hour news networks?
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
To propel a narrative. It was a different era. There
had been big crimes and big trials before, but never
before had there been obsession. Every single witness. The 24-7
televised news cycle was a different thing. became famous, and
many of them are still famous. Kato Kaelin was just
the house guest of O.J. Simpson. He became incredibly famous.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
He has a podcast now. I think he follows both
of us on Twitter, by the way. He's actually right-wing.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
We should get him on. Judge Lance Ito. became, remember
they had the dancing Edo's back in the day on
Jay Leno, if I remember correctly. I mean, it was
a social world phenomenon that hadn't occurred before.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
So, so here, but here's the takeaway that people had
from that. And we're going to have a friend, Ann
Coulter on, I think tomorrow. And she was the one
that came up with this initial phrase. And I like
to credit people for, you know, when they have something
that's really, she said that the white guilt bank was
closed after people saw, and I saw this in my school.
a lot of their fellow black Americans running around cheering,
(10:47):
not solemnly declaring. We do believe there was reasonable doubt
in this case. And we're very sorry for the family
of Nicole Brown. And by the way, Ron.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Goldman, who just was there. Yes. Just was there.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
I mean, that was the most powerful thing in the
OJ series. It was actually a good series, whatever it was, when,
when Ron's parents were able to speak to Marsha Clark
and Ron's dad. I mean, that really kind of haunted
me because that never came through that this guy was
just like returning her glasses to her. I mean, you
just happened to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time. And he got his head almost cut off
(11:18):
by this maniac. But Clay, the real sentiment from black
America then, and I got, and this is a generalization.
There were black Americans who were horrified by this. You don't,
you know, I know we have, we have a robust
black audience listens to us right now and they are
with us and they get it. And we're all together
on the constitution in America and everything else. But there
(11:38):
were a lot of black people at the time whose
attitude was, If two white people have to get their
heads basically cut off by O.J. Simpson to have a
conversation about racism, it's worth it. That was really the tone.
That was the feeling. If we get to have now
our national moment where we talk about racism, those people,
(12:01):
their deaths were sacrifices they'll make to the altar. This
is where the really chilling but true Lindsay Clancy thing
comes in. There are a lot of women who seem
to take the who are taking the opinion here that
if three young children had to be brutally strangled to
death by their mother. So we all understand how serious
postpartum is worth it. That is their attitude. That is
(12:24):
what they are expressing and showing outside of that courthouse.
And it is disgusting and it is insane.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Let me also play this cut for you, Buck. This
is the same juror. She says the prosecution didn't even
have any character witnesses talking about Lindsay being a bad mother.
She strangled her children to death. I look at some
of this and I say, well, do they even know
that she was a bad mother? I would submit if
(12:51):
you commit triple murder, that makes you a bad mom, right?
Maybe sometimes you forget about soccer practice and you can
be a good mom and we can debate exactly what
good versus bad mom conduct is. The 9-11 hijackers.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Other than running the planes into the buildings, they were
going to strip clubs. You know, they seem like pretty
normal dudes until they tried to kill thousands or did
kill thousands of people. Austere religious scholars. That was what
they said when the when one of the 9-11 hijackers. No,
that was that was al-Baghdadi when he got killed. New
York Times in his in his. you know, not his epitaph,
(13:27):
what do you call it?
Speaker 1 (13:28):
His... Obituary. Obituary, thank you. Here is one cut. Look,
they're not even talking about the fact that she was
a bad mom. They can't even prove that. Other than
the murder, she was great. How was the play, Mrs. Lincoln,
other than... Cut to... I just found it to be harsh, Sue. Very,
very harsh.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
I mean, again, maybe we're talking with ourselves here, but
the fact that they had no character witnesses... In regard
to Lindsay of being a bad mother, I mean, right
out of the gate, it's like you're presenting all these
medical professionals, but nobody's presenting for the prosecution a woman
(14:09):
and a mother of three children. So I found her
to be biased right out of the gate.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
She murdered them with an exercise band, Buck. Of course
it's going to be biased out of the gate against
the murderer. Like, the prosecution didn't present any character witnesses
to show that she was a bad mom. They don't
have to. She killed her three kids. Whatever your standard
is on motherhood, that is a failure. Some of y'all
(14:38):
have lost your minds. I just, I don't even, I
know I'm going to check my email. Can I tell
you something that I want to share with you real quick, Clay? Yes.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
We have not gotten a single one man in this
audience email call, talk, anything, disagreeing with us.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Not one. Good point. Every now and then you need
to do a value audit on the companies you rely on.
Are you getting the best service? Are you getting the
best value? How about starting with your cell phone service?
Is there a better option? Is there something that you
can do that would make a lot of sense? Well,
How about checking out Pure Talk? Five stars in every category, coverage, support, value, data,
(15:23):
plus incredible opportunity right now. You only pay $ 15 a
month for the first three months. That's $ 45 total for
your cell phone package. And it can continue from there.
It's only $ 34. 99 for unlimited data, call, and text. Think
about that. Even when the $ 15 offer ends, $ 34. 99, unlimited data, calls,
(15:47):
and text. Here's how you switch. You can keep your
same phone and your same phone number. All you have
to do is go pound 250 and say our names,
Clay and Buck. That is pound 250 from your cell
phone right now, $ 15 a month for the next three months.
$ 34. 99 a month after that. Unlimited data, unlimited text, and calls.
(16:10):
That's a phenomenal value. If you're paying more than $ 34. 99
a month, you're paying too much. That's Pure Talk, five-star U.S.
customer service. Pound 250, say Clay and Buck. That's pound 250,
say Clay and Buck. Laugh, learn, and hang with the guys.
Clay and Buck. Preset on the iHeart app.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Welcome back here to Clay and Buck. We got some
calls coming in, Clay. I don't want to give any
of them short shrift, so we can do them on
the flip side here and have a conversation with people
about this. I think this is still certainly the subject
that has people the most... passionate right now on one
(16:54):
side or the other in the news cycle. I think
people are finding themselves.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Kind of shocked at the opinions that they don't agree
with on this.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Another thing, Clay, that you should speak to or that
I'm going to ask you to speak to is this
stuff about the women on the Lindsay Clancy jury finding
Kevin Reddington so charming and whimsical and fantastic, like he's
there for their entertainment. This is the same attorney, I
might add, who said publicly, he was on TV, that
(17:26):
he thought Donald Trump should consider a pardon, which is
that just meant to. taint the jury pool further by
suggesting that that could even be under consideration? I mean,
what is that maneuver of saying Trump won't do it,
couldn't do it, and there's not even a verdict, so
why would we go.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
There, Clay? The only thing I can say charitably to
him is he is hearing discussions that there might be
federal charges brought. That's the only thing I can think of. Well,
I mean, that would be an interesting one. That's something
that I hadn't even considered.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Back in the day, having the right gear at home
when severe weather hits might have been flashlights and batteries. Today,
Rapid Radios has to be part of your preparedness kit.
Rapid Radios are rugged emergency communication devices built for the
moments that matter most. Operating over nationwide LTE networks, they
deliver instant push-to-talk communication coast-to-coast so you can check in.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
With everyone at once.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Engineered to withstand extreme conditions, these waterproof radios have long
battery life, clear audio, and dependable range. Whether coordinating with
neighbors or checking on family states away, connection is instantaneous.
Rapid radios are turnkey, right out of the box, no contracts,
no setup. They're the new standard in emergency and operational readiness.
For a limited time, go to rapidradios.com. You'll get up
to 60% off and free shipping from Michigan. Add code BUCK,
(18:43):
you'll get an extra 5% off. They're super handy to
have for all kinds of things, but you've got to
have them to be prepared for when the lights go
out and things get tough. RapidRadios.com for 60% off and
Code Buck for an extra 5% off.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
We've got loaded lines, 800-282-2882. I see right now, looking
at my quad box, when I was just on with
Harris Faulkner, the lead story on Fox News. Travis, hold
out Clancy jury as a hero. I'm fine with that headline.
You see your name on the screen. You're hoping that
(19:19):
the next quote right after it is not going to
be claims DUI was unjustified or something negative. A juror
is a hero who wanted to convict Lindsay Clancy. I'm
okay with that headline. This is a headline. Clay Travis,
anti-murder and defends children. Yes. That's it. This is good.
That's what I can roll with. Good place to be.
(19:40):
All right. We got a bunch of calls. I'm going
to get to them and talk backs and everything else, Buck.
But I wanted to hit you with this. I saw
this coming down.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
Poll.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Should Lindsey Clinton... be found guilty by political party? Now,
I would like to see it by gender, too. The
crosstabs on gender here. Republicans say by a 61 to
13 margin, Lindsey Clancy should have been found guilty of murder.
61-13 with people, others, not sure, not following the case.
(20:13):
So 61-13, that's not about right to you, Buck? 61-13,
I mean, that doesn't stand out to me as stunning. Democrat.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
61-13 and then there was just everyone else had no
opinion was the. Or was like confused probably about. So
they don't have. Only 13% of Republicans thinking that she
should have been found not guilty. That's I would have
thought the other number would be a little higher, quite honestly,
on the 60 something percent.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
I would have thought it was more like 80. But yes,
within the realm for sure. By the way, nationwide, 46% guilty, 21%
not guilty. So, and then again, that would be what
the math, a lot of people not necessarily that plugged
in would be my guess on having an opinion on this. Democrats,
(20:58):
34 to 31 guilty. Nearly 50-50 on is Lindsay Clancy
guilty of murder for strangling her children? why are Democrats
the party of psychotic killers?
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Like if someone's going to defend a psychotic killer, uh,
in general and try to, it's always going to be
overwhelmingly Democrats who like, if there's a monster in our society,
if somebody has been possessed by the demonic and done
the worst possible thing, you're going to find more Democrats
that are like, eh, he's not that bad where she's
not that bad.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
I think, I mean, in a dark way, I can
give you two hypotheses. One is, um, This is what
happens when you don't believe in personal responsibility. It extends
across all facets of life. And so you're willing to
accept excuses even for the most heinous of behaviors. That's
(21:50):
probably the most likely, I think, hypothesis for what's going on.
The second one is Democrats are willing to, I think,
extend empathy. This is a more favorable, I think, explanation.
to things that are unwilling or unjustifiable for your empathy.
(22:11):
In other words, they are willing to see a positive
in even the worst thing, and so they will extend
their empathy.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
So I actually said this goes to the toxic or
suicidal empathy concept, which I would say, Clay, what you
have with a lot of these Democrats is that they–
As a virtue signal, meaning as an act of personal
branding and personal, oh, I'm such a good person idea,
(22:45):
they will extend excessive and performative sympathy, empathy, whatever, to
the worst possible people in the worst possible situations. not
because they really care about that person and the victims
of that person and all the rest of it, but
because they can sit around with their with their clutch
(23:08):
of fellow Lindsay Clancy juror types. And in between knitting and,
you know, fashion and wind chimes together are going to
sit there and say, hey, you know what?
Speaker 1 (23:22):
We're such good people. We even support Lindsay Clancy. I
think there's also darker elements afoot here, Buck. One is
basically some Democrats have bought into the idea that children
are the personal possession of the murder of the mother. Yes.
And if she wants to murder them, that's her right. Yeah,
that's scary. That's dark. Here's another dark thought. I think that.
(23:45):
And this is probably going to be one that that
really gets people fired up. I think we have such
a medicated society. I think that there are an evil
is so endemic across much of life. I think there's
lots of moms that have thought about killing their kids.
And I think one reason they are empathetic for Lindsay
(24:06):
Clancy is because they think in the back of their mind,
but for something that could have been me. I think
a lot of men find that very difficult to even comprehend.
You're a new dad, Buck. At no point in my
life have I ever thought anything like that as a father.
(24:28):
And so, I mean, I think all the time, as
every parent does, about people doing things to my children. Now,
that doesn't mean I haven't gotten frustrated and been like, oh,
my goodness, you morons. I can't believe you just did this.
What are you thinking? Like the normal parts of being
a parent, I think every parent has experienced. I see
this Lindsay Clancy case, and I think on some level,
(24:49):
how many of these women that are showing up to
cheer her have all– I mean, we talked about this
a little bit, but I would echo it. If my
son were dating a girl who was a super Lindsay
Clancy supporter, I would tell him to break up with her. Yeah,
I would agree with you.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
And I'm not somebody that does the separate people by
their views and romantically pick based on some kind of
a litmus test. I do think you want shared value. Usually,
I would say, not on one specific thing, but on values,
you do have to have alignment. I kind of agree
with AOC on that, actually. On values, when it comes
to dating, you have to have alignment. She said she
(25:27):
would not date a conservative. What you just said, by
the way, about the opinions of Of women is the
that is that a lot of women have that may
be the single darkest and bleakest thing that we've ever
considered on the show.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
I just I mean, it is dark, but I just
look at it. I mean, most people who have empathy,
usually the reason why there is an empathy that is
allowed to be in some way captivated or taken and captured.
is because there is some scintilla of your brain that
has felt an emotion or an experience that is similar
(26:01):
to what that person is.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Well, this is where the solidarity thing starts to creep up,
and you say that there are a lot of these
women who keep saying, you don't understand postpartum, and this,
you don't understand, and this is why I brought up
the PTSD issue for, because guess what, ladies? You don't
understand what it is to be in combat and see
people blown apart in front of you who were your
closest friends in the whole world, and you know, and yet,
you can sit on a jury of somebody. Well, it
(26:24):
depends if they're under UCMJ, you'd have to be in
the military. But the point is no one says you're
not allowed to have an opinion about what some, and
by the way, they wouldn't be under UCMJ if they
came back with PTSD and they're a civilian, they would
just be a civilian. So no one would say to them,
you can't have an opinion on what a veteran. And
there have been these cases to be clear. They're rare,
but there have been cases where a veteran has gone
into basically a PTSD and dose induced psychosis. And, um,
(26:47):
They go to prison and or get executed generally. If anything,
it can be used as a mitigating. Now, a mitigating
factor in sentencing is different than you're not guilty. It's
not your fault. You didn't do a bad thing here.
We're not going to punish you as severely because you
weren't as guilty. And this gets into your whole mens
rea concept and everything else. But can I just add
one thing that's less bleak? I just wanted to say this.
(27:09):
You're a dad. You're a dad of three boys. I'm
a dad of one boy, and we're hoping to have more.
boys or girls um and i would just say i
would like to think clay that under fire i would
give my life for a for a fellow soldier if
i and i've never served in the military as the
cia took some minimal risks in war minimal risks in
(27:33):
war zones for the cia i don't ever pretend like
it was more than that but i tried to serve
in the way that i could i'd like to think
that I would step up for a fellow soldier. Well,
I would like to believe that. I mean, I would
say I would, but you don't know until you're in
that moment.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Would you do it?
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I would feel also like I would step up if
there were an active shooter situation. I can still carry
sometimes in Miami. I'm handy with a pistol. I've trained
a lot now. I'd like to think that I would
step up and put myself in harm's way to save
other people. I have zero doubt in my mind that
I would give my life to protect my son. It's
not a brag. It's not boasting. All the dads listening,
(28:10):
you know exactly what I'm talking about. I would give
my life to protect my son without, I mean, just automatically.
And I can't say the other things are automatic. I'd
like to think that I would step up, but you
don't know courage, but it's different. As a dad, I
would do it instantaneously, not think twice. And I know
you feel the same way.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Yeah, 100%. And I think that's why so many men
just look at this and say, I can't believe this
is the mirror that we are seeing of what women think.
I would like to say I gave you the Republican
Democrat breakdown on Lindsay Clancy. I'd like to see the men, women.
Because I think men, it would be 95% guilty. I
(28:49):
think women, it's like 50-50. And that's dark because based
on these numbers. Let me also tell you something else.
Everybody out there says, you don't know what it's like.
The woman that sent me the angry email after the
Fox News hit, you don't know what it's like to
be a woman. It's all true. The entire basis of
having a jury of your peers is that you don't
(29:10):
have to be the exact same as the person to
understand what justice is. The entire reason why Lady Justice
is blind and has the scales of justice is because
you're supposed to be able to render justice without looking
at who the individual is. And seeing him or her
(29:31):
as a reflection of you, that's not justice. That's just
you choosing to treat someone differently based on your own
life experience, which is actually the opposite of what justice
should be. So everybody out there who's trying to argue, Oh,
you get men can't even make a decision. Here's the concern.
And we'll get some of these calls here. My concern
(29:52):
buck is I don't think there's a jury in Massachusetts
that can convict this woman because I don't think there's
a jury of women who that will convict her in Massachusetts.
I think you could convict her in Alabama. I think
you could convict her in Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Utah. I
think there's lots of places out there, red states, where
you would get a conviction. I'm not sure you could
(30:13):
convict her anywhere in a blue state in America right now.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
I've got to tell you something. Just to draw a
political inference out of this, I know people say, oh,
it's a million miles away in terms of politics and
when it's going to happen, everything else.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
This may make people think a little bit differently.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And I mean, Democrats may think a little bit differently
about having a woman at the top of the ticket.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
This is my wife's argument, Buck. I didn't really think
about it until she started making the argument. My son's
looking at the TikToks defending Lindsay Clancy for the younger
people out there. This is the worst look I think
possible for women from a male perspective looking at women.
(31:00):
And those jurors, I mean, they look exactly like what
you and I, if we sketched out what the jurors
would look like who do not want to have Lindsay
Clancy held accountable, it would be a bunch of post-menopausal
left-wing women That's what it was. At least that's who's
speaking so far. And they sound just like what you
would expect them to sound.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
They are the they are the indoctrinated, ultra feminist generation
that believe these lies made terrible choices for themselves. Yes,
I'm generalizing, but these generalizations exist for a reason. And
now they want to see that ideology in some way vindicated.
And that's that's the only way that I could. Anyway,
(31:40):
we'll take your calls on this. And we had somebody
who was a guy who actually wanted to call in
and disagree with us and said he was a medical professional.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
So please call back. We would like to have that conversation.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
We've only had women disagreeing with our– by the way,
we have a lot of women who agree with us,
to be clear. In our audience, what do you think
is the female agreement with the line that you and
I share on this? I would say 60-40 in our favor.
I was going to say 75-25.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
I think in this audience– and this audience is what, 75% male?
It's like 100% male agreement. And I would say probably 75,
25 women. And you may be right. It may be
closer to 60, 40.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
But let's take any of the– if you're a guy
who wants to disagree with us, please, please call in.
You can hand in your man card as soon as
Producer Greg picks up the phone.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
All right.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Every scam call, every scam text, every sketchy email with
your name attached, each one starts with the same way
somebody found you. Your phone number sitting on data broker
sites right now shows your home address, age, and even
the names of your family members. It's searchable, and it's
for sale. Scammers get access to this stuff easily, and
then you're a target. Every scam starts with this stuff.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
How do you work against it? Incogni.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Incogni makes this information online disappear. Online service that helps
you remove your name and info from databases of hundreds
of data brokers. Clay and I both are on Incogni
because of this. We love our privacy. We hate spam calls,
and we certainly hate scammers. And we use Incogni to
contact hundreds of these online sites and legally force them
to remove your information. And when new brokers pop up,
(33:10):
Incogni finds those too. They can't scam you if they
can't find you. Right now, get 60% off with Incogni.com
slash buck. That's spelled I-N-C-O-G-N-I, Incogni. Dot com slash buck.
Take your privacy back. Incogni dot com slash buck for 60% off.
Speaker 5 (33:29):
Level up your brain and balance out your day with
the right amount of information and entertainment. Clay Travis and
Buck Sexton on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
App or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back in
to Clay and Buck. Getting lit up on this one.
A lot of calls. A lot of talkbacks. Let's do it.
Let's do this.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Alan, in Kentucky, we got a guy who wants to
weigh in on this with a little bit of a
different take.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
What's going on, Alan?
Speaker 6 (33:58):
Yeah, so I grew up with two parents that are
both paranoid schizophrenic. And so, you know, for me, like,
I can see an argument from both sides, you know.
Was she over-medicated? Very possibly. You know, did that help
contribute to things?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Maybe.
Speaker 6 (34:17):
But on the flip side, like, you also have to
realize she was a nurse, you know, so she sort
of knows like what to do, what to say, what to,
you know, sort of like look at and different things and,
and what to sort of nuance as far as, you know, well,
(34:37):
what do I need to do in order to make
myself look like I was mentally unstable or mentally insane
when I did this act?
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Alan, what would you, what would you have voted if
you were on the jury?
Speaker 6 (34:49):
I would have voted for the compromise, you know, manslaughter.
I would have said, you know, she's guilty of manslaughter
because there was too many factors in both ways for
me to say, yes, she's totally guilty of like, you know,
murder one, you know, but yet, you know, there wasn't
(35:10):
enough on the flip side to say, hey, she's totally
not guilty and totally off the hook.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Thank you for the call. I just.
We would eliminate all of this discussion. There's lots of
state legislators who listen to us. Make murder of children
a strict liability crime. If you murder children, your mental
state doesn't matter, period. That seems like a very rational
(35:37):
thing to do in response to this so that the
debate isn't, oh, what's her mental capacity? There's no denying
she did it. Rudy in Indiana with an interesting take. Rudy,
fire away.
Speaker 4 (35:50):
Yeah, I want to put a plug in for the
movie before we get started on 12 Angry Men back
in the 1950s. Classic, but it was the other way
around where Eleven wanted to convict and one held out. Anyway,
I have to wonder if the prosecutor did an injustice
(36:16):
to society by not holding out for an even split 50-50.
We'll never know if the other two male.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
Jurors Yeah, we're coming up on, you're asking a good question, Rudy.
This was nine women, three men. Now, jury selection oftentimes
is a random chance, and you only get so many strikes.
I'll look up during the break, Buck, what the rules
are of Massachusetts jury selection, because I do think that
(36:47):
matters tremendously here. Why do you?
Welcome in the Wednesday edition. Clay and Buck, appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We have got a
lot to discuss. The midterm convention in Dallas, Texas going
on with President Trump speaking tonight. I am sure we
will touch on that to a certain extent. There are
(00:21):
many stories out there that we will be following, but
the Lindsay Clancy story is Now that the jurors have
spoken is even worse than we might have anticipated. I
didn't expect to hear from the Lindsay Clancy jurors who
believe that she was not guilty by reason of insanity.
(00:43):
I didn't expect that they would be a particularly likable
group or a particularly rational group. But, Buck, as the
jurors have begun to speak, and we have a bunch
of cuts of that, if you have not already heard,
I was just on Fox News with Harris Faulkner, and
I said very much what I usually have said on
(01:05):
this program, which is I think Lindsay Clancy should be
in prison for the rest of her life. And we
talked about strict liability and how I think A parent
killing her kids is the worst thing that can happen,
and I immediately got an email from Suze that I
thought you would appreciate, Buck. You are a disgusting man.
When was your last period? When did you deliver a baby?
(01:29):
A lawyer? Don't think so. A clickbait attention seeker and
butt ugly. That is from Suze. That just came into
my email inbox. Thank you, Suze. I hope you're also
a Clay and Buck listener. as well as a Fox
News viewer. But if you want to adopt this from
(01:49):
a positive perspective, Buck, let me start with this. Can
you imagine the poor bastard who got screamed at for
six straight days by these crazy women who were convinced
that Lindsay Clancy should not be held accountable. Can you
imagine being in that jury room for six days? We'll
(02:12):
play some of the cuts. What you are seeing is
there were actually several people on the jury who initially
believed that she was guilty, but they succumbed to the
power of the browbeating. And as a result, they ended
up changing their opinions. But this brave soul who was
willing to stand up against all of these slings and
(02:36):
arrows for six straight days to avoid her being found
not guilty. Here is some of these jurors speaking out.
This is Kelly Farina, who is angry. He had the
hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed
her children. Do you think? Do you think maybe that
(02:56):
is a significant part of this case? Here's cut one.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I'm not sure if rogue is the right word, Sue,
but every one of us, in the hours of our frustration,
would get up and walk the room. Because you just
couldn't sit anymore. And we'd all go to the cart
with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the
cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat.
He would not interact with us and... Try to understand.
(03:25):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one
day in the end, why don't we have the judge
come in and read it again? And we were like, no,
we have it in front of us. we don't need
that and we would highlight it and you know so
(03:46):
and so this is the definition of reason above but
he had the hardest time getting off the fact that
lindsey viciously killed her children.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
That last line clay is astonishing because it actually summarizes
everything Who is this crazy man who just was so
upset about the premeditated brutal murder of three defenseless children
by their own mother? That's the question that she is asking.
(04:15):
She is mad at the man. She has no rage,
it seems, at all. In fact, nothing but sympathy, perhaps
even a degree of solidarity with Lindsay Clancy. Now, these jurors,
let's just for a moment, on the less serious side
of things... Yes, they look, sound, and think exactly the
(04:37):
way that we all knew they did before we saw
a single one of them emerge from this jury pool.
From the accents straight out of The Departed down to,
which we'd expect Massachusetts, but all the way down to
the way that they seem to be a lifetime like
Marlboro Red Smoking, spinsters, liberals.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
The whole thing, Clay.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
Is exactly as the conservative commentariat, and I would just
say the rational same commentariat, had assumed it would be
this whole time. And it also goes to what a
hero this one guy is. You've never really seen people
before in a jury trying so hard to nullify a
(05:25):
fellow juror.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Let's just be clear.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
This is what I was saying, Clay, when the verdict
came down. There's no misconduct here. They keep saying, well,
reasonable doubt. We explained what reasonable doubt is.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
The women on the jury sound like Fauci to me.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
And I say, well, no, he's entitled to his vote,
if you will, on what is and what is not
reasonable doubt. You don't get to. The harpy mob in
that room does not get to just say, do what
we want. And that's very apparent from the interviews that
they've given. And the analysis that you get from the
(06:01):
people in the media on this too, they keep saying, oh,
mental illness has been around for, or the mental illness defense,
insanity defense has been around a long time. People historically
who have used the insanity defense in cases like this
were crazy people for a long, like everyone knew that
they were crazy for a long time. And it was
(06:21):
known that they would be considered crazy afterwards. And yet
here with Lindsay Clancy, we're supposed to think that she
had a momentary triple homicide moment and now she's good.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
That's crazy. Yes. And again, the fact that so many
women and I read that email because I went off
on Fox News about this and I've been talking about
it a lot on this program. We've gotten angry women
calling in and writing. It really is O.J. for white women.
And I think much as the O.J. Simpson case held
(06:55):
up a mirror to society and many of us recoiled
from what it showed, which was there's a substantial percentage
of black people that were willing to let O.J. Simpson
off because they saw it as some sort of connection
of an identity.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
It was a referendum on racism. It was a referendum
on racism. It was payback, actually, was the word that
you were hearing a lot, Clay.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Payback. That's right. And I mean, in fact, when the O.J.
Simpson verdict came down, a couple of different jurors did
a black power sign as if, oh, now we're getting
real justice in America. O.J. brutally murdered a random waiter
and his ex-wife and was found not guilty and had
(07:43):
no consequences despite overwhelming evidence that he did it. Buck,
the O.J. case... had far more reasonable doubt than the
Lindsay Clancy case does. We're not even disputing whether she
murdered her three kids in cold blood. They're just saying
that she was insane. And I think what you're seeing
is a lot of men are looking at the reflection
(08:06):
that it is showing us of women, and they are saying,
my goodness, their psychology right now is darker than we
even anticipated or understood.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
I think what we see with a lot of these,
with these female jurors so far, and I think it
would be the same thing with the rest of them
as they come out. I wonder, as a sidebar here,
I wonder if the other two guys, not the hero,
the other two guys were just so hectored, so completely beleaguered.
I don't think that they're, you know, Lindsay Clancy pink
(08:39):
t-shirt guys.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
They could be.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Those are rare. That's a rare thing. You see the
women outside the courthouse that are screeching in support of
her that.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
We're doing that. You really don't see guys doing that.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Maybe a guy brought there by his crazy wife because he's,
you know, just hanging on by a thread. But back
to the women that we see here, it is, I think,
apparent to people observing this case that there is a
mindset in America. And this is the broader theme. This
isn't just about some women in Massachusetts or one case
or one. There is a subset, the same way there
(09:11):
was with the OJ case, Clay, which I think is
a very important comparison. The OJ case was a super
high profile. People forget also. It was really the first
televised true crime obsession, national media. It was the biggest
news story in the world for a while, for months,
however long that trial went on.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
It really was. People forget, Buck, that also, remember when
they put the war on CNN and that made CNN
the first Gulf War? Yeah. This was the first time
that you could put a trial on television all day
and be able to utilize 24-hour news networks?
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
To propel a narrative. It was a different era. There
had been big crimes and big trials before, but never
before had there been obsession. Every single witness. The 24-7
televised news cycle was a different thing. became famous, and
many of them are still famous. Kato Kaelin was just
the house guest of O.J. Simpson. He became incredibly famous.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
He has a podcast now. I think he follows both
of us on Twitter, by the way. He's actually right-wing.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
We should get him on. Judge Lance Ito. became, remember
they had the dancing Edo's back in the day on
Jay Leno, if I remember correctly. I mean, it was
a social world phenomenon that hadn't occurred before.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
So, so here, but here's the takeaway that people had
from that. And we're going to have a friend, Ann
Coulter on, I think tomorrow. And she was the one
that came up with this initial phrase. And I like
to credit people for, you know, when they have something
that's really, she said that the white guilt bank was
closed after people saw, and I saw this in my school.
a lot of their fellow black Americans running around cheering,
(10:47):
not solemnly declaring. We do believe there was reasonable doubt
in this case. And we're very sorry for the family
of Nicole Brown. And by the way, Ron.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Goldman, who just was there. Yes. Just was there.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
I mean, that was the most powerful thing in the
OJ series. It was actually a good series, whatever it was, when,
when Ron's parents were able to speak to Marsha Clark
and Ron's dad. I mean, that really kind of haunted
me because that never came through that this guy was
just like returning her glasses to her. I mean, you
just happened to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time. And he got his head almost cut off
(11:18):
by this maniac. But Clay, the real sentiment from black
America then, and I got, and this is a generalization.
There were black Americans who were horrified by this. You don't,
you know, I know we have, we have a robust
black audience listens to us right now and they are
with us and they get it. And we're all together
on the constitution in America and everything else. But there
(11:38):
were a lot of black people at the time whose
attitude was, If two white people have to get their
heads basically cut off by O.J. Simpson to have a
conversation about racism, it's worth it. That was really the tone.
That was the feeling. If we get to have now
our national moment where we talk about racism, those people,
(12:01):
their deaths were sacrifices they'll make to the altar. This
is where the really chilling but true Lindsay Clancy thing
comes in. There are a lot of women who seem
to take the who are taking the opinion here that
if three young children had to be brutally strangled to
death by their mother. So we all understand how serious
postpartum is worth it. That is their attitude. That is
(12:24):
what they are expressing and showing outside of that courthouse.
And it is disgusting and it is insane.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Let me also play this cut for you, Buck. This
is the same juror. She says the prosecution didn't even
have any character witnesses talking about Lindsay being a bad mother.
She strangled her children to death. I look at some
of this and I say, well, do they even know
that she was a bad mother? I would submit if
(12:51):
you commit triple murder, that makes you a bad mom, right?
Maybe sometimes you forget about soccer practice and you can
be a good mom and we can debate exactly what
good versus bad mom conduct is. The 9-11 hijackers.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Other than running the planes into the buildings, they were
going to strip clubs. You know, they seem like pretty
normal dudes until they tried to kill thousands or did
kill thousands of people. Austere religious scholars. That was what
they said when the when one of the 9-11 hijackers. No,
that was that was al-Baghdadi when he got killed. New
York Times in his in his. you know, not his epitaph,
(13:27):
what do you call it?
Speaker 1 (13:28):
His... Obituary. Obituary, thank you. Here is one cut. Look,
they're not even talking about the fact that she was
a bad mom. They can't even prove that. Other than
the murder, she was great. How was the play, Mrs. Lincoln,
other than... Cut to... I just found it to be harsh, Sue. Very,
very harsh.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
I mean, again, maybe we're talking with ourselves here, but
the fact that they had no character witnesses... In regard
to Lindsay of being a bad mother, I mean, right
out of the gate, it's like you're presenting all these
medical professionals, but nobody's presenting for the prosecution a woman
(14:09):
and a mother of three children. So I found her
to be biased right out of the gate.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
She murdered them with an exercise band, Buck. Of course
it's going to be biased out of the gate against
the murderer. Like, the prosecution didn't present any character witnesses
to show that she was a bad mom. They don't
have to. She killed her three kids. Whatever your standard
is on motherhood, that is a failure. Some of y'all
(14:38):
have lost your minds. I just, I don't even, I
know I'm going to check my email. Can I tell
you something that I want to share with you real quick, Clay? Yes.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
We have not gotten a single one man in this
audience email call, talk, anything, disagreeing with us.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Not one. Good point. Every now and then you need
to do a value audit on the companies you rely on.
Are you getting the best service? Are you getting the
best value? How about starting with your cell phone service?
Is there a better option? Is there something that you
can do that would make a lot of sense? Well,
How about checking out Pure Talk? Five stars in every category, coverage, support, value, data,
(15:23):
plus incredible opportunity right now. You only pay $ 15 a
month for the first three months. That's $ 45 total for
your cell phone package. And it can continue from there.
It's only $ 34. 99 for unlimited data, call, and text. Think
about that. Even when the $ 15 offer ends, $ 34. 99, unlimited data, calls,
(15:47):
and text. Here's how you switch. You can keep your
same phone and your same phone number. All you have
to do is go pound 250 and say our names,
Clay and Buck. That is pound 250 from your cell
phone right now, $ 15 a month for the next three months.
$ 34. 99 a month after that. Unlimited data, unlimited text, and calls.
(16:10):
That's a phenomenal value. If you're paying more than $ 34. 99
a month, you're paying too much. That's Pure Talk, five-star U.S.
customer service. Pound 250, say Clay and Buck. That's pound 250,
say Clay and Buck. Laugh, learn, and hang with the guys.
Clay and Buck. Preset on the iHeart app.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Welcome back here to Clay and Buck. We got some
calls coming in, Clay. I don't want to give any
of them short shrift, so we can do them on
the flip side here and have a conversation with people
about this. I think this is still certainly the subject
that has people the most... passionate right now on one
(16:54):
side or the other in the news cycle. I think
people are finding themselves.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Kind of shocked at the opinions that they don't agree
with on this.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Another thing, Clay, that you should speak to or that
I'm going to ask you to speak to is this
stuff about the women on the Lindsay Clancy jury finding
Kevin Reddington so charming and whimsical and fantastic, like he's
there for their entertainment. This is the same attorney, I
might add, who said publicly, he was on TV, that
(17:26):
he thought Donald Trump should consider a pardon, which is
that just meant to. taint the jury pool further by
suggesting that that could even be under consideration? I mean,
what is that maneuver of saying Trump won't do it,
couldn't do it, and there's not even a verdict, so
why would we go.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
There, Clay? The only thing I can say charitably to
him is he is hearing discussions that there might be
federal charges brought. That's the only thing I can think of. Well,
I mean, that would be an interesting one. That's something
that I hadn't even considered.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Back in the day, having the right gear at home
when severe weather hits might have been flashlights and batteries. Today,
Rapid Radios has to be part of your preparedness kit.
Rapid Radios are rugged emergency communication devices built for the
moments that matter most. Operating over nationwide LTE networks, they
deliver instant push-to-talk communication coast-to-coast so you can check in.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
With everyone at once.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Engineered to withstand extreme conditions, these waterproof radios have long
battery life, clear audio, and dependable range. Whether coordinating with
neighbors or checking on family states away, connection is instantaneous.
Rapid radios are turnkey, right out of the box, no contracts,
no setup. They're the new standard in emergency and operational readiness.
For a limited time, go to rapidradios.com. You'll get up
to 60% off and free shipping from Michigan. Add code BUCK,
(18:43):
you'll get an extra 5% off. They're super handy to
have for all kinds of things, but you've got to
have them to be prepared for when the lights go
out and things get tough. RapidRadios.com for 60% off and
Code Buck for an extra 5% off.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
We've got loaded lines, 800-282-2882. I see right now, looking
at my quad box, when I was just on with
Harris Faulkner, the lead story on Fox News. Travis, hold
out Clancy jury as a hero. I'm fine with that headline.
You see your name on the screen. You're hoping that
(19:19):
the next quote right after it is not going to
be claims DUI was unjustified or something negative. A juror
is a hero who wanted to convict Lindsay Clancy. I'm
okay with that headline. This is a headline. Clay Travis,
anti-murder and defends children. Yes. That's it. This is good.
That's what I can roll with. Good place to be.
(19:40):
All right. We got a bunch of calls. I'm going
to get to them and talk backs and everything else, Buck.
But I wanted to hit you with this. I saw
this coming down.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
Poll.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Should Lindsey Clinton... be found guilty by political party? Now,
I would like to see it by gender, too. The
crosstabs on gender here. Republicans say by a 61 to
13 margin, Lindsey Clancy should have been found guilty of murder.
61-13 with people, others, not sure, not following the case.
(20:13):
So 61-13, that's not about right to you, Buck? 61-13,
I mean, that doesn't stand out to me as stunning. Democrat.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
61-13 and then there was just everyone else had no
opinion was the. Or was like confused probably about. So
they don't have. Only 13% of Republicans thinking that she
should have been found not guilty. That's I would have
thought the other number would be a little higher, quite honestly,
on the 60 something percent.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
I would have thought it was more like 80. But yes,
within the realm for sure. By the way, nationwide, 46% guilty, 21%
not guilty. So, and then again, that would be what
the math, a lot of people not necessarily that plugged
in would be my guess on having an opinion on this. Democrats,
(20:58):
34 to 31 guilty. Nearly 50-50 on is Lindsay Clancy
guilty of murder for strangling her children? why are Democrats
the party of psychotic killers?
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Like if someone's going to defend a psychotic killer, uh,
in general and try to, it's always going to be
overwhelmingly Democrats who like, if there's a monster in our society,
if somebody has been possessed by the demonic and done
the worst possible thing, you're going to find more Democrats
that are like, eh, he's not that bad where she's
not that bad.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
I think, I mean, in a dark way, I can
give you two hypotheses. One is, um, This is what
happens when you don't believe in personal responsibility. It extends
across all facets of life. And so you're willing to
accept excuses even for the most heinous of behaviors. That's
(21:50):
probably the most likely, I think, hypothesis for what's going on.
The second one is Democrats are willing to, I think,
extend empathy. This is a more favorable, I think, explanation.
to things that are unwilling or unjustifiable for your empathy.
(22:11):
In other words, they are willing to see a positive
in even the worst thing, and so they will extend
their empathy.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
So I actually said this goes to the toxic or
suicidal empathy concept, which I would say, Clay, what you
have with a lot of these Democrats is that they–
As a virtue signal, meaning as an act of personal
branding and personal, oh, I'm such a good person idea,
(22:45):
they will extend excessive and performative sympathy, empathy, whatever, to
the worst possible people in the worst possible situations. not
because they really care about that person and the victims
of that person and all the rest of it, but
because they can sit around with their with their clutch
(23:08):
of fellow Lindsay Clancy juror types. And in between knitting and,
you know, fashion and wind chimes together are going to
sit there and say, hey, you know what?
Speaker 1 (23:22):
We're such good people. We even support Lindsay Clancy. I
think there's also darker elements afoot here, Buck. One is
basically some Democrats have bought into the idea that children
are the personal possession of the murder of the mother. Yes.
And if she wants to murder them, that's her right. Yeah,
that's scary. That's dark. Here's another dark thought. I think that.
(23:45):
And this is probably going to be one that that
really gets people fired up. I think we have such
a medicated society. I think that there are an evil
is so endemic across much of life. I think there's
lots of moms that have thought about killing their kids.
And I think one reason they are empathetic for Lindsay
(24:06):
Clancy is because they think in the back of their mind,
but for something that could have been me. I think
a lot of men find that very difficult to even comprehend.
You're a new dad, Buck. At no point in my
life have I ever thought anything like that as a father.
(24:28):
And so, I mean, I think all the time, as
every parent does, about people doing things to my children. Now,
that doesn't mean I haven't gotten frustrated and been like, oh,
my goodness, you morons. I can't believe you just did this.
What are you thinking? Like the normal parts of being
a parent, I think every parent has experienced. I see
this Lindsay Clancy case, and I think on some level,
(24:49):
how many of these women that are showing up to
cheer her have all– I mean, we talked about this
a little bit, but I would echo it. If my
son were dating a girl who was a super Lindsay
Clancy supporter, I would tell him to break up with her. Yeah,
I would agree with you.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
And I'm not somebody that does the separate people by
their views and romantically pick based on some kind of
a litmus test. I do think you want shared value. Usually,
I would say, not on one specific thing, but on values,
you do have to have alignment. I kind of agree
with AOC on that, actually. On values, when it comes
to dating, you have to have alignment. She said she
(25:27):
would not date a conservative. What you just said, by
the way, about the opinions of Of women is the
that is that a lot of women have that may
be the single darkest and bleakest thing that we've ever
considered on the show.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
I just I mean, it is dark, but I just
look at it. I mean, most people who have empathy,
usually the reason why there is an empathy that is
allowed to be in some way captivated or taken and captured.
is because there is some scintilla of your brain that
has felt an emotion or an experience that is similar
(26:01):
to what that person is.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Well, this is where the solidarity thing starts to creep up,
and you say that there are a lot of these
women who keep saying, you don't understand postpartum, and this,
you don't understand, and this is why I brought up
the PTSD issue for, because guess what, ladies? You don't
understand what it is to be in combat and see
people blown apart in front of you who were your
closest friends in the whole world, and you know, and yet,
you can sit on a jury of somebody. Well, it
(26:24):
depends if they're under UCMJ, you'd have to be in
the military. But the point is no one says you're
not allowed to have an opinion about what some, and
by the way, they wouldn't be under UCMJ if they
came back with PTSD and they're a civilian, they would
just be a civilian. So no one would say to them,
you can't have an opinion on what a veteran. And
there have been these cases to be clear. They're rare,
but there have been cases where a veteran has gone
into basically a PTSD and dose induced psychosis. And, um,
(26:47):
They go to prison and or get executed generally. If anything,
it can be used as a mitigating. Now, a mitigating
factor in sentencing is different than you're not guilty. It's
not your fault. You didn't do a bad thing here.
We're not going to punish you as severely because you
weren't as guilty. And this gets into your whole mens
rea concept and everything else. But can I just add
one thing that's less bleak? I just wanted to say this.
(27:09):
You're a dad. You're a dad of three boys. I'm
a dad of one boy, and we're hoping to have more.
boys or girls um and i would just say i
would like to think clay that under fire i would
give my life for a for a fellow soldier if
i and i've never served in the military as the
cia took some minimal risks in war minimal risks in
(27:33):
war zones for the cia i don't ever pretend like
it was more than that but i tried to serve
in the way that i could i'd like to think
that I would step up for a fellow soldier. Well,
I would like to believe that. I mean, I would
say I would, but you don't know until you're in
that moment.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Would you do it?
Speaker 3 (27:48):
I would feel also like I would step up if
there were an active shooter situation. I can still carry
sometimes in Miami. I'm handy with a pistol. I've trained
a lot now. I'd like to think that I would
step up and put myself in harm's way to save
other people. I have zero doubt in my mind that
I would give my life to protect my son. It's
not a brag. It's not boasting. All the dads listening,
(28:10):
you know exactly what I'm talking about. I would give
my life to protect my son without, I mean, just automatically.
And I can't say the other things are automatic. I'd
like to think that I would step up, but you
don't know courage, but it's different. As a dad, I
would do it instantaneously, not think twice. And I know
you feel the same way.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
Yeah, 100%. And I think that's why so many men
just look at this and say, I can't believe this
is the mirror that we are seeing of what women think.
I would like to say I gave you the Republican
Democrat breakdown on Lindsay Clancy. I'd like to see the men, women.
Because I think men, it would be 95% guilty. I
(28:49):
think women, it's like 50-50. And that's dark because based
on these numbers. Let me also tell you something else.
Everybody out there says, you don't know what it's like.
The woman that sent me the angry email after the
Fox News hit, you don't know what it's like to
be a woman. It's all true. The entire basis of
having a jury of your peers is that you don't
(29:10):
have to be the exact same as the person to
understand what justice is. The entire reason why Lady Justice
is blind and has the scales of justice is because
you're supposed to be able to render justice without looking
at who the individual is. And seeing him or her
(29:31):
as a reflection of you, that's not justice. That's just
you choosing to treat someone differently based on your own
life experience, which is actually the opposite of what justice
should be. So everybody out there who's trying to argue, Oh,
you get men can't even make a decision. Here's the concern.
And we'll get some of these calls here. My concern
(29:52):
buck is I don't think there's a jury in Massachusetts
that can convict this woman because I don't think there's
a jury of women who that will convict her in Massachusetts.
I think you could convict her in Alabama. I think
you could convict her in Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Utah. I
think there's lots of places out there, red states, where
you would get a conviction. I'm not sure you could
(30:13):
convict her anywhere in a blue state in America right now.
Speaker 3 (30:18):
I've got to tell you something. Just to draw a
political inference out of this, I know people say, oh,
it's a million miles away in terms of politics and
when it's going to happen, everything else.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
This may make people think a little bit differently.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And I mean, Democrats may think a little bit differently
about having a woman at the top of the ticket.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
This is my wife's argument, Buck. I didn't really think
about it until she started making the argument. My son's
looking at the TikToks defending Lindsay Clancy for the younger
people out there. This is the worst look I think
possible for women from a male perspective looking at women.
(31:00):
And those jurors, I mean, they look exactly like what
you and I, if we sketched out what the jurors
would look like who do not want to have Lindsay
Clancy held accountable, it would be a bunch of post-menopausal
left-wing women That's what it was. At least that's who's
speaking so far. And they sound just like what you
would expect them to sound.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
They are the they are the indoctrinated, ultra feminist generation
that believe these lies made terrible choices for themselves. Yes,
I'm generalizing, but these generalizations exist for a reason. And
now they want to see that ideology in some way vindicated.
And that's that's the only way that I could. Anyway,
(31:40):
we'll take your calls on this. And we had somebody
who was a guy who actually wanted to call in
and disagree with us and said he was a medical professional.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
So please call back. We would like to have that conversation.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
We've only had women disagreeing with our– by the way,
we have a lot of women who agree with us,
to be clear. In our audience, what do you think
is the female agreement with the line that you and
I share on this? I would say 60-40 in our favor.
I was going to say 75-25.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
I think in this audience– and this audience is what, 75% male?
It's like 100% male agreement. And I would say probably 75,
25 women. And you may be right. It may be
closer to 60, 40.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
But let's take any of the– if you're a guy
who wants to disagree with us, please, please call in.
You can hand in your man card as soon as
Producer Greg picks up the phone.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
All right.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Every scam call, every scam text, every sketchy email with
your name attached, each one starts with the same way
somebody found you. Your phone number sitting on data broker
sites right now shows your home address, age, and even
the names of your family members. It's searchable, and it's
for sale. Scammers get access to this stuff easily, and
then you're a target. Every scam starts with this stuff.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
How do you work against it? Incogni.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Incogni makes this information online disappear. Online service that helps
you remove your name and info from databases of hundreds
of data brokers. Clay and I both are on Incogni
because of this. We love our privacy. We hate spam calls,
and we certainly hate scammers. And we use Incogni to
contact hundreds of these online sites and legally force them
to remove your information. And when new brokers pop up,
(33:10):
Incogni finds those too. They can't scam you if they
can't find you. Right now, get 60% off with Incogni.com
slash buck. That's spelled I-N-C-O-G-N-I, Incogni. Dot com slash buck.
Take your privacy back. Incogni dot com slash buck for 60% off.
Speaker 5 (33:29):
Level up your brain and balance out your day with
the right amount of information and entertainment. Clay Travis and
Buck Sexton on the iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
App or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back in
to Clay and Buck. Getting lit up on this one.
A lot of calls. A lot of talkbacks. Let's do it.
Let's do this.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Alan, in Kentucky, we got a guy who wants to
weigh in on this with a little bit of a
different take.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
What's going on, Alan?
Speaker 6 (33:58):
Yeah, so I grew up with two parents that are
both paranoid schizophrenic. And so, you know, for me, like,
I can see an argument from both sides, you know.
Was she over-medicated? Very possibly. You know, did that help
contribute to things?
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Maybe.
Speaker 6 (34:17):
But on the flip side, like, you also have to
realize she was a nurse, you know, so she sort
of knows like what to do, what to say, what to,
you know, sort of like look at and different things and,
and what to sort of nuance as far as, you know, well,
(34:37):
what do I need to do in order to make
myself look like I was mentally unstable or mentally insane
when I did this act?
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Alan, what would you, what would you have voted if
you were on the jury?
Speaker 6 (34:49):
I would have voted for the compromise, you know, manslaughter.
I would have said, you know, she's guilty of manslaughter
because there was too many factors in both ways for
me to say, yes, she's totally guilty of like, you know,
murder one, you know, but yet, you know, there wasn't
(35:10):
enough on the flip side to say, hey, she's totally
not guilty and totally off the hook.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Thank you for the call. I just.
We would eliminate all of this discussion. There's lots of
state legislators who listen to us. Make murder of children
a strict liability crime. If you murder children, your mental
state doesn't matter, period. That seems like a very rational
(35:37):
thing to do in response to this so that the
debate isn't, oh, what's her mental capacity? There's no denying
she did it. Rudy in Indiana with an interesting take. Rudy,
fire away.
Speaker 4 (35:50):
Yeah, I want to put a plug in for the
movie before we get started on 12 Angry Men back
in the 1950s. Classic, but it was the other way
around where Eleven wanted to convict and one held out. Anyway,
I have to wonder if the prosecutor did an injustice
(36:16):
to society by not holding out for an even split 50-50.
We'll never know if the other two male.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
Jurors Yeah, we're coming up on, you're asking a good question, Rudy.
This was nine women, three men. Now, jury selection oftentimes
is a random chance, and you only get so many strikes.
I'll look up during the break, Buck, what the rules
are of Massachusetts jury selection, because I do think that
(36:47):
matters tremendously here. Why do you?
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!