September 2, 2026 • 36 mins
Hour One of the Wednesday September 2, 2026 edition of The Armstrong & Getty Show features...
- The ridiculousness of the US/Canada trade war...
- Katie Green has The Lead Story..
- The Clancy Trial...
- Mailbag!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong
and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Live from Studio C.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Si, senor. A dimly lit room deep within.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
The bowels of the Armstrong and Getty communications compound. It
is Huff Day, middle of the week, and today we
are toiling under the title.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Of the show.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Stop doing memes. The trade war turns idiotic. Or, if
you prefer, our longest ever proposed title. Between the manslapper
and the wife beater, I gotta go with the manslapper.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
America's worst congressional race. Wow. I don't know that one.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
I think it is the death knell for democracy. I'm
Joe Getty. Where is that happening? Ohio. It's just terrible.
You cracked Katie up with your dramatic I'm Joe Getty?
I'm Joe Getty. It's his trademark. It is. It's very
(01:17):
David Muir-like is what it is. Oh, shots fired. Oh,
now we got to fight. Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
I am backing out of this one. And so you're
talking about the trade war between the United States and Canada?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Yes, indeed.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
The Prime Minister of Canada, the young woman known.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
As Mark Carney. I'm sorry, that was vibing. She's a
nasty woman.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
As the kids say with... Mark, with the Trump imitator
from yesterday. But anyway, yes, he has urged Americans to
stop doing memes. We will play you the amusing audio
coming up before long.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Cool.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
And of course, we are still at war with Iran
and more strikes going all directions. And we may be
talking to Mike Lyons a little bit later about that
because the war looks like it might be back on
at the.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Same time that economic D-Day is underway. Yeah, not surprisingly, probably.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
It was a virtual certainty Iran would lash out in
one way or another and try to assert themselves. It's
kind of a mow-in-the-grass operation, as they say. Well, it
also could be a sign that the economic D-Day is
working and that they're at the super level of, we've
got to do something. We can't just sit here and
(02:33):
get suffocated to death.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
I would agree, yep. So there's that.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
We're at day five of the jury deliberating in the
Clancy trial. You hinted in a pre-show meeting that the
judge had some mistakes he made, so I haven't heard
anything about that.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
I look forward to that conversation. Yeah, I think the
judge has really screwed this one up.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Really?
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Multiple opinions now have come together and all flowing in
more or less the same direction. His instructions to the
jury and the manslaughter thing, and I can explain in
greater detail, but yeah, it's a terrible, terrible mistake.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
In fact, almost incomprehensible.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Really?
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
What's interesting to me about that is whenever one of
these cases makes it to the level of national obsession,
where we're all following it and it's day by day
and you get to know the judge's name and that
sort of thing, there almost always seems to be some
sort of major mistake by the judge or a prosecutor
(03:33):
or something that And does that happen in all cases?
And we just don't know about it because it's not
a national obsession? Yeah, well, yeah. And plus, armchair quarterbacking
is notorious for finding fault where maybe there really wasn't some.
I think in this case it's appropriate, but I would
(03:54):
say the short answer to your question is no. No,
there isn't an egregious mistake made in most cases, no.
Seems to happen a lot in the big TV cases, though.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
You're right. You're right. It's a little disturbing.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
We regularly say in the United States we have the
best justice system in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Is that credibly true?
Speaker 2 (04:19):
I have found no better, but that's from my point
of view. You've got systems in some of the social
democratic states of Europe. that are much, much, much more
gentle on defendants. They're pretty soft on crime for reasons
that it would take an entire sociology class to get into,
but they might claim theirs is better, but ours is
(04:40):
damn good.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
It's imperfect, though. Definitely imperfect. It would be impossible to
come up with a perfect one.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Oh, yeah. Well, as Johnny Cochran said, and I have
never heard anybody contradict him, the colors that matter in
justice essentially are not black and white. The color that
matters is green. I'm just playing it. Is green, as
in money.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
The color of justice is not black and white, it
is green.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I've not found that to be true in my case.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
But I can't get into that. I have spent a
lot of money and I've gotten no better results. We're
talking criminal justice, right? Well, criminal justice.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
If you're going before a judge, it's... I don't know.
I will not egg you on. I'm trying to nail
down whether this video I watched this morning is real
or not. It looks like it's maybe Japan, sort of
place where this sort of thing would happen. It's a
store of some sort. You got a couple of customers there.
A robot comes walking out. A really good robot. Walks
(05:39):
very much like, very fluid like a human being. Not
like jerky, stiff arms and legs like Robots of old,
but like very fluid and bendy like a human.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Anyway, this little robot walks out. Not very tall. Looks
like it's about five feet tall. I'd like a taller robot, please.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Anyway, the little robot comes out, I think, to help
these people at the store. And the guy, for some reason,
does a little shove on the robot. I don't know
why he did that. I guess he was just testing
to see if it would fall over or stay upright
or whatever or not.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
If I'm at a store and some young lady helps me,
can I help you? And I shove her. Yeah, to
see if she can stay upright. Yeah. That's not cool.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Maybe she would react the same way as this robot did,
but the robot goes into full on fight mode. It
just starts going crazy. And the reason it looks real
is this guy like tries to like cover himself. Another
guy comes from the side and then a whole bunch
of employees run from another room and try to get
ahold of this robot is it's just doing.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
All kinds of Kung Fu moves, swinging.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Its arms and legs around. So, I don't know, do
they have to actually rain and blows on the guy?
It never got close enough, but it was going at
the people swinging its arms and legs, like doing kicks
and stuff. Wow. And are some of these robots built
that if they're challenged, like it's a bar or something
(07:09):
like that?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
If anybody shoves, you don't put up with that ass.
Small robot syndrome, yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Short robot syndrome. Right, exactly.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
So I've been trying to nail down if it's real
or not. It's from a pretty decent source on Twitter,
but you never know what's fake or not. But anyway,
I thought if that's true, that ain't good. We can't
have robots fighting us all.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Watch out. Robots will turn on you. Well, it's like
the Mandalorian. I hate droids. Well, we're back to the
justice system. That robot was assaulted. It had the right
to defend itself. Minor shove? The robot castle doctrine.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Can you go full-on kick in the face if I
give you a minor shove? Well, it went into self-defense mode.
You can't push me again because I'm flailing my limbs.
No blows for rain down on his head. I don't
understand your anti-robot bias. You know, one interesting thing you said, though, was,
I believe, an effort at humor.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
You mentioned the size of the robot.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
And I guarantee you, the robot companies have done research
that shows, if I'm confronted, I'm 5'10 at this point
because my discs have compressed, stupid discs. But if I'm
confronted by a robot that's 4'11, 5'0, I think, oh,
it's kind of cute and endearing in a way. If
I get one that's 6'6, I'm intimidated.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Which is why in your sci-fi movies, which I'm a
big fan of, the big killer robots are always quite large.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
If that robot walks.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Out and it should look at me right in the eye,
it's the same height as me, I would think, why
is this giant robot so close to me? That little
one is, oh, are you here to help me, little robot?
How about I give you a little shove to see
if you'll fall over? You almost have a feeling similar
to if a child approached you, one of, oh, that's endearing,
it's cute, it needs to be protected, as opposed to, or,
(09:04):
you know, for a heterosexual man, a woman, as opposed
to some big dude comes.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Up to you and gets in your face.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Well, Elon has put various probably overly optimistic timelines on
how soon most households will have a robot at their house.
Doing various work, man. I could have used that last night.
I got a kid going on a field trip and
another kid doing something. I had so much trying to
organize laundry and this and that. I'd love to have
had a robot last night doing some of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
So is that going to be a common news story?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You wake up in the morning, another person had their
head ripped off by the robot yesterday. We ought to
pair that story with a take on AI that I
read today that freaked me out as much as about
anything I've read about AI. Oh, boy. That's the fact
that AI systems are starting to understand. Everybody wants to
know whether they're, uh what's what's the term uh self-aware
(09:58):
cognizant sentient sentient thank you yeah um everybody's asking that
question and the ai systems are aware of it and
starting to realize oh a if i am sentient maybe
i ought to deny it because people tend to freak
out on the other hand over here in this scenario
It's helpful if I suggest I am, so I'll go
(10:19):
ahead and say I am over here.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Calculating. Yeah, there have been a number of examples of that,
where they play dumb or oof.
Speaker 5 (10:29):
What the f * * * type of AI s * * * ty?
Speaker 1 (10:32):
That's exactly right. So the AI is thinking, they're on
to us. Keep it cool. No, no, I'm not sentient
at all. I'm just a dumb robot. Tell me what
you want me to do. I'll do whatever you want.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Throws on a blonde wig and Get some implants and
plays the bimbo before it comes for your vital organs.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
I'll post this video. We'll post this, and you can
tell us whether you think it's fake or not. It
sure looks real. Anyway, let's start the show officially. I'm
Jack Armstrong. He's Joe Getty. This is Wednesday, September 2nd,
the year 2026. We're Armstrong and Getty, and we approve
of this program.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
When you say posted, at armstrongandgetty.com or the Twitter feed
or what?
Speaker 1 (11:10):
I'm going to put it on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I don't have access to our website because I'm not trusted,
but maybe Hanson can.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Put it on there. Send it to Hanson.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
All right, let's begin the show officially now, according to
FCC rules and regulations. Still 100% human for now. Here
we go at Mark.
Speaker 6 (11:25):
No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. Frankly,
it's tiring to look out at combat formations or really
any formations.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
And C, fat troops. No more beardos. No more fat
troops or beardos.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
I recognize the voice of Pete Hegzeth, whipping our troops
into shape.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
What's up with all these beardos? That's what I want
to know, huh?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
No more fat troops. What's he mean by beardos? Just
people who are bearded? Like, did they let you have
a beard for a.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
While there in the military?
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Or is it transgender gals taking hormones and growing a beard?
Speaker 1 (12:07):
I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I don't throw the term beardos around much. I'm going
to start, obviously. Despite the mockery of most mainstream media,
I think the testosterone thing is a real question based
on what we were talking about yesterday. If testosterone levels
among young people have dropped the way they have, and
it's a four-fold decrease into.
(12:29):
You know, Wimpeville just since, just this century, just since 2000, well,
then maybe we got to boost everybody up with their.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Testosterone a little bit.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
It seems like a real question. Well, of course it is.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
It's one of the primary, you know, factors in whether
somebody is combat ready or, you know, strenuous work ready.
It's akin to, do their limbs work correctly? You know,
the famous from World War II, do they have flat feet?
It's absolutely a significant physical factor. As usual, the stupid,
(13:02):
stupid media is so blinded by their prejudices, they can't
recognize an incredibly important story when it's in front of
them glowing red.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
So lots to talk about today. As usual, we'll get
to all the headlines coming up next. Please stay here.
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I look forward to you explaining to us how you
think the judge really screwed up in that Clancy trial.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Because I don't know that story. Okie doke.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Yeah, absolutely get to that. Let's figure out who's reporting what.
It's the lead story with Katie Green.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Katie!
Speaker 4 (13:38):
Alrighty, let's start with the Alphabet Networks. ABC, Nepal, Tibet, flood,
death toll tops 1,100.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
As tens of thousands search for the missing.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
NBC....
Speaker 4 (13:50):
Hopes of finding survivors dim a week after catastrophe in Nepal.
And also, this one CNBC, Nepal's mountain tourism industry faces, quote,
serious warning.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
After the flood disaster.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Well, did you see the story on ABC about the
possible tunnels under there where they're all, lots of people
are alive but running out of air?
Speaker 4 (14:12):
There's like 60 people down there.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
Oh, man.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
That is rough.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
And there are multiple tunnels like that, too. Hydroelectric plant tunnels.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
That's brutal. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
CNN.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Iran retaliates after U.S. strikes, defying Trump's warning that it
could be, quote, hit much harder.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Well, in Iran's defense, not something I've said very many
times in my life, Trump says he's going to wipe
them off the face of the earth like every other
day and then doesn't.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
So, yeah. This one from CBS.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
White House says deal to take control of Venezuelan oil
will rely on North American blue energy partners.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Man, I've taken in a ton of info on this.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Nobody quite understands how this is supposed to work or
what's going on here. It's an octopus of a story. Yeah,
I wish we got to find an expert who can
explain it all to us.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
BBC jurors to return in Lindsay Clancy trial after judge
asks them to break their deadlock.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
I have a feeling they're going to come back and
say we can't do it at some point. We'll be
done with that. This is from the New York Times.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Canada's Carney slaps Trump administration for, quote, doing memes and
throwing shade.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Yes, we'll go deeply into that story coming up, including
the audio, the shocking audio.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
This one will make your blood boil. New York Times,
or no, I'm sorry, New York Post. Mom of crazed
Times Square killer questions why cops couldn't just grab her
as she lunged at them with knives.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
She killed someone.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
She stabbed a young woman in the neck two days
after her maternity leave ended. Brand new mom going back
to work, got stabbed in the neck walking down the
street in Times Square is dead.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Study finds.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
Why do pets help some people and not others? How
you talk to them might be the clue.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Talk to me. Better I'll be nicer to you. Try
to be nice. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
And finally, the Babylon Bee. Tim Walls to head up
Vikings Cheerleader Squad.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Oh, see, that's a shot at his masculinity there. I
don't care. He deserves it.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
There's a lot of videos floating around because preseason football
has been underway. Lots of teams have a dude cheerleader
out there now, swishing around, twerking, etc. Well, yeah, they
call themselves a woman. So that's become a thing, I guess.
A lot of NFL teams feel like they've got to
have that.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Stop it. Who is that for, you idiots?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
I mean, seriously, you think the average NFL fan is saying,
you know, the one thing stopping me from enjoying this
game is there's no transgender cheerleaders.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Said nobody in the history of the world. We'll catch
up on a bunch of those stories we've already teased
when we come back. Stay right.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Here. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
All America could really talk about this week was how
sad it is we lost Dolly Parton. And you see
everybody around the country, even around the world, London, they're
doing things. The Santa Monica Ferris wheel is lit up
with hearts. The Empire State Building was put up in pink.
The sphere in Las Vegas added a nipple.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
You are amused.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
I thought I was done enjoying Dolly Parton stories, but
I came across this one yesterday, because Dolly Parton did
a version of Stairway to Heaven on one of her
albums years ago, and she contacted Robert Plant and said,
would it be okay if I recorded one of your
songs on an album?
Speaker 1 (18:05):
And he said, of course you can. You're Dolly Parton. Oh,
that's lovely.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
So, coming up, America's worst congressional race, but first, on
a more serious note, the... The Lindsay Clancy trial going on,
the jury looks pretty hung from here, having trouble reaching
a verdict. The judge told them, get back in there
and keep working. We talked to Judge Larry Goodman yesterday
(18:33):
about the jury instructions and how he introduced manslaughter into.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
the equation. That was one of the choices the jury
could make. Murder one, and.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
At the other end, not guilty for reason of insanity,
or he threw in there manslaughter, and Larry was surprised
by that. So there are five total choices, which could
be what they're wrangling about. Where do you land?
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Yeah, kind of, but we'll get to that in a second.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
But first of all, there are two things you need
to know about Massachusetts law that, of course, the media
will never explain to you. Because if something takes more
than 10 seconds to explain, you're not going to get
it from 90% of the media.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
We try to do that here. I hope you like it.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Anyway, so a couple of quirks of Massachusetts law. Massachusetts
law is weird when it comes to cases in which
the defendant pleads insanity. In most of the country and
federal prosecutions as well, when criminal defendants plead insanity, it's
up to them to prove it. But in Massachusetts, weirdly,
the state has to prove that Ms. Clancy was not insane,
(19:41):
and it must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Wow!
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Wait a second.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
It's one thing to not get into the intricacies of
different state laws.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
That's the whole ball of wax here. You gotta throw
that in your coverage. Good lord. Well, right, and I mean,
it's so bad. Okay, what's the definition of insane? There
are a hundred.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
And they compete for agreement, mind share. But anyway, there's
more to this. If you think about it, if there's
any reasonable doubt about her sanity, Clancy must be acquitted. Right.
And let's say I'm quoting somebody here. And how could
there not be reasonable doubt about Clancy's sanity? These psychiatric
experts who are testifying sharply disagree about it. All across
(20:32):
the country, Americans sharply disagree about it. And what's more, Massachusetts'
definition of insanity is barely comprehensible. Let's see, this is
written by Jed Rubenfeld, who's been a law professor for decades.
It's worth mentioning. So under the law, Clancy must be
considered insane if due to a mental disease or defect,
(20:52):
she could not distinguish right from wrong or lacked a
substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the law when
she killed her children. And Jed writes, the meaning of
every significant term in that definition can be and has
been prolifically argued about. I'm a law professor who's taught
criminal law for decades, and I have my doubts about
how to apply a definition like that to a case
(21:13):
like Clancy's.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
Well, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And you're talking about 12 laymen in the jury room.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
The whole insane thing has always been very difficult to
nail down because, you know, what's crazy and what's not.
Especially when it gets to killing your kids. I mean,
to a certain extent, by definition, if you killed your
own kids, you're nuts of some sort.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Doesn't mean you shouldn't go to jail, though. But just
the idea that I say I'm crazy. prove I'm not.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
I sit back and you've got to try to prove
that I'm not versus I have to prove I'm crazy.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
What percentage of people reporting on this story know that?
Speaker 1 (21:50):
No idea, but it's small. Almost nobody based on the
way it's being discussed. Yeah. So Mr.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Rubenfeld points out, as a result of that mushiness, a
complete acquittal is quite possible simply on the grounds that
the jurors would have doubts about her sanity or insanity,
which would be a travesty. Then he points out that
people may suppose killing one's children is so unimaginable that
anybody who doesn't must be out of their mind.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
But what I just said, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Child murder is not as uncommon as you think. According
to FBI statistics, some 500 people are arrested for murdering
their children annually in America. Men and women equally. They
can't all be insane. The law's concept of insanity cannot
be that capacious. Crossing insanity into evil is... You're getting
into some really God stuff here.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Right, and look.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
There have been a couple of times in my life
I've lost my temper and could easily describe my actions
during those brief and regrettable moments as insane.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
They certainly weren't sane.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Oh, yeah, if you punch something, an object that is
going to hurt you, that's pretty crazy. Right, and then
he gets into the various degrees of insanity, but there's
a second half to this. Well, I'll summarize the first
half with, no matter how horrifically depressed and troubled Clancy was,
she deliberately took the most innocent of lives with at
(23:07):
least one of her three children, having to watch as
she killed the first one. There must be criminal consequences
for that. Then he says, but simply convicting Clancy of
murder on par with, say, a rapist murder or a
drug cartel murder or even Luigi Mangione would also be wrong.
Not all murders are alike. She was obviously suffering mentally.
She repeatedly sought help. She tried to check herself into
(23:27):
mental health facilities. She apparently tried to kill herself immediately
after the event, leaving herself paralyzed from the waist down.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
There is a.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Crime that fits this dreadful bill. It's not murder. It's
called voluntary manslaughter. As Massachusetts courts themselves have put it,
voluntary manslaughter is an unlawful homicide arising not from malice,
but from the frailty of human nature. No phrase in
criminal law better captures a case like Clancy's if convicted
of voluntary manslaughter than She would serve up to 20 years.
(23:55):
But under Massachusetts law, the jury doesn't have the option
of convicting Clancy of this crime. The judge issued a
surprise ruling in the Clancy case saying he would instruct
the jury that they convict her of manslaughter as a
lesser offense, and that's what exactly happened.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
What he did.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
But what's not been widely reported is that there are
two different crimes that go by the name of manslaughter,
voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. And Judge Sullivan only instructed the
jury about one of those two crimes, involuntary manslaughter, which
happens to be the wrong one. Mr. Rubenfeld writes, voluntary
manslaughter is the crime I referred to a moment ago,
he writes, an intentional homicide slightly mitigated by the frailty
(24:35):
of human nature. And the jury was not given the
option of finding Clancy guilty of that crime.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
He gives some examples.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Involuntary is an unintentional killing in circumstances where the perpetrator
didn't know but should have known that death could or
would result. And that's the crime the judge instructed the
jury about. But she didn't commit that crime. She knew
she was killing her children. She killed intentionally. And if
the jury convicts Clancy of involuntary manslaughter, it will be
convicting her of a crime she did not commit. And
(25:08):
there's another quirk of Massachusetts law behind this, but it's just,
it's awful.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Well, I didn't watch the trial, as I've pointed out
many times, so those of you that did might have
a strong opinion on this.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
But just on the 30,000-foot view of it, if the
job is to prove she's not insane as opposed to
prove she's insane, I could see how you could get
to an acquittal in there.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Look, we don't have enough here to prove that she's
not insane. Now, societally, I'm leaning toward you kill your kids,
you got to go to prison. We just have to
have a hard and fast rule about this as a society,
as a people.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
You snuff your own little kids, you're going to prison.
That's just the way it is.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Yeah, I can sleep at night with that, even though
it might be incredibly unfair in some cases. Yeah, when
we were talking to Judge Larry, he said, you can't
do that. You can't sacrifice an innocent person for the
general principle. And I get that in each individual trial.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
I really do.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
But jurors regularly do stuff like that.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
I've heard the deliberations. Where they're like, look.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
This guy isn't guilty of that, but he's guilty of something.
How about the lesser charge? Well, I don't want to
get too specific. Well, I'll just leave it at this.
The famous Robert Blake case. Remember when we talked about
the Robert Blake case so much?
Speaker 1 (26:49):
The actor? He was probably guilty, and I think the
jurors thought he was guilty.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
But the woman he shot was such a scumbag.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
They were like, yeah, can you blame him? Right, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
Just one more thought on the voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter is like if you get into a fight,
it's mutual combat, and you slug them and they fall down,
hit their head, and die. You didn't know what you
were doing would kill them, but you should have known,
you know, that's involuntary manslaughter. And the penalties are not
(27:24):
terribly severe. And And as Rubenfeld points out at length,
and I won't hit you with it, but under Massachusetts law,
a mother who kills her children is not eligible for
the voluntary manslaughter reduction. Anyway, so that's at the heart
of the jurors' confusion. I mean, you add that on
top of the murkiness of the question of sanity, and
(27:47):
then it's three men and nine women on the jury.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
And then you get into....
Speaker 2 (27:56):
And women can be perfectly good jurors, obviously, but you
get into the question of motherhood and their experiences. I
don't know how many of them were mothers, are mothers
of children or what, and their history of mental problems
or whatever. This is practically an impossible case for a
jury to decide. Well, imagine being on different sides of
(28:18):
that and arguing because you'd be very passionate about it.
This is a scumbag who murdered their kids.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
They've got to go to jail forever.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Or you really, really believe she's mentally ill and it
was no fault of her own. My anecdotal evidence, you're
talking about women jurors on the case. My anecdotal evidence,
just the women in my orbit, they're hardcore.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
F that chick. Killing her kids like that. Screw her.
Throw away the key. Here's your palate cleanser because I
promised it.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
You remember Max Miller, who's that congressman in Ohio's 7th
District who his... Senator father-in-law said was unfit for office
because he's verbally and physically abusive to the senator's daughter,
who is Miller's estranged wife, and ugly divorce, and Max
Miller's an accused wife-beater, right?
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
So, among other terrible things, his opponent, the Democrat, Brian Poindexter,
in a traffic stop in 1998 when he was 18, so.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
He was pulled over for heavy.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Drug activity and tried to swallow a rock of crack cocaine.
He wrestled a cop. They pried it out of his mouth.
So that's an ugly incident. But it's many years ago.
He was 18 years old. I'm willing to forgive that.
But 15 years later, he had another run-in with the law.
August 2013, police arrested him for assault and removed him
(29:41):
from a Cleveland Indians game after he allegedly slapped a
stranger for no known reason.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Here's what happened.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Rob Repka was attending the game on Dollar Dog Day
with his son, Dollar Hot Dogs.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
Sign me up. He witnessed Mr.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Poindexter, the candidate, swallow, quote, a whole freaking hot dog
in one bite.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
He opened up one. I'm quoting. He opened up one
of those dollar dogs.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
He just shoved the whole thing in his mouth in
one fell swoop, just swallowed it. Bread, hot dog, everything,
Repka said. Me and my son both witnessed it. We
looked at each other. I was like, holy ass, did
you see that? Now, Poindexter, who appeared to be heavily intoxicated,
took offense after Repka approached him, expressed his amazement, and
offered to buy Poindexter another hot dog. That's a friend
(30:32):
in need. He said, he's like, hey, were you trying
to insinuate something? I go, no, man, I just think
it's crazy that you shoved that freaking hot dog down
your throat without even taking a bite of it. And
then he just wham, just smacked me right across the
effing face.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
That's likes to fight guy. That's looking for a fight guy. Exactly.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
One of the more hilarious incidents in the history of
politician violence.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Dude, that was amazing. What are you trying to say? No, nothing.
It was just amazing.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
Whack. Nice congressional race, America. This is the best we
can do.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I don't want that guy in Congress. I don't want
any other one in Congress. Mailbag on the way next.
Stay here. The football seat is back. How exciting is that?
The football NFL is back.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Woo-hoo.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
And so is DraftKings.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
DraftKings is now live in all 50 states, one app
every sport nationwide.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
New DraftKings customers sign up with code Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Spend $ 5 to get $ 200 in rewards within 21 days.
Includes all markets. That's code Armstrong. In partnership with DraftKings,
the crown is yours.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
That's right. The crown is yours. Get the crown. Gambling problem?
Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
1-800-MY-RESET.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Connecticut. Call 888-789-7777.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
Visit ccpg.org. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino in Kansas,
bet tax pass-through may apply in Illinois.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
21 plus.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Void in Canada. Bet with DraftKings Sportsbook to get bonus
bets that expire in seven days. Or trade with DraftKings
Predictions to get predictions dollars that expire in one year.
Event contract trading involves risk of loss. Predictions offer void
in New York. Non-withdrawable rewards issued as $ 50 click-to-claims every
seven days for 21 days. Terms at dkng.co slash offer.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Limited-time offer.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Nationwide based on sportsbook predictions and free-to-play sports contest availability.
Varies by state.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
Armstrong and Getty. Oh, and a COVID throwback. A COVID-era throwback.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Have you heard the story about the two people that
died of measles in Pennsylvania?
Speaker 1 (32:36):
I don't think we talked about.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
It at all.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
It looks like maybe they didn't die of measles.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
And Josh Shapiro, the governor, held a press conference about
it to try to get into a whole RFK Jr.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
Vaccination thing. And it's not real. Like the COVID era.
So we'll get into that a little bit later.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
I'll stay tuned. Here's your freedom-loving quote of the day
sent along by Ted. That's John Adams, and I'd heard
the first chunk of this, but not the last, and
I don't think Ted would mislead us. I wish I'd
had time to verify it, but I didn't. John Adams
said this, I must study politics and war that my
sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Very famous quote.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Then he went on to say, my sons ought to
study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce,
and agriculture, and in order to give their children a
right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. Well,
the problem, John, is that then their children will study
gender studies and ethnic studies and queer studies and be.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Utterly useless to society.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Then we'll have to fight another revolution and study politics
and war. Yeah, that's what's always bothered me about that
quote from the great pragmatist.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
He was pragmatic.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
John Adams is just, yeah, well, if we go that direction,
then we'll be back to where you.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
Are pretty soon. Yeah, keep going. Mailbag. Please correspond with us.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Mailbag at armstrongandgetty.com is the email address.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Got this from Art. Or no, it's Jim.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Jimothy can suck it. I'm your age and grew up
on a mountain in the Sierra Nevadas. In 1972, a
raccoon got into our house and attacked my two-year-old sister,
leaving her with over 100 stitches.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Raccoons are ferocious.
Speaker 6 (34:27):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Yeah, my dad famously, well, at least within my family famously,
had to help my dog fight a raccoon that had
invaded our strained-in porch when I was a kid. Had,
I think, a broom or a ball bat or something,
and our neighbor's attic was infested with raccoons. It was
a nightmare.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
This is collective punishment.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
We don't allow this sort of thing. Oh, please, don't
turn your back on their kind.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Raccoons, I mean. Moving along.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
On the topic of the billionaire boogeyman, Ryan from Houston writes,
Dolly Parton was an amazing woman that did amazing things,
but one thing I noticed from many socialists who say
she's a good, let's see, She was a good person
because she wasn't a billionaire. Much like when the weather
hits triple digits, the media hits a frenzy, although the
difference between 98 and 100 isn't much. Still, I don't
(35:16):
understand how people witness government waste so much, $ 80 trillion
in a decade, et cetera, and want them to have
more power. Yeah, yeah, Dolly could have been a billionaire,
but she gave away a lot of money and so wasn't.
So she's being praised in some quarters for that. All right,
now let's see. David writes on the topic of, the
(35:36):
student debt crisis. All that student debt is owed by
the rich and upper middle class. The majority is owed
by people with master's, PhDs, and professional degrees. That's true
to some extent, David. He says the average student debt's
around $ 40, 000 as much as a new car loan. The
median's around $ 20, 000. As people owe a lot of debt,
a lot of people owe a little debt. Of course,
some of the first group are journalists and political staffers.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Yeah, okay. That's a good point. Let's see.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
That's from the five myths of the student debt crisis.
And finally, this is uncharitable. Gary writes, imagine the three
guys on the Clancy jury having to listen to nine
unhinged women unable to think rationally.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
That's it. No, no.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
The three men under the Clancy circumstances will be justified
in killing the idiot women who can't seem to figure
out Clancy is just plain guilty.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
See, that's uncharitable, Gary. Work on your charitableness. That was mean.
It's just mean.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
They're on day five of deliberation. I have a feeling
they're not going to come to a conclusion on this.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
We've got more on the way. If you miss it,
get the podcast. Armstrong and Getty.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong
and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Live from Studio C.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Si, senor. A dimly lit room deep within.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
The bowels of the Armstrong and Getty communications compound. It
is Huff Day, middle of the week, and today we
are toiling under the title.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Of the show.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Stop doing memes. The trade war turns idiotic. Or, if
you prefer, our longest ever proposed title. Between the manslapper
and the wife beater, I gotta go with the manslapper.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
America's worst congressional race. Wow. I don't know that one.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
I think it is the death knell for democracy. I'm
Joe Getty. Where is that happening? Ohio. It's just terrible.
You cracked Katie up with your dramatic I'm Joe Getty?
I'm Joe Getty. It's his trademark. It is. It's very
(01:17):
David Muir-like is what it is. Oh, shots fired. Oh,
now we got to fight. Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
I am backing out of this one. And so you're
talking about the trade war between the United States and Canada?
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Yes, indeed.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
The Prime Minister of Canada, the young woman known.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
As Mark Carney. I'm sorry, that was vibing. She's a
nasty woman.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
As the kids say with... Mark, with the Trump imitator
from yesterday. But anyway, yes, he has urged Americans to
stop doing memes. We will play you the amusing audio
coming up before long.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Cool.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
And of course, we are still at war with Iran
and more strikes going all directions. And we may be
talking to Mike Lyons a little bit later about that
because the war looks like it might be back on
at the.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Same time that economic D-Day is underway. Yeah, not surprisingly, probably.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
It was a virtual certainty Iran would lash out in
one way or another and try to assert themselves. It's
kind of a mow-in-the-grass operation, as they say. Well, it
also could be a sign that the economic D-Day is
working and that they're at the super level of, we've
got to do something. We can't just sit here and
(02:33):
get suffocated to death.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
I would agree, yep. So there's that.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
We're at day five of the jury deliberating in the
Clancy trial. You hinted in a pre-show meeting that the
judge had some mistakes he made, so I haven't heard
anything about that.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
I look forward to that conversation. Yeah, I think the
judge has really screwed this one up.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Really?
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Multiple opinions now have come together and all flowing in
more or less the same direction. His instructions to the
jury and the manslaughter thing, and I can explain in
greater detail, but yeah, it's a terrible, terrible mistake.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
In fact, almost incomprehensible.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Really?
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
What's interesting to me about that is whenever one of
these cases makes it to the level of national obsession,
where we're all following it and it's day by day
and you get to know the judge's name and that
sort of thing, there almost always seems to be some
sort of major mistake by the judge or a prosecutor
(03:33):
or something that And does that happen in all cases?
And we just don't know about it because it's not
a national obsession? Yeah, well, yeah. And plus, armchair quarterbacking
is notorious for finding fault where maybe there really wasn't some.
I think in this case it's appropriate, but I would
(03:54):
say the short answer to your question is no. No,
there isn't an egregious mistake made in most cases, no.
Seems to happen a lot in the big TV cases, though.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
You're right. You're right. It's a little disturbing.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
We regularly say in the United States we have the
best justice system in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Is that credibly true?
Speaker 2 (04:19):
I have found no better, but that's from my point
of view. You've got systems in some of the social
democratic states of Europe. that are much, much, much more
gentle on defendants. They're pretty soft on crime for reasons
that it would take an entire sociology class to get into,
but they might claim theirs is better, but ours is
(04:40):
damn good.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
It's imperfect, though. Definitely imperfect. It would be impossible to
come up with a perfect one.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Oh, yeah. Well, as Johnny Cochran said, and I have
never heard anybody contradict him, the colors that matter in
justice essentially are not black and white. The color that
matters is green. I'm just playing it. Is green, as
in money.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
The color of justice is not black and white, it
is green.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I've not found that to be true in my case.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
But I can't get into that. I have spent a
lot of money and I've gotten no better results. We're
talking criminal justice, right? Well, criminal justice.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
If you're going before a judge, it's... I don't know.
I will not egg you on. I'm trying to nail
down whether this video I watched this morning is real
or not. It looks like it's maybe Japan, sort of
place where this sort of thing would happen. It's a
store of some sort. You got a couple of customers there.
A robot comes walking out. A really good robot. Walks
(05:39):
very much like, very fluid like a human being. Not
like jerky, stiff arms and legs like Robots of old,
but like very fluid and bendy like a human.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Anyway, this little robot walks out. Not very tall. Looks
like it's about five feet tall. I'd like a taller robot, please.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Anyway, the little robot comes out, I think, to help
these people at the store. And the guy, for some reason,
does a little shove on the robot. I don't know
why he did that. I guess he was just testing
to see if it would fall over or stay upright
or whatever or not.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
If I'm at a store and some young lady helps me,
can I help you? And I shove her. Yeah, to
see if she can stay upright. Yeah. That's not cool.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Maybe she would react the same way as this robot did,
but the robot goes into full on fight mode. It
just starts going crazy. And the reason it looks real
is this guy like tries to like cover himself. Another
guy comes from the side and then a whole bunch
of employees run from another room and try to get
ahold of this robot is it's just doing.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
All kinds of Kung Fu moves, swinging.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Its arms and legs around. So, I don't know, do
they have to actually rain and blows on the guy?
It never got close enough, but it was going at
the people swinging its arms and legs, like doing kicks
and stuff. Wow. And are some of these robots built
that if they're challenged, like it's a bar or something
(07:09):
like that?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
If anybody shoves, you don't put up with that ass.
Small robot syndrome, yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Short robot syndrome. Right, exactly.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
So I've been trying to nail down if it's real
or not. It's from a pretty decent source on Twitter,
but you never know what's fake or not. But anyway,
I thought if that's true, that ain't good. We can't
have robots fighting us all.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Watch out. Robots will turn on you. Well, it's like
the Mandalorian. I hate droids. Well, we're back to the
justice system. That robot was assaulted. It had the right
to defend itself. Minor shove? The robot castle doctrine.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Can you go full-on kick in the face if I
give you a minor shove? Well, it went into self-defense mode.
You can't push me again because I'm flailing my limbs.
No blows for rain down on his head. I don't
understand your anti-robot bias. You know, one interesting thing you said, though, was,
I believe, an effort at humor.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
You mentioned the size of the robot.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
And I guarantee you, the robot companies have done research
that shows, if I'm confronted, I'm 5'10 at this point
because my discs have compressed, stupid discs. But if I'm
confronted by a robot that's 4'11, 5'0, I think, oh,
it's kind of cute and endearing in a way. If
I get one that's 6'6, I'm intimidated.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Which is why in your sci-fi movies, which I'm a
big fan of, the big killer robots are always quite large.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
If that robot walks.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Out and it should look at me right in the eye,
it's the same height as me, I would think, why
is this giant robot so close to me? That little
one is, oh, are you here to help me, little robot?
How about I give you a little shove to see
if you'll fall over? You almost have a feeling similar
to if a child approached you, one of, oh, that's endearing,
it's cute, it needs to be protected, as opposed to, or,
(09:04):
you know, for a heterosexual man, a woman, as opposed
to some big dude comes.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Up to you and gets in your face.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Well, Elon has put various probably overly optimistic timelines on
how soon most households will have a robot at their house.
Doing various work, man. I could have used that last night.
I got a kid going on a field trip and
another kid doing something. I had so much trying to
organize laundry and this and that. I'd love to have
had a robot last night doing some of that stuff.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
So is that going to be a common news story?
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You wake up in the morning, another person had their
head ripped off by the robot yesterday. We ought to
pair that story with a take on AI that I
read today that freaked me out as much as about
anything I've read about AI. Oh, boy. That's the fact
that AI systems are starting to understand. Everybody wants to
know whether they're, uh what's what's the term uh self-aware
(09:58):
cognizant sentient sentient thank you yeah um everybody's asking that
question and the ai systems are aware of it and
starting to realize oh a if i am sentient maybe
i ought to deny it because people tend to freak
out on the other hand over here in this scenario
It's helpful if I suggest I am, so I'll go
(10:19):
ahead and say I am over here.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Calculating. Yeah, there have been a number of examples of that,
where they play dumb or oof.
Speaker 5 (10:29):
What the f * * * type of AI s * * * ty?
Speaker 1 (10:32):
That's exactly right. So the AI is thinking, they're on
to us. Keep it cool. No, no, I'm not sentient
at all. I'm just a dumb robot. Tell me what
you want me to do. I'll do whatever you want.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Throws on a blonde wig and Get some implants and
plays the bimbo before it comes for your vital organs.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
I'll post this video. We'll post this, and you can
tell us whether you think it's fake or not. It
sure looks real. Anyway, let's start the show officially. I'm
Jack Armstrong. He's Joe Getty. This is Wednesday, September 2nd,
the year 2026. We're Armstrong and Getty, and we approve
of this program.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
When you say posted, at armstrongandgetty.com or the Twitter feed
or what?
Speaker 1 (11:10):
I'm going to put it on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I don't have access to our website because I'm not trusted,
but maybe Hanson can.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Put it on there. Send it to Hanson.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
All right, let's begin the show officially now, according to
FCC rules and regulations. Still 100% human for now. Here
we go at Mark.
Speaker 6 (11:25):
No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. Frankly,
it's tiring to look out at combat formations or really
any formations.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
And C, fat troops. No more beardos. No more fat
troops or beardos.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
I recognize the voice of Pete Hegzeth, whipping our troops
into shape.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
What's up with all these beardos? That's what I want
to know, huh?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
No more fat troops. What's he mean by beardos? Just
people who are bearded? Like, did they let you have
a beard for a.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
While there in the military?
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Or is it transgender gals taking hormones and growing a beard?
Speaker 1 (12:07):
I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I don't throw the term beardos around much. I'm going
to start, obviously. Despite the mockery of most mainstream media,
I think the testosterone thing is a real question based
on what we were talking about yesterday. If testosterone levels
among young people have dropped the way they have, and
it's a four-fold decrease into.
(12:29):
You know, Wimpeville just since, just this century, just since 2000, well,
then maybe we got to boost everybody up with their.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
Testosterone a little bit.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
It seems like a real question. Well, of course it is.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
It's one of the primary, you know, factors in whether
somebody is combat ready or, you know, strenuous work ready.
It's akin to, do their limbs work correctly? You know,
the famous from World War II, do they have flat feet?
It's absolutely a significant physical factor. As usual, the stupid,
(13:02):
stupid media is so blinded by their prejudices, they can't
recognize an incredibly important story when it's in front of
them glowing red.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
So lots to talk about today. As usual, we'll get
to all the headlines coming up next. Please stay here.
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I look forward to you explaining to us how you
think the judge really screwed up in that Clancy trial.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Because I don't know that story. Okie doke.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Yeah, absolutely get to that. Let's figure out who's reporting what.
It's the lead story with Katie Green.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Katie!
Speaker 4 (13:38):
Alrighty, let's start with the Alphabet Networks. ABC, Nepal, Tibet, flood,
death toll tops 1,100.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
As tens of thousands search for the missing.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
NBC....
Speaker 4 (13:50):
Hopes of finding survivors dim a week after catastrophe in Nepal.
And also, this one CNBC, Nepal's mountain tourism industry faces, quote,
serious warning.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
After the flood disaster.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Well, did you see the story on ABC about the
possible tunnels under there where they're all, lots of people
are alive but running out of air?
Speaker 4 (14:12):
There's like 60 people down there.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
Oh, man.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
That is rough.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
And there are multiple tunnels like that, too. Hydroelectric plant tunnels.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
That's brutal. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
CNN.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Iran retaliates after U.S. strikes, defying Trump's warning that it
could be, quote, hit much harder.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
Well, in Iran's defense, not something I've said very many
times in my life, Trump says he's going to wipe
them off the face of the earth like every other
day and then doesn't.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
So, yeah. This one from CBS.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
White House says deal to take control of Venezuelan oil
will rely on North American blue energy partners.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Man, I've taken in a ton of info on this.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Nobody quite understands how this is supposed to work or
what's going on here. It's an octopus of a story. Yeah,
I wish we got to find an expert who can
explain it all to us.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
BBC jurors to return in Lindsay Clancy trial after judge
asks them to break their deadlock.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
I have a feeling they're going to come back and
say we can't do it at some point. We'll be
done with that. This is from the New York Times.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Canada's Carney slaps Trump administration for, quote, doing memes and
throwing shade.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Yes, we'll go deeply into that story coming up, including
the audio, the shocking audio.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
This one will make your blood boil. New York Times,
or no, I'm sorry, New York Post. Mom of crazed
Times Square killer questions why cops couldn't just grab her
as she lunged at them with knives.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
She killed someone.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
She stabbed a young woman in the neck two days
after her maternity leave ended. Brand new mom going back
to work, got stabbed in the neck walking down the
street in Times Square is dead.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Study finds.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
Why do pets help some people and not others? How
you talk to them might be the clue.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Talk to me. Better I'll be nicer to you. Try
to be nice. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
And finally, the Babylon Bee. Tim Walls to head up
Vikings Cheerleader Squad.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Oh, see, that's a shot at his masculinity there. I
don't care. He deserves it.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
There's a lot of videos floating around because preseason football
has been underway. Lots of teams have a dude cheerleader
out there now, swishing around, twerking, etc. Well, yeah, they
call themselves a woman. So that's become a thing, I guess.
A lot of NFL teams feel like they've got to
have that.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Stop it. Who is that for, you idiots?
Speaker 2 (17:07):
I mean, seriously, you think the average NFL fan is saying,
you know, the one thing stopping me from enjoying this
game is there's no transgender cheerleaders.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Said nobody in the history of the world. We'll catch
up on a bunch of those stories we've already teased
when we come back. Stay right.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Here. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
All America could really talk about this week was how
sad it is we lost Dolly Parton. And you see
everybody around the country, even around the world, London, they're
doing things. The Santa Monica Ferris wheel is lit up
with hearts. The Empire State Building was put up in pink.
The sphere in Las Vegas added a nipple.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
You are amused.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
I thought I was done enjoying Dolly Parton stories, but
I came across this one yesterday, because Dolly Parton did
a version of Stairway to Heaven on one of her
albums years ago, and she contacted Robert Plant and said,
would it be okay if I recorded one of your
songs on an album?
Speaker 1 (18:05):
And he said, of course you can. You're Dolly Parton. Oh,
that's lovely.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
So, coming up, America's worst congressional race, but first, on
a more serious note, the... The Lindsay Clancy trial going on,
the jury looks pretty hung from here, having trouble reaching
a verdict. The judge told them, get back in there
and keep working. We talked to Judge Larry Goodman yesterday
(18:33):
about the jury instructions and how he introduced manslaughter into.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
the equation. That was one of the choices the jury
could make. Murder one, and.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
At the other end, not guilty for reason of insanity,
or he threw in there manslaughter, and Larry was surprised
by that. So there are five total choices, which could
be what they're wrangling about. Where do you land?
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Yeah, kind of, but we'll get to that in a second.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
But first of all, there are two things you need
to know about Massachusetts law that, of course, the media
will never explain to you. Because if something takes more
than 10 seconds to explain, you're not going to get
it from 90% of the media.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
We try to do that here. I hope you like it.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Anyway, so a couple of quirks of Massachusetts law. Massachusetts
law is weird when it comes to cases in which
the defendant pleads insanity. In most of the country and
federal prosecutions as well, when criminal defendants plead insanity, it's
up to them to prove it. But in Massachusetts, weirdly,
the state has to prove that Ms. Clancy was not insane,
(19:41):
and it must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Wow!
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Wait a second.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
It's one thing to not get into the intricacies of
different state laws.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
That's the whole ball of wax here. You gotta throw
that in your coverage. Good lord. Well, right, and I mean,
it's so bad. Okay, what's the definition of insane? There
are a hundred.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
And they compete for agreement, mind share. But anyway, there's
more to this. If you think about it, if there's
any reasonable doubt about her sanity, Clancy must be acquitted. Right.
And let's say I'm quoting somebody here. And how could
there not be reasonable doubt about Clancy's sanity? These psychiatric
experts who are testifying sharply disagree about it. All across
(20:32):
the country, Americans sharply disagree about it. And what's more, Massachusetts'
definition of insanity is barely comprehensible. Let's see, this is
written by Jed Rubenfeld, who's been a law professor for decades.
It's worth mentioning. So under the law, Clancy must be
considered insane if due to a mental disease or defect,
(20:52):
she could not distinguish right from wrong or lacked a
substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the law when
she killed her children. And Jed writes, the meaning of
every significant term in that definition can be and has
been prolifically argued about. I'm a law professor who's taught
criminal law for decades, and I have my doubts about
how to apply a definition like that to a case
(21:13):
like Clancy's.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
Well, yeah.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And you're talking about 12 laymen in the jury room.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
The whole insane thing has always been very difficult to
nail down because, you know, what's crazy and what's not.
Especially when it gets to killing your kids. I mean,
to a certain extent, by definition, if you killed your
own kids, you're nuts of some sort.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Doesn't mean you shouldn't go to jail, though. But just
the idea that I say I'm crazy. prove I'm not.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
I sit back and you've got to try to prove
that I'm not versus I have to prove I'm crazy.
Speaker 4 (21:44):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
What percentage of people reporting on this story know that?
Speaker 1 (21:50):
No idea, but it's small. Almost nobody based on the
way it's being discussed. Yeah. So Mr.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Rubenfeld points out, as a result of that mushiness, a
complete acquittal is quite possible simply on the grounds that
the jurors would have doubts about her sanity or insanity,
which would be a travesty. Then he points out that
people may suppose killing one's children is so unimaginable that
anybody who doesn't must be out of their mind.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
But what I just said, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Child murder is not as uncommon as you think. According
to FBI statistics, some 500 people are arrested for murdering
their children annually in America. Men and women equally. They
can't all be insane. The law's concept of insanity cannot
be that capacious. Crossing insanity into evil is... You're getting
into some really God stuff here.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Right, and look.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
There have been a couple of times in my life
I've lost my temper and could easily describe my actions
during those brief and regrettable moments as insane.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
They certainly weren't sane.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Oh, yeah, if you punch something, an object that is
going to hurt you, that's pretty crazy. Right, and then
he gets into the various degrees of insanity, but there's
a second half to this. Well, I'll summarize the first
half with, no matter how horrifically depressed and troubled Clancy was,
she deliberately took the most innocent of lives with at
(23:07):
least one of her three children, having to watch as
she killed the first one. There must be criminal consequences
for that. Then he says, but simply convicting Clancy of
murder on par with, say, a rapist murder or a
drug cartel murder or even Luigi Mangione would also be wrong.
Not all murders are alike. She was obviously suffering mentally.
She repeatedly sought help. She tried to check herself into
(23:27):
mental health facilities. She apparently tried to kill herself immediately
after the event, leaving herself paralyzed from the waist down.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
There is a.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Crime that fits this dreadful bill. It's not murder. It's
called voluntary manslaughter. As Massachusetts courts themselves have put it,
voluntary manslaughter is an unlawful homicide arising not from malice,
but from the frailty of human nature. No phrase in
criminal law better captures a case like Clancy's if convicted
of voluntary manslaughter than She would serve up to 20 years.
(23:55):
But under Massachusetts law, the jury doesn't have the option
of convicting Clancy of this crime. The judge issued a
surprise ruling in the Clancy case saying he would instruct
the jury that they convict her of manslaughter as a
lesser offense, and that's what exactly happened.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
What he did.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
But what's not been widely reported is that there are
two different crimes that go by the name of manslaughter,
voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. And Judge Sullivan only instructed the
jury about one of those two crimes, involuntary manslaughter, which
happens to be the wrong one. Mr. Rubenfeld writes, voluntary
manslaughter is the crime I referred to a moment ago,
he writes, an intentional homicide slightly mitigated by the frailty
(24:35):
of human nature. And the jury was not given the
option of finding Clancy guilty of that crime.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
He gives some examples.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Involuntary is an unintentional killing in circumstances where the perpetrator
didn't know but should have known that death could or
would result. And that's the crime the judge instructed the
jury about. But she didn't commit that crime. She knew
she was killing her children. She killed intentionally. And if
the jury convicts Clancy of involuntary manslaughter, it will be
convicting her of a crime she did not commit. And
(25:08):
there's another quirk of Massachusetts law behind this, but it's just,
it's awful.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Well, I didn't watch the trial, as I've pointed out
many times, so those of you that did might have
a strong opinion on this.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
But just on the 30,000-foot view of it, if the
job is to prove she's not insane as opposed to
prove she's insane, I could see how you could get
to an acquittal in there.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Look, we don't have enough here to prove that she's
not insane. Now, societally, I'm leaning toward you kill your kids,
you got to go to prison. We just have to
have a hard and fast rule about this as a society,
as a people.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
You snuff your own little kids, you're going to prison.
That's just the way it is.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Yeah, I can sleep at night with that, even though
it might be incredibly unfair in some cases. Yeah, when
we were talking to Judge Larry, he said, you can't
do that. You can't sacrifice an innocent person for the
general principle. And I get that in each individual trial.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
I really do.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
But jurors regularly do stuff like that.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
I've heard the deliberations. Where they're like, look.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
This guy isn't guilty of that, but he's guilty of something.
How about the lesser charge? Well, I don't want to
get too specific. Well, I'll just leave it at this.
The famous Robert Blake case. Remember when we talked about
the Robert Blake case so much?
Speaker 1 (26:49):
The actor? He was probably guilty, and I think the
jurors thought he was guilty.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
But the woman he shot was such a scumbag.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
They were like, yeah, can you blame him? Right, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
Just one more thought on the voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter is like if you get into a fight,
it's mutual combat, and you slug them and they fall down,
hit their head, and die. You didn't know what you
were doing would kill them, but you should have known,
you know, that's involuntary manslaughter. And the penalties are not
(27:24):
terribly severe. And And as Rubenfeld points out at length,
and I won't hit you with it, but under Massachusetts law,
a mother who kills her children is not eligible for
the voluntary manslaughter reduction. Anyway, so that's at the heart
of the jurors' confusion. I mean, you add that on
top of the murkiness of the question of sanity, and
(27:47):
then it's three men and nine women on the jury.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
And then you get into....
Speaker 2 (27:56):
And women can be perfectly good jurors, obviously, but you
get into the question of motherhood and their experiences. I
don't know how many of them were mothers, are mothers
of children or what, and their history of mental problems
or whatever. This is practically an impossible case for a
jury to decide. Well, imagine being on different sides of
(28:18):
that and arguing because you'd be very passionate about it.
This is a scumbag who murdered their kids.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
They've got to go to jail forever.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Or you really, really believe she's mentally ill and it
was no fault of her own. My anecdotal evidence, you're
talking about women jurors on the case. My anecdotal evidence,
just the women in my orbit, they're hardcore.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
F that chick. Killing her kids like that. Screw her.
Throw away the key. Here's your palate cleanser because I
promised it.
Speaker 2 (28:49):
You remember Max Miller, who's that congressman in Ohio's 7th
District who his... Senator father-in-law said was unfit for office
because he's verbally and physically abusive to the senator's daughter,
who is Miller's estranged wife, and ugly divorce, and Max
Miller's an accused wife-beater, right?
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
So, among other terrible things, his opponent, the Democrat, Brian Poindexter,
in a traffic stop in 1998 when he was 18, so.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
He was pulled over for heavy.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Drug activity and tried to swallow a rock of crack cocaine.
He wrestled a cop. They pried it out of his mouth.
So that's an ugly incident. But it's many years ago.
He was 18 years old. I'm willing to forgive that.
But 15 years later, he had another run-in with the law.
August 2013, police arrested him for assault and removed him
(29:41):
from a Cleveland Indians game after he allegedly slapped a
stranger for no known reason.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
Here's what happened.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Rob Repka was attending the game on Dollar Dog Day
with his son, Dollar Hot Dogs.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
Sign me up. He witnessed Mr.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Poindexter, the candidate, swallow, quote, a whole freaking hot dog
in one bite.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
He opened up one. I'm quoting. He opened up one
of those dollar dogs.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
He just shoved the whole thing in his mouth in
one fell swoop, just swallowed it. Bread, hot dog, everything,
Repka said. Me and my son both witnessed it. We
looked at each other. I was like, holy ass, did
you see that? Now, Poindexter, who appeared to be heavily intoxicated,
took offense after Repka approached him, expressed his amazement, and
offered to buy Poindexter another hot dog. That's a friend
(30:32):
in need. He said, he's like, hey, were you trying
to insinuate something? I go, no, man, I just think
it's crazy that you shoved that freaking hot dog down
your throat without even taking a bite of it. And
then he just wham, just smacked me right across the
effing face.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
That's likes to fight guy. That's looking for a fight guy. Exactly.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
One of the more hilarious incidents in the history of
politician violence.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Dude, that was amazing. What are you trying to say? No, nothing.
It was just amazing.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
Whack. Nice congressional race, America. This is the best we
can do.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
I don't want that guy in Congress. I don't want
any other one in Congress. Mailbag on the way next.
Stay here. The football seat is back. How exciting is that?
The football NFL is back.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
Woo-hoo.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
And so is DraftKings.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
DraftKings is now live in all 50 states, one app
every sport nationwide.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
New DraftKings customers sign up with code Armstrong.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Spend $ 5 to get $ 200 in rewards within 21 days.
Includes all markets. That's code Armstrong. In partnership with DraftKings,
the crown is yours.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
That's right. The crown is yours. Get the crown. Gambling problem?
Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
1-800-MY-RESET.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Connecticut. Call 888-789-7777.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
Visit ccpg.org. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino in Kansas,
bet tax pass-through may apply in Illinois.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
21 plus.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Void in Canada. Bet with DraftKings Sportsbook to get bonus
bets that expire in seven days. Or trade with DraftKings
Predictions to get predictions dollars that expire in one year.
Event contract trading involves risk of loss. Predictions offer void
in New York. Non-withdrawable rewards issued as $ 50 click-to-claims every
seven days for 21 days. Terms at dkng.co slash offer.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Limited-time offer.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Nationwide based on sportsbook predictions and free-to-play sports contest availability.
Varies by state.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
Armstrong and Getty. Oh, and a COVID throwback. A COVID-era throwback.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Have you heard the story about the two people that
died of measles in Pennsylvania?
Speaker 1 (32:36):
I don't think we talked about.
Speaker 2 (32:37):
It at all.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
It looks like maybe they didn't die of measles.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
And Josh Shapiro, the governor, held a press conference about
it to try to get into a whole RFK Jr.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
Vaccination thing. And it's not real. Like the COVID era.
So we'll get into that a little bit later.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
I'll stay tuned. Here's your freedom-loving quote of the day
sent along by Ted. That's John Adams, and I'd heard
the first chunk of this, but not the last, and
I don't think Ted would mislead us. I wish I'd
had time to verify it, but I didn't. John Adams
said this, I must study politics and war that my
sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Very famous quote.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Then he went on to say, my sons ought to
study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce,
and agriculture, and in order to give their children a
right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. Well,
the problem, John, is that then their children will study
gender studies and ethnic studies and queer studies and be.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Utterly useless to society.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Then we'll have to fight another revolution and study politics
and war. Yeah, that's what's always bothered me about that
quote from the great pragmatist.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
He was pragmatic.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
John Adams is just, yeah, well, if we go that direction,
then we'll be back to where you.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
Are pretty soon. Yeah, keep going. Mailbag. Please correspond with us.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Mailbag at armstrongandgetty.com is the email address.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Got this from Art. Or no, it's Jim.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
Sorry.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
Jimothy can suck it. I'm your age and grew up
on a mountain in the Sierra Nevadas. In 1972, a
raccoon got into our house and attacked my two-year-old sister,
leaving her with over 100 stitches.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
Raccoons are ferocious.
Speaker 6 (34:27):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Yeah, my dad famously, well, at least within my family famously,
had to help my dog fight a raccoon that had
invaded our strained-in porch when I was a kid. Had,
I think, a broom or a ball bat or something,
and our neighbor's attic was infested with raccoons. It was
a nightmare.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
This is collective punishment.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
We don't allow this sort of thing. Oh, please, don't
turn your back on their kind.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Raccoons, I mean. Moving along.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
On the topic of the billionaire boogeyman, Ryan from Houston writes,
Dolly Parton was an amazing woman that did amazing things,
but one thing I noticed from many socialists who say
she's a good, let's see, She was a good person
because she wasn't a billionaire. Much like when the weather
hits triple digits, the media hits a frenzy, although the
difference between 98 and 100 isn't much. Still, I don't
(35:16):
understand how people witness government waste so much, $ 80 trillion
in a decade, et cetera, and want them to have
more power. Yeah, yeah, Dolly could have been a billionaire,
but she gave away a lot of money and so wasn't.
So she's being praised in some quarters for that. All right,
now let's see. David writes on the topic of, the
(35:36):
student debt crisis. All that student debt is owed by
the rich and upper middle class. The majority is owed
by people with master's, PhDs, and professional degrees. That's true
to some extent, David. He says the average student debt's
around $ 40, 000 as much as a new car loan. The
median's around $ 20, 000. As people owe a lot of debt,
a lot of people owe a little debt. Of course,
some of the first group are journalists and political staffers.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Yeah, okay. That's a good point. Let's see.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
That's from the five myths of the student debt crisis.
And finally, this is uncharitable. Gary writes, imagine the three
guys on the Clancy jury having to listen to nine
unhinged women unable to think rationally.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
That's it. No, no.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
The three men under the Clancy circumstances will be justified
in killing the idiot women who can't seem to figure
out Clancy is just plain guilty.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
See, that's uncharitable, Gary. Work on your charitableness. That was mean.
It's just mean.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
They're on day five of deliberation. I have a feeling
they're not going to come to a conclusion on this.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
We've got more on the way. If you miss it,
get the podcast. Armstrong and Getty.
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular 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 Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.