September 1, 2026 • 27 mins
The Lindsay Clancy trial reaches a critical impasse as jurors tell the judge they cannot reach a unanimous verdict and are sent back to continue deliberating. Sean examines what the deadlock could mean for the remaining charges, why the location and makeup of a jury can matter, and whether the defense used in this case could become a blueprint for future murder trials. He also turns to allegations from inside New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office that prosecutors were directed to pursue Trump allies, raising new questions about political lawfare and equal justice.
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 (00:00):
Thanks to all of you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Write down our toll-free telephone number if you want to
be a part of this program. It is 800-941-SHAWN if
you want to join us. You can't say that I
did not warn all of you as it relates to
the Lindsay Clancy verdict in this sense. It has not,
(00:24):
by the way, been rendered yet.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
However, they are at an impasse.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
And what that tells me right off the top is
murder one is out of the question, likely murder two
out of the question. There probably are people that want
to acquit. I'm giving you my best analysis. I'm just
I'm just giving you my best take. having followed many
of these trials over the course of my career. And
(00:54):
that means that, you know, the odds of them coming
to a verdict have gone down precipitously in light of
what I'm about to tell you, if you haven't heard
it yet. And if they do, it will be one
of the lesser charges, the lifeline, as I refer to it,
the judge threading the needle, knowing that getting a unanimous
(01:16):
verdict in a case like this is going to be hard. And,
you know, look, give defense attorneys their due as much
as I can't stand Kevin Reddington, especially the the horrible
thing that he said about Nancy Grace. I wonder if
he has any knowledge of her background and that she herself,
(01:37):
you know, lost her fiance when she was only 19
years old and became a victim's advocate and then later
a prosecutor and then to call her the queen of
mean just because she believes in her heart. as a prosecutor,
that the standard of intent, the burden of proof that
is on the prosecution was met. It's just her opinion.
(01:58):
You're allowed to have opinions in this country. At least
you used to. God help us if, you know, radical
Democrats win in 63 days. But, you know, I just
sit there and, you know, to listen to this prosecutor,
this woman, she did nothing wrong in her entire life.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
She's a darn good mother.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
And it's the prosecution has ripped the soul out of
this person. And I'm like, well, no, the prosecution didn't
rip the soul out of this person. She killed the
soul was long gone in the sense that she admits
to murdering her three children.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
But it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
And what gives me this feeling and indication, if maybe
you've been out of pocket and have not kept on
the news earlier today, the jury came back. and said
that they are pretty much hung, they're incapable of getting
to a verdict, and the judge issued this statement to
the jury to continue deliberations.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Members of the jury, I've got your question, and the
question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable
to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back
out because I know that this was a long trial.
I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over
300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask
(03:24):
you to go back out, keeping in mind all the
instructions that I gave you, to go out and to
continue your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
All right?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
And so with that, I'm going to ask you to
go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the
instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask
you to resume your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
So that was earlier this morning and they are still deliberating.
If I guess past the last couple of days, three
days or any indication going into today, 17 hours of
deliberations over the course of three days, resulting in them
telling the judge they can't reach a unanimous verdict. The
judge instructed them to go back and try a little
(04:11):
bit more there.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
They have asked for nothing.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
And look, that's why I conclude that murder one is
probably off the table. Murder two is probably off the table.
The most that would happen would be manslaughter. What it
really means, if you if you want to take it
to its ultimate conclusion, is is that Lindsay Clancy one
day will walk the streets again.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
If I'm right, I could be wrong. I've been wrong
before in my life. I hope I'm not.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
But I don't think they're coming to the verdict that
I would have come to. based on my watching closely
and reading everything I can get my hands on about this.
So we're going to watch and wait. But regardless of this,
here's a bigger problem that's emerged as a result of
this defense, so you know, is that there was a
(05:03):
story yesterday in one of the papers, I read so many,
I don't really remember which one, about a case in
North Carolina. And, oh, yeah, they're going to adopt the
Lindsey Clancy defense. This now, and especially if it is successful,
is going to be used even more often. Now, I
(05:24):
did warn everybody. The reason I warned you to manage
your expectations, especially those of you that firmly believe, as
I do, that The burden of evidence was met by
the prosecution. She did have intent, as evidenced by her
sending out consciously her husband to the store and checking
in to make sure he's still out the store and
(05:46):
even making a phone call.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Do you have kids? Miralax at the CVS? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
And then even taking it a step further and saying,
you know, searching Apple Maps to calculate allegedly driving times
and distance to the pharmacy, you know, looking up things like,
can you turn air bags off in a Kia Sorento?
What is a carotid artery? And how to slit your
(06:14):
throat to die. So clearly a lot of premeditation in
my mind, That would indicate that to me, but the
jury can have a very different conclusion. This is a venue. Remember,
a jury pool out of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Why is
that relevant? Venues matter in every single solitary case, which
(06:41):
leads us to the Letitia James issue, which has come up,
and I'll get to that in a minute. And that
means that they don't have a single elected Republican in
in the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate from
the entire state of Massachusetts. They had a governor that
just signed into law with great fanfare and no pushback
(07:03):
for the most part, a bill that is codified into
law that allows abortion up until the moment of birth.
Now that would be, by any definition, infanticide. Most would
call it murder because that child can live independently with
zero scientific question outside the mother's womb. So understand the
(07:26):
jury pool is not exactly conservative in any way, shape,
manner or form. The entire state slants radical hard left
and as evidenced by their high taxes, et cetera, et cetera.
So anyway, we're going to watch it, but we're going
to bring on people with different views later in the program.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Nancy Gray's one of them.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
And Tiffany Smiley, another, well, Tiffany's normally, you know, pretty conservative.
She takes a different stand than both Nancy and myself
and thinks that there are much broader issues at play here.
So we'll get into that later in the show today.
Let me start with this. And speaking of lawfare, I mean,
this is a pretty unbelievable thing that has happened in
(08:11):
New York. And this is why venues matter. This is why...
why people go venue shopping. This is why a lot
of the lawfare that Donald Trump faced were in places
where he was, Donald Trump was never going to get
a fair trial. And we can pull up an old
(08:31):
cut of Letitia James, you know, when she was a
candidate saying she was going to get Trump. And it became,
you know, a bestselling book by Alan Dershowitz. But what
we have now learned, and Jonathan Turley had a great,
analysis of this today, you know, she ran for attorney
general and stated a very unethical, compromised campaign promise to
(08:56):
prosecute President Trump without bothering at the time to find
or even name a particular crime. And now we have learned,
according to a whistleblower by the name of Daniel Weisenfeld,
who's a former Brooklyn prosecutor who works in the AG's
in Vesta Protection Bureau, James produced her chosen defendant and
(09:21):
ordered her staff to find a crime. And we got
into this yesterday. You know, famously made by the police
chief under Joseph Stalin, show me the man and I'll
show you the crime.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I'll make up the crime. I'll find a crime.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
And anyway, this guy sent an email to call on
fellow lawyers not to assist Leticia James in in further
weaponization in her office. And he recounted his own experience
as a prosecutor in her office and how the bureau
chief there allegedly directed him to target, quote, Trump himself. And,
(10:00):
you know, truth socials, Hewlett Packard, DOJ approved merger without
having a credible reason for targeting the organizations or the individuals.
And he added, if you believe that Trump is used
in the DOJ attorneys to prosecute his enemies and And further,
as political interests, you should find it equally troubling that
Tish James is doing the exact same thing. And then
(10:24):
in that same blistering email, Weisenfeld, the whistleblower, reminded his
colleagues that they have other things to do other than
hunt down the enemies of Letitia James. And while James
is wasting, quote, significant public taxpayer dollars to target convenient
public enemies, he reminded them, that there is rampant nonprofit
(10:49):
homeless shelter fraud and anti-Semitic crimes in and around synagogues. Instead,
Letitia James went in with an agenda. Let's take a
trip down memory lane and listen to candidate Letitia James.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
The president of the United States has complained that I'm
engaging in some sort of political witch hunt. that I've
got some personal vendetta against him, that I campaigned against him.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
That is not true.
Speaker 5 (11:14):
This illegitimate president who sits in the White House. That president,
because he's not my president, he's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
His days are numbered. His days are numbered. He's got
to get ready to mobilize.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
And we've got to get ready to agitate and irritate
until victory is won.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
But more importantly, until Trump is defeated.
Speaker 5 (11:39):
We will all rise up and resist this man. And ultimately,
we'll bring him down. This illegitimate president, I'm going to
give you the same level of respect that you gave me.
to President Obama, and that is absolutely no respect at all.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Donald Trump has.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Got to go, hey, hey, ho, ho.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
Donald Trump has got to go, hey, hey, ho, ho.
That is not true.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Remember that Mar-a-Lago was, the estimate was so, what was it,
$ 18 million?
Speaker 1 (12:30):
It is, I know it sounds absurd. It is a $ 1.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
5 billion property if you ask real estate experts in
Palm Beach, Florida.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
You might say that's impossible, Hannity.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
How could, well, there are $ 200 million homes all over
Palm Beach, Florida.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
It's crazy. It's insane.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The price of estate property in South Florida has gone
through the roof, but they wouldn't even allow an objective
testimony from people that know the real estate market or
any fair value comparisons. You have two acres or less
of an estate on the ocean or maybe on the
(13:11):
ocean with a street in between the ocean and the house,
and that's going for $ 100 or $ 200 million, and they
sell with regularity. But New Yorkers, they loved it. That's
called venue shopping. That's called weaponization. And that was that
was her promise. And she fulfilled it. Except there's one problem.
(13:32):
There were people that had fidelity to the law. In
this case, it's Mr. Weisenfeld and the email that he
sent his colleagues. And, you know, the fact that the
judges in this case, which is what it just proves
my point, you can't get a venue shopping. That is
fair for anybody, you know, in certain places. And I
(13:55):
don't think that we're going to get, you know, I
think the right verdict in the Lindsay Clancy case, but
it is what it is. Just accept it. So earlier today,
the jury in this. Lindsay Clancy case, went to the
judge to announce that they cannot reach a unanimous verdict.
(14:17):
Let me go back to the earlier news from today
and then we'll give you the update.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Members of the jury, I've got your question. And the
question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable
to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back
out because I know that this was a long trial.
All right, I know there were over 80 witnesses. There
were over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going
(14:47):
to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind
all the instructions that I gave you, to go out
and to continue your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
All right?
Speaker 3 (14:58):
And so with that, I'm going to ask you to
go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the
instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask
you to resume your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Thank you. Now, they did just that.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
And all credit to the jury, even though I think
the jury pool of Massachusetts slants left. That's just my
humble opinion. I got to give the jury a lot
of credit. They took the judge's instructions seriously. They've been
back all day. They've been deliberating for the rest of today.
And they just made this announcement.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Thank you, Madam Clerk, members of the jury.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
So my understanding is that you would request to be
excused till tomorrow at 9 o'clock. So I'm going to
excuse you till then. I just want to thank you
for all your hard work and commitment so far in
this case. And you know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to remind you. You've come this far. Do
not read anything. Don't listen to anything. Don't talk about
(15:58):
this case. And we'll come in tomorrow morning. We'll bring
you all in. I'll ask you the same questions I've
been asking you for four weeks now. We'll get you
right back out to resume deliberations.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
All right.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Thank you again for all your work. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Now, they could have come back with the same the same.
Issue that they brought to the judge earlier today, they
did not. That means they're taking their responsibilities very seriously.
So I got to give props to them. With all
that said, I just, again, looking at jury pools, to me,
does matter. Venues do matter. And I'm not being critical.
(16:37):
I'm just making a factual observation about the state of Massachusetts.
And that is they don't have a single Republican elected
in the state in the U.S. House of Representatives, not
a single U.S.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Senator, not one.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
They have no representative that's a Republican in Washington. Their
state just passed, their state legislator, their state Senate, and
signed into law by the governor, you know, this infanticide bill,
which allows abortion up until the moment before birth. which
anybody with a heart, conscience, and soul, I do not
(17:09):
believe can support it. It's not exactly the conservative bastion
jury pool that you would expect. And I've been saying
that from the beginning only because it is what it is.
And if you were in a state like my free
state of Florida, you might expect a jury makeup to
be different and you might have more balance, more conservatives.
(17:31):
I don't expect that out of a state like you know, Massachusetts.
I just don't.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
All right.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
So what we will do, I will tell you this,
and this is why we're going to debate this later
in the program with both sides of this issue. I mean,
there are so many people that have shown sympathy towards
the defense arguments in this case because of postpartum depression.
I acknowledge that's real. And the fact that psychiatric medications
(18:03):
can be very, very powerful, although there were only three,
not 13, not 30, as some have indicated that were
in our system at the time this all took place.
And some would say, well, that can cause a state
of psychosis and postpartum psychosis is a phenomenon that happens rarely,
but occasionally. and so on and so forth, but there's
(18:23):
too much other evidence that was presented at trial, but
the burden of proof is on the prosecution that indicate
to me that a lot of it was premeditated. Anyway,
so that's not the larger issue to me, is that
I think if this goes the way I see it going,
I would say based on what the jury said to
(18:45):
the judge this morning, which is they cannot come to
a unanimous verdict, There's certain things I'm reading into that
or gleaning from that. I would say off the top
of my head, and it's a guess, I don't know
what's in their minds, that probably murder one is off
the table, which is what the prosecution was asking for.
(19:08):
The judge then gave them two more options because at
that point it was the insanity defense, not responsible for
your behavior, etc.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
etc.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
And he added or the third verdict that was available
from the beginning, which is not guilty at all.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
And you move on.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
So obviously there's a hang up in that jury room.
The judge saw that getting to a unanimous verdict in
this case was likely going to be a heavy lift
for the jury. No judge wants to the possibility of
a mistrial, which is why he sent them back for
more deliberations, which they are taking seriously to their credit.
(19:44):
but he did put on the table second degree murder
and manslaughter. And people are not wrong on social media
when they just roll their eyes and are pissed that
even manslaughter is brought up here.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
It's either one or the other.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
But the judge is trying to find justice in a
courtroom and understanding the reality of what a jury and
the need for a unanimous verdict actually, the bar is
that high for a reason, except, of course, if you're
in a venue like New York and you happen to
be a prominent conservative, you're dead.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
No other way to put it. But it is what
it is. Let me move on.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
So we will debate the long-term consequences because this defense
is now going to be, this is going to be
a regular thing.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
That is my prediction.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Mark my words, there's going to be the Lindsey Clancy
defense will probably become a means of directing, you know,
a defense attorney in their actions.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
That's what I predict. Let's go back to last week.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Abdul El-Sayed, his BFF, by the way, I thought this
was interesting, Hassan Piker, his BFF is apparently deleting all
his Twitter.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Wonder why.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Linda, you have any reason why somebody might want to
delete their X account? You know, why would they want
to do that?
Speaker 1 (21:10):
It seems very strange to me.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
I mean, they're so forthcoming and verbose about just about everything. So, yeah,
it's a little strange.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
I told you to because you're in charge. You and
our team were in charge of my social media. And
I say that you should just, you know, I don't
think these things were meant there to be in perpetuity anyway,
especially these silly fights that I used to have late
into the night. which caused you a lot of headaches
on your end, but whatever.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
I actually thought they were a really good time. Thank
you so much for those experiences. Do I hear sarcasm
in that voice?
Speaker 6 (21:45):
Never.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
From me? Oh, my God, never. Oh, my God, no, never.
Not me. Boss, I'd never do such a thing, ever.
That's right.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
All right, so we had last week, we had El-Sayed
longing for his community where he grew up, Egypt.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
So the other thing my parents would do is they'd
ship me off to Egypt in the summers because, you know,
my dad didn't want me to not know where he
came from and not know Arabic and not know the culture.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
So what have you found in your travels that you
would say America could gain from back home or anything
like that? Community.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Community. I think the hardest part about American life right
now is that we've been deeply atomized. And I think there,
for all of the challenges that that much mass of
humanity can bring, you're constantly enveloped in other people's humanity.
It's like a beautiful thing. You go to any wedding
(22:44):
back home. I mean, it's just like this celebration of humanity.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
It is.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Celebration.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
He longs for his home community. Nothing's preventing him from
being there. But he does have strong feelings about the
United States.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Listen.
Speaker 6 (23:01):
I think the approach that we've often taken in terrorism
has been to figure out how to leverage the might
of the U.S.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Military to go in and root out certain terrorist organizations, etc.
Speaker 6 (23:16):
And where that's necessary, that's necessary.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
But I also think we need to be curious about
why those things happen in the first place.
Speaker 6 (23:25):
What drives somebody to want to commit such a heinous act?
Speaker 4 (23:29):
I have to be a student of people's pain.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
That's what I did in medicine.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
That's what I try to do in politics.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
What happens when people are in pain?
Speaker 4 (23:40):
And I think that part of.
Speaker 6 (23:41):
What we have to understand is that sometimes when we
move we create so much collateral damage because too often
we have been on the wrong side of our own policies.
That's not ever to say.
Speaker 4 (23:57):
That terrorism is okay because it's wrong, it's never okay,
and you have to address it when it happens.
Speaker 6 (24:03):
But I think we have to make sure that when
we say that there's a rules-based international order.
Speaker 5 (24:11):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Amazing. You know, I.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Does he love this country, Linda, based on your interpretation
of what he's saying?
Speaker 4 (24:20):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Why would you be friends with Hassan Piker, his BFF?
I don't think any of them love America, honestly. I
really don't. And they're not trying to hide it. I
think when people tell you who they are, I think
you should believe them. Yeah, I think you should, too.
This is a statement I make often.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Now we've got a new statement from the one and
only El-Sayed. And this is about comparing. And it just resurfaced.
It's amazing how things come back to bite people. And, well,
let's just talk. This is him showing his love for America.
I've got to give props to our friend Benny Johnson.
(25:00):
He unearthed this audio. That's where I saw it. Or Linda,
I think, saw it first. About El-Sayed praising Canada.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Over the U.S.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
As being better to achieve the American dream. If you
want to achieve the American dream, we should move to
Canada because it's twice as likely there.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Listen.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
Contrary to what we're taught, that we are the land
of opportunity where anyone with a dollar and a dream
can make it. In fact, too few people have that
first dollar. Economic data shows us that if you want
to achieve the American dream, well, you should move to
Canada because it's twice as likely there. Here, where you
start predicts where you end.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
You know what's amazing about all this talk about Canada
lately and the trade conflict and war? The most amazing
thing to me is that Canada wouldn't survive without the
United States of America.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
They just wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Period.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
End stop.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
By the way, I think it would be negligent not
to point out the president.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Now is battling... Iran successfully. And we'll get to that.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
I guess we'll have time later. We'll get to his
comments when new joins us coming up later in the
program today. And why does so many people they have
single payer in Canada? Why does so many Canadians come
to the U.S. for health care and they are willing
to pay out of pocket money? for the better care,
the more immediate care that they'd otherwise be waiting for
(26:32):
in Canada. Why is the National Health Service, that's a
universal health care system in Great Britain, why is it
going belly up? Why is it going bankrupt? You know,
inquiring minds would like to know.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Just a thought. Pretty unbelievable. Anyway, 800-941-SHAWN if you want
to be a part of the program today. A lot
of ground to cover.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
And what are the long-term implications of this Lindsay Clancy trial?
We'll get into that with Nancy Grace and Tiffany Smiley
coming up today because it's going to be used over
and over again.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Get used to it.
Thanks to all of you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Write down our toll-free telephone number if you want to
be a part of this program. It is 800-941-SHAWN if
you want to join us. You can't say that I
did not warn all of you as it relates to
the Lindsay Clancy verdict in this sense. It has not,
(00:24):
by the way, been rendered yet.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
However, they are at an impasse.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
And what that tells me right off the top is
murder one is out of the question, likely murder two
out of the question. There probably are people that want
to acquit. I'm giving you my best analysis. I'm just
I'm just giving you my best take. having followed many
of these trials over the course of my career. And
(00:54):
that means that, you know, the odds of them coming
to a verdict have gone down precipitously in light of
what I'm about to tell you, if you haven't heard
it yet. And if they do, it will be one
of the lesser charges, the lifeline, as I refer to it,
the judge threading the needle, knowing that getting a unanimous
(01:16):
verdict in a case like this is going to be hard. And,
you know, look, give defense attorneys their due as much
as I can't stand Kevin Reddington, especially the the horrible
thing that he said about Nancy Grace. I wonder if
he has any knowledge of her background and that she herself,
(01:37):
you know, lost her fiance when she was only 19
years old and became a victim's advocate and then later
a prosecutor and then to call her the queen of
mean just because she believes in her heart. as a prosecutor,
that the standard of intent, the burden of proof that
is on the prosecution was met. It's just her opinion.
(01:58):
You're allowed to have opinions in this country. At least
you used to. God help us if, you know, radical
Democrats win in 63 days. But, you know, I just
sit there and, you know, to listen to this prosecutor,
this woman, she did nothing wrong in her entire life.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
She's a darn good mother.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
And it's the prosecution has ripped the soul out of
this person. And I'm like, well, no, the prosecution didn't
rip the soul out of this person. She killed the
soul was long gone in the sense that she admits
to murdering her three children.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
But it is what it is.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
And what gives me this feeling and indication, if maybe
you've been out of pocket and have not kept on
the news earlier today, the jury came back. and said
that they are pretty much hung, they're incapable of getting
to a verdict, and the judge issued this statement to
the jury to continue deliberations.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Members of the jury, I've got your question, and the
question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable
to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back
out because I know that this was a long trial.
I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over
300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going to ask
(03:24):
you to go back out, keeping in mind all the
instructions that I gave you, to go out and to
continue your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
All right?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
And so with that, I'm going to ask you to
go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the
instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask
you to resume your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
So that was earlier this morning and they are still deliberating.
If I guess past the last couple of days, three
days or any indication going into today, 17 hours of
deliberations over the course of three days, resulting in them
telling the judge they can't reach a unanimous verdict. The
judge instructed them to go back and try a little
(04:11):
bit more there.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
They have asked for nothing.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
And look, that's why I conclude that murder one is
probably off the table. Murder two is probably off the table.
The most that would happen would be manslaughter. What it
really means, if you if you want to take it
to its ultimate conclusion, is is that Lindsay Clancy one
day will walk the streets again.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
If I'm right, I could be wrong. I've been wrong
before in my life. I hope I'm not.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
But I don't think they're coming to the verdict that
I would have come to. based on my watching closely
and reading everything I can get my hands on about this.
So we're going to watch and wait. But regardless of this,
here's a bigger problem that's emerged as a result of
this defense, so you know, is that there was a
(05:03):
story yesterday in one of the papers, I read so many,
I don't really remember which one, about a case in
North Carolina. And, oh, yeah, they're going to adopt the
Lindsey Clancy defense. This now, and especially if it is successful,
is going to be used even more often. Now, I
(05:24):
did warn everybody. The reason I warned you to manage
your expectations, especially those of you that firmly believe, as
I do, that The burden of evidence was met by
the prosecution. She did have intent, as evidenced by her
sending out consciously her husband to the store and checking
in to make sure he's still out the store and
(05:46):
even making a phone call.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Do you have kids? Miralax at the CVS? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
And then even taking it a step further and saying,
you know, searching Apple Maps to calculate allegedly driving times
and distance to the pharmacy, you know, looking up things like,
can you turn air bags off in a Kia Sorento?
What is a carotid artery? And how to slit your
(06:14):
throat to die. So clearly a lot of premeditation in
my mind, That would indicate that to me, but the
jury can have a very different conclusion. This is a venue. Remember,
a jury pool out of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Why is
that relevant? Venues matter in every single solitary case, which
(06:41):
leads us to the Letitia James issue, which has come up,
and I'll get to that in a minute. And that
means that they don't have a single elected Republican in
in the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate from
the entire state of Massachusetts. They had a governor that
just signed into law with great fanfare and no pushback
(07:03):
for the most part, a bill that is codified into
law that allows abortion up until the moment of birth.
Now that would be, by any definition, infanticide. Most would
call it murder because that child can live independently with
zero scientific question outside the mother's womb. So understand the
(07:26):
jury pool is not exactly conservative in any way, shape,
manner or form. The entire state slants radical hard left
and as evidenced by their high taxes, et cetera, et cetera.
So anyway, we're going to watch it, but we're going
to bring on people with different views later in the program.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Nancy Gray's one of them.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
And Tiffany Smiley, another, well, Tiffany's normally, you know, pretty conservative.
She takes a different stand than both Nancy and myself
and thinks that there are much broader issues at play here.
So we'll get into that later in the show today.
Let me start with this. And speaking of lawfare, I mean,
this is a pretty unbelievable thing that has happened in
(08:11):
New York. And this is why venues matter. This is why...
why people go venue shopping. This is why a lot
of the lawfare that Donald Trump faced were in places
where he was, Donald Trump was never going to get
a fair trial. And we can pull up an old
(08:31):
cut of Letitia James, you know, when she was a
candidate saying she was going to get Trump. And it became,
you know, a bestselling book by Alan Dershowitz. But what
we have now learned, and Jonathan Turley had a great,
analysis of this today, you know, she ran for attorney
general and stated a very unethical, compromised campaign promise to
(08:56):
prosecute President Trump without bothering at the time to find
or even name a particular crime. And now we have learned,
according to a whistleblower by the name of Daniel Weisenfeld,
who's a former Brooklyn prosecutor who works in the AG's
in Vesta Protection Bureau, James produced her chosen defendant and
(09:21):
ordered her staff to find a crime. And we got
into this yesterday. You know, famously made by the police
chief under Joseph Stalin, show me the man and I'll
show you the crime.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I'll make up the crime. I'll find a crime.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
And anyway, this guy sent an email to call on
fellow lawyers not to assist Leticia James in in further
weaponization in her office. And he recounted his own experience
as a prosecutor in her office and how the bureau
chief there allegedly directed him to target, quote, Trump himself. And,
(10:00):
you know, truth socials, Hewlett Packard, DOJ approved merger without
having a credible reason for targeting the organizations or the individuals.
And he added, if you believe that Trump is used
in the DOJ attorneys to prosecute his enemies and And further,
as political interests, you should find it equally troubling that
Tish James is doing the exact same thing. And then
(10:24):
in that same blistering email, Weisenfeld, the whistleblower, reminded his
colleagues that they have other things to do other than
hunt down the enemies of Letitia James. And while James
is wasting, quote, significant public taxpayer dollars to target convenient
public enemies, he reminded them, that there is rampant nonprofit
(10:49):
homeless shelter fraud and anti-Semitic crimes in and around synagogues. Instead,
Letitia James went in with an agenda. Let's take a
trip down memory lane and listen to candidate Letitia James.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
The president of the United States has complained that I'm
engaging in some sort of political witch hunt. that I've
got some personal vendetta against him, that I campaigned against him.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
That is not true.
Speaker 5 (11:14):
This illegitimate president who sits in the White House. That president,
because he's not my president, he's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
His days are numbered. His days are numbered. He's got
to get ready to mobilize.
Speaker 5 (11:29):
And we've got to get ready to agitate and irritate
until victory is won.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
But more importantly, until Trump is defeated.
Speaker 5 (11:39):
We will all rise up and resist this man. And ultimately,
we'll bring him down. This illegitimate president, I'm going to
give you the same level of respect that you gave me.
to President Obama, and that is absolutely no respect at all.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Donald Trump has.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Got to go, hey, hey, ho, ho.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
Donald Trump has got to go, hey, hey, ho, ho.
That is not true.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Remember that Mar-a-Lago was, the estimate was so, what was it,
$ 18 million?
Speaker 1 (12:30):
It is, I know it sounds absurd. It is a $ 1.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
5 billion property if you ask real estate experts in
Palm Beach, Florida.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
You might say that's impossible, Hannity.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
How could, well, there are $ 200 million homes all over
Palm Beach, Florida.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
It's crazy. It's insane.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The price of estate property in South Florida has gone
through the roof, but they wouldn't even allow an objective
testimony from people that know the real estate market or
any fair value comparisons. You have two acres or less
of an estate on the ocean or maybe on the
(13:11):
ocean with a street in between the ocean and the house,
and that's going for $ 100 or $ 200 million, and they
sell with regularity. But New Yorkers, they loved it. That's
called venue shopping. That's called weaponization. And that was that
was her promise. And she fulfilled it. Except there's one problem.
(13:32):
There were people that had fidelity to the law. In
this case, it's Mr. Weisenfeld and the email that he
sent his colleagues. And, you know, the fact that the
judges in this case, which is what it just proves
my point, you can't get a venue shopping. That is
fair for anybody, you know, in certain places. And I
(13:55):
don't think that we're going to get, you know, I
think the right verdict in the Lindsay Clancy case, but
it is what it is. Just accept it. So earlier today,
the jury in this. Lindsay Clancy case, went to the
judge to announce that they cannot reach a unanimous verdict.
(14:17):
Let me go back to the earlier news from today
and then we'll give you the update.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Members of the jury, I've got your question. And the
question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable
to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back
out because I know that this was a long trial.
All right, I know there were over 80 witnesses. There
were over 300 exhibits. But because of that, I'm going
(14:47):
to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind
all the instructions that I gave you, to go out
and to continue your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
All right?
Speaker 3 (14:58):
And so with that, I'm going to ask you to
go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the
instructions I gave you, reviewing the evidence, and I'd ask
you to resume your deliberations at this time.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Thank you. Now, they did just that.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
And all credit to the jury, even though I think
the jury pool of Massachusetts slants left. That's just my
humble opinion. I got to give the jury a lot
of credit. They took the judge's instructions seriously. They've been
back all day. They've been deliberating for the rest of today.
And they just made this announcement.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Thank you, Madam Clerk, members of the jury.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
So my understanding is that you would request to be
excused till tomorrow at 9 o'clock. So I'm going to
excuse you till then. I just want to thank you
for all your hard work and commitment so far in
this case. And you know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to remind you. You've come this far. Do
not read anything. Don't listen to anything. Don't talk about
(15:58):
this case. And we'll come in tomorrow morning. We'll bring
you all in. I'll ask you the same questions I've
been asking you for four weeks now. We'll get you
right back out to resume deliberations.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
All right.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Thank you again for all your work. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Now, they could have come back with the same the same.
Issue that they brought to the judge earlier today, they
did not. That means they're taking their responsibilities very seriously.
So I got to give props to them. With all
that said, I just, again, looking at jury pools, to me,
does matter. Venues do matter. And I'm not being critical.
(16:37):
I'm just making a factual observation about the state of Massachusetts.
And that is they don't have a single Republican elected
in the state in the U.S. House of Representatives, not
a single U.S.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Senator, not one.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
They have no representative that's a Republican in Washington. Their
state just passed, their state legislator, their state Senate, and
signed into law by the governor, you know, this infanticide bill,
which allows abortion up until the moment before birth. which
anybody with a heart, conscience, and soul, I do not
(17:09):
believe can support it. It's not exactly the conservative bastion
jury pool that you would expect. And I've been saying
that from the beginning only because it is what it is.
And if you were in a state like my free
state of Florida, you might expect a jury makeup to
be different and you might have more balance, more conservatives.
(17:31):
I don't expect that out of a state like you know, Massachusetts.
I just don't.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
All right.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
So what we will do, I will tell you this,
and this is why we're going to debate this later
in the program with both sides of this issue. I mean,
there are so many people that have shown sympathy towards
the defense arguments in this case because of postpartum depression.
I acknowledge that's real. And the fact that psychiatric medications
(18:03):
can be very, very powerful, although there were only three,
not 13, not 30, as some have indicated that were
in our system at the time this all took place.
And some would say, well, that can cause a state
of psychosis and postpartum psychosis is a phenomenon that happens rarely,
but occasionally. and so on and so forth, but there's
(18:23):
too much other evidence that was presented at trial, but
the burden of proof is on the prosecution that indicate
to me that a lot of it was premeditated. Anyway,
so that's not the larger issue to me, is that
I think if this goes the way I see it going,
I would say based on what the jury said to
(18:45):
the judge this morning, which is they cannot come to
a unanimous verdict, There's certain things I'm reading into that
or gleaning from that. I would say off the top
of my head, and it's a guess, I don't know
what's in their minds, that probably murder one is off
the table, which is what the prosecution was asking for.
(19:08):
The judge then gave them two more options because at
that point it was the insanity defense, not responsible for
your behavior, etc.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
etc.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
And he added or the third verdict that was available
from the beginning, which is not guilty at all.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
And you move on.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
So obviously there's a hang up in that jury room.
The judge saw that getting to a unanimous verdict in
this case was likely going to be a heavy lift
for the jury. No judge wants to the possibility of
a mistrial, which is why he sent them back for
more deliberations, which they are taking seriously to their credit.
(19:44):
but he did put on the table second degree murder
and manslaughter. And people are not wrong on social media
when they just roll their eyes and are pissed that
even manslaughter is brought up here.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
It's either one or the other.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
But the judge is trying to find justice in a
courtroom and understanding the reality of what a jury and
the need for a unanimous verdict actually, the bar is
that high for a reason, except, of course, if you're
in a venue like New York and you happen to
be a prominent conservative, you're dead.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
No other way to put it. But it is what
it is. Let me move on.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
So we will debate the long-term consequences because this defense
is now going to be, this is going to be
a regular thing.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
That is my prediction.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Mark my words, there's going to be the Lindsey Clancy
defense will probably become a means of directing, you know,
a defense attorney in their actions.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
That's what I predict. Let's go back to last week.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Abdul El-Sayed, his BFF, by the way, I thought this
was interesting, Hassan Piker, his BFF is apparently deleting all
his Twitter.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Wonder why.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Linda, you have any reason why somebody might want to
delete their X account? You know, why would they want
to do that?
Speaker 1 (21:10):
It seems very strange to me.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
I mean, they're so forthcoming and verbose about just about everything. So, yeah,
it's a little strange.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
I told you to because you're in charge. You and
our team were in charge of my social media. And
I say that you should just, you know, I don't
think these things were meant there to be in perpetuity anyway,
especially these silly fights that I used to have late
into the night. which caused you a lot of headaches
on your end, but whatever.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
I actually thought they were a really good time. Thank
you so much for those experiences. Do I hear sarcasm
in that voice?
Speaker 6 (21:45):
Never.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
From me? Oh, my God, never. Oh, my God, no, never.
Not me. Boss, I'd never do such a thing, ever.
That's right.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
All right, so we had last week, we had El-Sayed
longing for his community where he grew up, Egypt.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
So the other thing my parents would do is they'd
ship me off to Egypt in the summers because, you know,
my dad didn't want me to not know where he
came from and not know Arabic and not know the culture.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
So what have you found in your travels that you
would say America could gain from back home or anything
like that? Community.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Community. I think the hardest part about American life right
now is that we've been deeply atomized. And I think there,
for all of the challenges that that much mass of
humanity can bring, you're constantly enveloped in other people's humanity.
It's like a beautiful thing. You go to any wedding
(22:44):
back home. I mean, it's just like this celebration of humanity.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
It is.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Celebration.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
He longs for his home community. Nothing's preventing him from
being there. But he does have strong feelings about the
United States.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Listen.
Speaker 6 (23:01):
I think the approach that we've often taken in terrorism
has been to figure out how to leverage the might
of the U.S.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Military to go in and root out certain terrorist organizations, etc.
Speaker 6 (23:16):
And where that's necessary, that's necessary.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
But I also think we need to be curious about
why those things happen in the first place.
Speaker 6 (23:25):
What drives somebody to want to commit such a heinous act?
Speaker 4 (23:29):
I have to be a student of people's pain.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
That's what I did in medicine.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
That's what I try to do in politics.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
What happens when people are in pain?
Speaker 4 (23:40):
And I think that part of.
Speaker 6 (23:41):
What we have to understand is that sometimes when we
move we create so much collateral damage because too often
we have been on the wrong side of our own policies.
That's not ever to say.
Speaker 4 (23:57):
That terrorism is okay because it's wrong, it's never okay,
and you have to address it when it happens.
Speaker 6 (24:03):
But I think we have to make sure that when
we say that there's a rules-based international order.
Speaker 5 (24:11):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Amazing. You know, I.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Does he love this country, Linda, based on your interpretation
of what he's saying?
Speaker 4 (24:20):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Why would you be friends with Hassan Piker, his BFF?
I don't think any of them love America, honestly. I
really don't. And they're not trying to hide it. I
think when people tell you who they are, I think
you should believe them. Yeah, I think you should, too.
This is a statement I make often.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Now we've got a new statement from the one and
only El-Sayed. And this is about comparing. And it just resurfaced.
It's amazing how things come back to bite people. And, well,
let's just talk. This is him showing his love for America.
I've got to give props to our friend Benny Johnson.
(25:00):
He unearthed this audio. That's where I saw it. Or Linda,
I think, saw it first. About El-Sayed praising Canada.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Over the U.S.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
As being better to achieve the American dream. If you
want to achieve the American dream, we should move to
Canada because it's twice as likely there.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Listen.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
Contrary to what we're taught, that we are the land
of opportunity where anyone with a dollar and a dream
can make it. In fact, too few people have that
first dollar. Economic data shows us that if you want
to achieve the American dream, well, you should move to
Canada because it's twice as likely there. Here, where you
start predicts where you end.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
You know what's amazing about all this talk about Canada
lately and the trade conflict and war? The most amazing
thing to me is that Canada wouldn't survive without the
United States of America.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
They just wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Period.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
End stop.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
By the way, I think it would be negligent not
to point out the president.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Now is battling... Iran successfully. And we'll get to that.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
I guess we'll have time later. We'll get to his
comments when new joins us coming up later in the
program today. And why does so many people they have
single payer in Canada? Why does so many Canadians come
to the U.S. for health care and they are willing
to pay out of pocket money? for the better care,
the more immediate care that they'd otherwise be waiting for
(26:32):
in Canada. Why is the National Health Service, that's a
universal health care system in Great Britain, why is it
going belly up? Why is it going bankrupt? You know,
inquiring minds would like to know.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Just a thought. Pretty unbelievable. Anyway, 800-941-SHAWN if you want
to be a part of the program today. A lot
of ground to cover.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
And what are the long-term implications of this Lindsay Clancy trial?
We'll get into that with Nancy Grace and Tiffany Smiley
coming up today because it's going to be used over
and over again.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Get used to it.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
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.