Ep. 1836 - Lindsay Clancy Jurors Disgrace Themselves in New Viral Interviews

**Matt Walsh** (0:00)
Well, it finally happened. After waiting for a grand total of one half of a business day, several women on the Lindsay Clancy jury decided to run to the media for a tell-all interview about their deliberations. They simply couldn't stay out of the spotlight, alone with their own thoughts, what few thoughts they might have for another moment. So these females did what you'd expect any serious good juror to do if they have utmost reverence for our legal process. They picked a friendly left-wing media outlet, NBC News, and they got in front of cameras to run their stupid mouths. Now, the idea was to make themselves look intelligence, thoughtful, empathetic. Instead, what these depraved imbeciles actually achieved very clearly was to affirm every stereotype about female jurors that they possibly could have affirmed in record time. They single-handedly set the feminist movement, the suffrage movement, democracy back by about a century with this one interview. Now, as we discussed last week, we always assumed the women on the jury were tormenting the lone male holdout, like an unspeakable love crafty and horror. We knew that the women were subjecting this one man to never-ending screeching condescension, passive aggressiveness, and mind numbingly stupid non-arguments as he held his ground and insisted on voting guilty. We always assumed that the jury deliberations from the perspective of the lone sane male must have resembled a Twitter comment section come to life as he tried desperately to reason with people who lack the capacity for rational thought. While we were correct about all those assumptions, in the end, we didn't go nearly far enough. The reality of the situation was somehow even more disturbing, and bleak, and intolerable than we could have imagined. The footage from the interview from NBC News and another interview with CBS is not simply radicalizing in the sense that it might have you rethinking democracy, the 19th Amendment, jury trials, perhaps even civilization itself. It's also ironic in a very dark sense because you see, it turns out that the very same women who accuse the lone male member of the jury of ignoring the judge's instructions in the case were in fact themselves ignoring the judge's instructions and the law in an obvious and wildly inappropriate and flagrant manner. And they admit as much in this nationally televised interview without realizing it. In fact, in multiple interviews, including a phone interview that we'll play in a second, these females admitted that they disregarded the law in no certain terms because they personally sympathized with Lindsay Clancy, just like the Derek Chauvin jury. They had an outcome in mind from the beginning of the trial and they were hell bent on achieving that outcome. There is no other way to interpret these interviews. This again is not so much a surprise itself, but the casual brazen way that they admit it, openly and publicly, is genuinely shocking.
And it's also grounds for these particular women to be held in contempt of court. And there's reason to question whether the prosecution deliberately tanked this case, especially the female prosecutors, because for some of these jurors, their bias was exceedingly obvious. And if the prosecution had done any due diligence at all, they would have known that.
Filling the jury with feminist boomers is prosecutorial misconduct of the worst kind. There was never any hope of a guilty verdict, it turns out. And that was ensured before opening arguments even began.
And you know that just from looking at these creatures, that's before they open their mouths and remove all doubt.
But before we even get to the jurors' social media history or their admissions about ignoring the law, we have to begin with a truly jaw-dropping statement from one of the many elderly women on the jury, who you will notice is apparently incapable of even pronouncing the words reasonable doubt. This is an elderly woman who is attempting to answer a question about whether the male was a rogue juror or not, whatever that even means, rogue. Apparently not agreeing with the women makes you rogue.
But I want you to listen very carefully to every word of this.

**SPEAKER_2** (4:40)
Try to understand, we read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day in the end, well, why don't we have the judge come in and read it again? And we were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And you know, so and so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.

**Matt Walsh** (5:14)