Ep. 2051 - Lindsay Clancy Verdict in Jeopardy After Jury Deadlock

**Michael Knowles** (0:00)
This episode is brought to you by Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004 Plan under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at cardiff.co/knowles.
Okay, it's the last day that I am on the road for my secret project that I can't tell you about. I'm in yet another country. It's crazy, but I will be back in the studio tomorrow. In the meantime, I must weigh in on the news out of the Lindsay Clancy case. Lindsay Clancy's jury has decided they can't reach a unanimous decision. So here's the reporting from CNN. I'm getting it. I'm hearing it for the first time. That's not true. I'm hearing it for like the second or third time. No verdict yet. Jurors went home after the end of their fourth day of deliberations without reaching a verdict. If the jury could not reach a verdict within four seconds of deliberations, you know this thing is, as the kids say, foobar. I think it's like the millennials who say foobar. In any case, that's crazy. The evidence is so clear. She did it. She was never diagnosed with postpartum depression. Her husband wasn't depriving her of resources. She planned it out methodically. She sent her husband out of the house.
Any conclusion in this case that this woman is not guilty of sin is evidence of a kind of psychosis. But I think I've identified what the psychosis is. And I haven't heard anyone else say this. But this case reminds me of OJ.
Do you remember, I was young when the OJ case was going on, but I remember it vividly. It's all anybody was talking about. There are a lot of parallels. And the other similarity with the OJ case is, in both of those cases, the defendants were obviously guilty as all get out. And there was really no question among any reasonable people. And in the OJ case, OJ was acquitted. Now he was held liable in a civil trial, because he obviously murdered his wife and her friend. But in the criminal case, he was acquitted. In this case, I don't know when you're going to be seeing this. Obviously, it's a little bit of a delayed timetable, because I'm recording this from another time zone. But regardless of whether or not Lindsay Clancy is convicted, as she should be, or if she gets off the hook because of the psychosis of the women on the jury, in any case, I think the read remains exactly the same. The real parallel to me between the OJ case and the Lindsay Clancy case, the deep parallel, is that in both cases, what they reflect is a political community getting what the liberal activists of their community say that they want and them going crazy as a result of it. That's what I think is going on here. The OJ case occurred in the mid-90s. The mid-90s were the absolute apotheosis of all black activism. All the peaceful black activism, the radical black activism, the Black Panthers, everything, all of the above. The black community had gotten every single thing that the liberal activists said they needed to have. They got affirmative action. They got the Great Society. They got the Voting Rights Act. They got an expansion of the welfare state. They got racial grievance put into curricula in schools. They got Martin Luther King Day. They got every single thing.
I'm not saying all black people. I'm saying the liberal black activists. Not Clarence Thomas, not Thomas Sowell. The liberal black activists said that they wanted. The black people got all of those things and it wasn't enough. Do you know what else they wanted? They wanted a guy to get off on murder just because he was black. They wanted a black person to be able to murder his wife and her friend simply on the basis of being black. That's what they wanted and in the Lindsay Clancy case, you're seeing exactly the same thing. We are living in the big two six. Women have gotten every single thing that the liberal women activists say that they want. Not all women, not the smart women, not the normal women, not the grounded tradwife women. The liberal female activists, the feminists, they've gotten everything that they said they want. We are living post-me too. We are living in an age of feminism. We are living in the age of affirmative action, which helps women too. We're living in an age in which women comprise or constitute most university students and most workers.
They got everything they said they wanted, but they're not happy.
So now what they demand is that a person get off the hook for murder, for murder of their own children, simply for being a woman. That's the argument. That's the argument of all the women who are showing up outside the courthouse with their kids throwing up the heart sign saying, we support you, Lindsay. The argument is if a woman feels bad someday, because men just don't understand them, if that woman feels sad, she should be able to plan out the murder of her kids, send her husband out of the house, murder all of her kids and get off the hook.