Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Won't Accept THIS From the DA

Tony Brueski (0:02)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dre.

Following the 11-1 mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, defense attorney Kevin Reddington is pulling out every stop to prevent a second trial, including going on national TV and asking the president for a pardon. Reddington knows a federal pardon is legally impossible in a state case, so this is a highly calculated chess move. Many are confused. What's he doing? Is he an idiot? Yes, he knows what he's doing. He's publicly boxed himself in, stating he will not accept a day in jail for Lindsay. So what exactly is the defense's end game here? Back with us to help break all this down, attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis, along with Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent, chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. So, yeah, let's talk about that.

Reddington obviously knows presidential pardon doesn't even exist as an option in a state case. So what from attorney land, defense attorney land, might actually be the strategy here? How does a defense attorney weaponize a national television plea to the president to somehow create leverage against the local DA?

Eric Faddis (1:20)

Sir, I mean, sometimes in defense you've got to get creative, and there might be measures you take that have more of a practical import than a legal import. And this might be one of them. Because you look at the Tina Peters case. She was the clerk in Colorado convicted of giving access to voting systems. And she requested a pardon from Trump, even though it was a state conviction. Well, lo and behold, in that case, Trump was being very vocal about wanting justice for Tina Peters, whom he believes is innocent. And ultimately, the Colorado governor felt that pressure, and Trump directed it specifically at him. He commuted her sentence. He lessened her sentence, many folks in my state believe, because of this presidential influence. And so even though the president's pardon would not have any legal import in the state case, it could have some very serious practical import. And I think Reddington's leaving nothing on the table and considering all of those avenues.

Robin Drake (2:18)

It was an interesting move, because I totally get that aspect, Eric. But then when you do a deeper analysis of where, again, this has not really been too much of a political case. It's been more of a gender case and mental health case, all these other areas. I mean, it's kind of crossed party lines to some extent. Because if you follow the people or look at the people that Trump typically looks at, like the Megyn Kelly's, like Nancy Grace's, these people are hardcore anti-Lindsay throwaway, lock away and why are we even talking about this? She's the murderer of her three kids.

And Trump's statement that he made, the one statement that we saw was more in lines with that kind of. So I'm curious, do you still see that in play or was, what do you think was in Reddington's mind? Kind of in your mind or was he seeing something bigger? So here's where I give credit. I give credit to the guy who's got 50 years of reps being Reddington about knowing exactly what he's doing. But a lot of us with smaller brains don't quite understand it necessarily as it's playing out. So you got a 50 pound brain, Eric. What do you think?

Eric Faddis (3:28)

You know, I think that there is a lot going on there and might characterize Trump as flexible on policy issues, on positions that might historically align with his party or something like that.

There have been times in the past where maybe Republicans were of a certain position, and then Trump saw an opportunity and he came out with something different, and in fact, sometimes sways the positions of his own followers to a different side. So perhaps Reddington said, hey, I know that a lot of folks on that side might not be a biggest fan of my client, but Trump might be more receptive, might be open-minded. Maybe there's some kind of political traction for Trump there, and he's got an appetite for pursuing those things. So Reddington is doing the best he can for his client, and I think that on the balance, it makes sense to do everything you can, and this is one of those measures.

Robin Drake (4:27)

Yeah, good analysis. That's good insight. I like that.

Tony Brueski (4:30)

It's interesting. I mean, this just feels like a case where I don't think any politician, I don't care what side you're on, I think would want to touch it with a ten for a poll, because there's no winning here. I mean, I am sure if we were to look at stats, there probably is some sort of correlation where it would weigh heavier based on this party or that party to a certain extent. But even within that, even within a single party, I'm sure there's still quite a divide. This doesn't necessarily go along political lines, per se. I don't see an advantage to any politician, including Trump, weighing in. I mean, maybe Trump is your best bet, though. Someone who seems to not really give a shit about and just kind of do whatever he wants.