Sekulow

Logan Sekulow: On today's show, a Clancy juror admits that the holdout vote was due to a shocking reason I'm certain you'll connect with. Welcome to Sekulow. It's genuinely a packed show, a packed house today. Jordan Sekulow here, Will Haines in studio. We've got Ric Grenell joining us a little bit later and Attorney General of West Virginia, JB McCuskey, will be joining us. So we have a packed show. And today, we're kicking things off with a bit different of a topic. Usually, this is not something we'd weigh into, but of course, the world has been keeping an eye on the Lindsay Clancy case and everything that's happened. We of course know that it went to a mistrial essentially where one holdout was saying, "I can't acquit this person," or at least give them something because of reason of insanity. They couldn't get over one simple fact. They couldn't get over something that I think a lot of people who will be listening to this will agree with. We talk about the sanctity of life and we talk about when life not only begins, but when life ends and how we treat that. And I think that this is showing sort of the growing epidemic that maybe goes beyond the legal side and goes to just the well-being of the American mind right now when you hear something so casually thrown away like this. This is from one of the other jurors. Now they're making the rounds, the press rounds talking about this because as I said, only one person decided that they were going to hold out and said they just couldn't get over this simple fact. This is a juror on NBC News talking about this. Wait until the end when you hear what they think is an egregious reason this person could not vote to acquit.
Juror (Female): Every one of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room because you just couldn't sit anymore. And we'd all go over to the cart with the exhibits. He, I think, went up to the cart once very briefly and went back to his seat. He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read 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 say, "This is the definition of reasonable doubt." But he had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
Logan Sekulow: He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. That is where we live today in the current society. And I think we need to talk about this. We need to talk about this, Will, and how it plays into just the idea of life and how life is treated even in the court system.
Will Haines: Once again, this is a tragic thing when you think about all the context here. But the way that so cavalierly this juror said that the one person couldn't get over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children is shocking to hear. It shocks your conscience. I think it goes to what we've been talking about, especially in a state like Massachusetts where this is taking place. Even the fight of the state against pro-life pregnancy resource centers and the clapping at the late-term abortion bill that was signed into law by the governor. The culture of protecting the sanctity of life is eroding much faster than we've ever seen.
Logan Sekulow: It doesn't only happen in the courtroom. It doesn't only happen in the law. It's happening just in our own mental psyche as we move forward. There's also a lot going on today. The GOP Midterm Convention, something that I don't think I've ever said before, is starting today. We'll talk about that and a bit more coming right up. Jordan is here, Will's here, JB McCuskey's joining us, and Ric Grenell's joining us. It is just going to be jammed, but I still want to hear from you. That is at 1-800-684-3110. If you want a way to get involved right now, we have a petition up. If you hear something like this and you feel like our society has become desensitized to what's going on in the fight for life, go to aclj.org/sign. Sign that petition today and be a part of the team. We'll be right back with your calls, comments, and everything else. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Mixing things up a little bit, we're talking about the Clancy case currently that was ruled a mistrial. Now details are coming out because the jurors are speaking. And the one quote that none of us here could get over is, as we continue our fight for life not only in court, but also just in people's mental well-being when we're talking about protecting children's lives. They said this one juror, who was the holdout, could not get over the fact—the quote is, "He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children," and would not vote to acquit her on reasons of mental wellness. It's a sad place we're at, but it's also showing a bit of the times here, Jordan. It's something we can break down a little bit more.
Jordan Sekulow: The fact that they said he couldn't get over the fact that she viciously killed her children—right there, I think for most people, that's where you'd be hung up. You really had to feel in court that this argument of this psychosis and the postpartum depression would have had to be extreme to not justify this, but to excuse this in a court of law. In this state, the usual sense would be life in prison without a chance for parole. Instead, the distinction being potentially some kind of psychiatric holding, but then you don't guarantee how long people are going to be there. If it's all situationally based on the fact that it was pregnancies and she's not going to have pregnancies again, then how long does she really need to be held in a psychiatric facility if that's what caused it? That's a very complicated part for the jury to get to, but it seems like most of the jury was there. They were ready to do it. There was a lot of cultural pressure around this. I'm not saying it's bad because I think it's good to have these mental health discussions publicly. I don't know if this was the best case to start it on because of exactly what that juror said. It's just so vicious what she did. To have a mental health discussion around that, maybe it's a wake-up call to get ahead of these issues. But that doesn't solve this case and it doesn't bring justice for these three children.
Logan Sekulow: One juror said they were going to vote guilty the whole time and then at the last second decided, "Well, we don't know if she's going to be able to get the help she needs, so we're going to vote not guilty." Well, so they proved—and look, there was never a moment they're saying that she did not do this.
Will Haines: The defense never claimed she didn't do it. I know there's a lot of people on the internet that like to claim that, but the defense never went down that path. What they went down is the path that she's not criminally responsible for her actions. As you brought up, Jordan, that's a different discussion because "not guilty by reason of insanity" is not a new concept. It's not like they invented something novel here.
Jordan Sekulow: You can be in prison for a very long time for that, almost the same. You can be in prison for life for that or in psychiatric facilities for life. Now this one brings up, as you said, Will, this other twist, and the twist is this is directly related to postpartum issues. So if you're not pregnant, how are you going to continue to hold that person for what they did? Then can you actually have them agree to not become pregnant? That becomes a whole other ethical issue there.
Will Haines: Whole other ethical issues: sterilization and these kind of questions. That would have to be the second discussion for people to feel even comfortable. But as you see, this one juror is being demonized for feeling like a lot of us felt. It's really hard to get past the fact that she did this heinous act. That's where you had to get past that to get to the not guilty for reason of insanity. And once again, here's a bite from a different juror that was talking about what they were trying to figure out and why it's so relevant to this discussion. Why does this matter for those of you watching? Because it's one individual and it's horrific, but it's in Massachusetts, it's a state crime. This isn't going to make national precedent for law. But when you start to hear how cavalier it becomes about what she did—and what isn't in dispute from the prosecution nor the defense at this point—what was presented to this jury is that she did these acts. So much so that the juror that was very upset that someone wouldn't acquit by reason of insanity used the term "viciously killed." It wasn't someone categorizing the way she was talking. Those were her words. And it has become culturally okay for this extreme example. When we talk about the abortion industry and the lobby that has pushed boundaries when it comes to what is the norm, I remember an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics that made a lot of waves in 2012 that was called "After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?" It got passed around a lot. Obviously, it's very heady and philosophical. Basically, these two doctors, bioethicists, were arguing that because a child can't realize their own needs and wants after birth, after-birth abortion should also be permitted. Everyone rejected that. It made a lot of waves in the pro-life sphere of how egregious this was, but it was pretty much rejected because that's an absurd concept. But what we're starting to see here, whether it be Governor Northam from Virginia that said in that late-term abortion discussion, "Well, we'll make the baby comfortable, then decide what to do with it," or you think of the bill that was applauded. We're not that far away from what this article says when you're having the jurors deciding the fate of a mother who used exercise bands to end the life of her children. I don't want to present this in some other way, but I think you'd be shocked at what goes on in terms of post-birth childcare when there are these situations. There are things that happen in hospitals I don't think are totally on the up and up with this.
Logan Sekulow: I think we have to be very careful with this. I think maybe this will be an eye-opening moment like Will said where you actually have these conversations, because these are conversations that are really happening inside of the medical field. These are conversations that are happening inside of our own brains to discuss where we think life should and shouldn't be protected. Let's even hear again from another juror. This is bite seven.
Juror 2 (Female): We're not trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did and she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children. So she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing. To me, that was proof.
Logan Sekulow: It was the proof. Now, Jordan, I think this actually brings up a very interesting legal argument here as well because it's like where does these kind of excuses, if you'd say, land you in terms of mental fitness? When it comes to murder—and now at this point triple murder—does that play into this? What does it look like when clearly she had a good defense?
Jordan Sekulow: So they call affirmative defense is that you are affirming that what they are saying about you is true, you did the act, but you are not guilty because of this defense. This defense was one that has been around for a long time. It's insanity. And that you were not, that it wasn't you doing it, you were taken over by biological chemical depression, postpartum issues. And we saw the age range there; I think an eight-month-old was the youngest. So that would be the closest with the postpartum. That's again something that's worthy of having that discussion. They talk about it all the time, especially in your first child. But when you have these extreme cases, I think people do want some option where they feel like there's going to be punishment here. And that punishment could come with intense counseling, but not just letting these people out into the streets in a few months.
Logan Sekulow: It can be both. There's another danger here as well.
Jordan Sekulow: And really, are you going to ban her from having children? Can you? I don't think you can even do that under the US law. So she could be pregnant again, have a pregnancy that had no problem, then have a second pregnancy with no problems, and a third pregnancy with issues. So even though it doesn't set a precedent nationwide, it does set an idea nationwide for jurors. So if you end up as a juror in a similar case like this, you're going to remember this case.
Logan Sekulow: Whoever was deciding on picking the jurors for the defense almost got it.
Will Haines: Here's also the concern though: if you equate what Lindsay Clancy did with the term postpartum depression. Now they were using more "postpartum psychosis" as the term used here. But everyone that's talking about it in the news and the people that are carrying signs are saying postpartum depression. If you equate what Lindsay Clancy did with postpartum depression, that's going to discourage people from getting help that they may need. Postpartum depression does not mean you are a murderer. They're taking a pretty widespread term that can define a lot of normal kind of depressive behavior that does not include taking anyone's life.
Logan Sekulow: Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Attorney General of West Virginia, JB McCuskey, is joining us, also somewhat talking about protecting kids in different ways. We'll discuss that as well as some other news coming from him. You're not going to want to miss this. It's really interesting. 1-800-684-3110 again. Protect the sanctity of life. Go to aclj.org/sign. Sign the petition today. Absolutely free way to get involved with what we're doing here and get yourself connected with the ACLJ at aclj.org again /sign. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. Jordan's in studio, Will's in studio. We've got a packed show this entire hour and we're joined by our first guest of the day, ACLJ alumni, of course, the current Attorney General of West Virginia, JB McCuskey. Now in this moment, Jordan, there's a couple different things happening right now and I think we want to address them all on the air.
Jordan Sekulow: Let's get to two victories that West Virginia was leading the charge in, but it affects the entire country. One affects all of us when it comes to how we power our homes and our cars, transportation, and office buildings and about everything else in the country. And then one of course about protecting our children. The first I wanted to go to, which is the latest, was out of New York. JB, you guys led the charge here because New York had announced this climate change super fund that would have cost West Virginia possibly $75 billion in fines to companies based in West Virginia because they provided the gas and the coal that powers the infrastructure in New York state.
JB McCuskey: $75 billion was actually for the entire country. So if you're somebody that lives in Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Kentucky, Ohio, or West Virginia, they were coming after your job. And what New York said was, "Our liberal bloated budget, we can't balance it." And so what our plan here is is to create a fake cause of action, pass it through the legislature, and fine our oil, coal and gas companies $75 billion for damages that they were unable to get past even a motion to dismiss at the district court level, even in New York. And so they passed it as a law. And what this law would have done is retroactively fined all of these energy producers for legal work that they did to produce the energy that drives America every single day. And the scary part about this is it wasn't just New York. Vermont has a similar statute, Maryland has one proposed, Illinois has one proposed, California has one proposed, Massachusetts has one proposed, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Delaware—you name the crazy liberal state, they all had climate super funds along with most of our liberal blue cities. And so what this would have done is it would have spiraled completely out of control and that $75 billion would have turned into hundreds and hundreds, if not trillions, of dollars of fines for the people that drive the American economy. And particularly here in West Virginia, what is so absurd about what they were trying to do is the idea that they were passing these laws in skyscrapers that were built with the steel that we made for them. We mined the coal, we built the steel, and we built their buildings. And they're literally and figuratively looking down upon us saying, "You know what? Your lives, your occupations, and the American economy aren't worth our insane climate agenda as well as our socialist policies that we're going to fund with these fines that we're going to levy upon you." So we took the fight to New York. We had 24 of our fellow Republican attorneys general behind us, but we took the fight to New York and we won a decisive victory in front of an Obama-appointed judge in Syracuse, New York. The judge said that this law violates the commerce clause, it is fully preempted by the Clean Air Act, and it is fully preempted by federal law. And I'm just so proud of our team of lawyers who once again walked into the state where they claim to have the best lawyers in the country and we kicked their butts. And anybody else who tries to pass one of these laws, we're going to kick their butt too because that's how important it is to me and it's how important it is to the American economy.
Jordan Sekulow: That's what I was going to ask you next. You talked about some of these other states that have these on the horizon or are starting to implement them as well. Are we going to see similar lawsuits there? This was a district court. Are we going to see New York appealing this, trying to fight back on this super fund? What are the attorneys general and your office prepared to do?
JB McCuskey: We were actually backed up on this case by the US Chamber as well as the American Petroleum Institute, both really incredible warriors with us in this fight. But yes, we fully anticipate that General James will appeal this ruling to the Second Circuit. We fully anticipate kicking their rear ends again in the Second Circuit, which we believe will render any of these statutes within that circuit unconstitutional as well. But what we know is that the left doesn't let the facts get in the way of their arguments. And so we fully anticipate that California and all these other states will just say, "Well, that wasn't in our circuit." So we have the playbook, we have the lawyers, and we have the expertise to defeat anybody who tries to impose these irrational energy policies on the people of West Virginia and all of the energy-producing states in this country.
Will Haines: That entire region and the country really was built on the backs of West Virginians who do—and people are afraid to say things like this—but fossil fuels and coal, it's a moral good. In history, it has built the society and the infrastructure and given the life expectancy and all of the breakthroughs technologically that we've been able to achieve in this country is because of the fossil fuels and the industry that comes out of West Virginia. But I think it's also important that when people have a different agenda in a different state and they try to go and violate the Constitution, it's up to state attorneys general like yourself who will stand up for the Constitution that will protect the entire country, not just your own state.
JB McCuskey: The American dream and American exceptionalism was built with energy. And energy is the lifeblood that pumps our economy. And you cannot make the argument as a humanist that fossil fuels are bad. It is actually subhuman to be a greeno leftist moron because millions and millions and millions of people would die if we adopted what their policies are. If you believe that human life has value, you should and you must believe that fossil fuels are the only way to create the kind of life and future for people all around the world so that they can not just live but that they can thrive and build their economies. Why is it fair that America's the only place in the whole world that has air conditioning? I believe that people in sub-Saharan Africa and people all over Europe deserve to have all of the exceptionality and the incredible life that Americans have too. And that all comes from fossil fuels.
Jordan Sekulow: We've got just a couple minutes but I wanted to hit this too, which is protecting children. This is again another major settlement you were part of as an attorney general: 52 attorneys general from states and territories and $18 billion in settlement money. But even more important were the new procedures that are going to be put in place by Meta when it affects teenagers. This is on both Facebook and Instagram. Meta's call for TikTok and YouTube to do the same and they will actually even make their restrictions more intense and provide more money to states if TikTok and YouTube do that. And I have a feeling that there could be some court challenges coming straight to TikTok and YouTube as well.
JB McCuskey: I have a feeling that those things might be coming as well, Jordan. And again, this is an incredible settlement and what we're doing for kids and, importantly, for their parents is giving parents an equal playing field here. Parents want to be able to control their kids' social media use, but they don't know how because their kids know how to use it better than they do. And it's not just teenagers. I have an 11-year-old and a nine-year-old just like you guys do. My kids use these platforms. And so it is great that Meta has done this. The next step here is to make sure that we have a seamless set of rules throughout all of the social media platforms so that kids are being protected on all of them. And once again, Jordan, this is another perfect example of how the particularly the Republican attorneys general have stepped into a void that has been left by Congress. Congress should have acted on this a decade ago. And they are incapable of finding five or ten friends to get to 60 votes to even do the things that protect our country's most vulnerable people. And so the attorneys general have decided we're tired of this and we are going to use the courts to create the kind of life-saving change that our families and children need. I couldn't be more proud of all of our Republican attorneys general. If you live in a state that has one, thank your attorney general. If you live in a state that doesn't have one, find your Republican candidate and support them as much as you can.
Logan Sekulow: Thank you, JB, as always. Thank you for the work that you're doing. We're doing a lot of this work with the state of West Virginia as well. We'll keep it going. We'll be right back. Second half hour coming up.