It's not surprising, but it is discouraging how accurate the conservative analysis of the Lindsay Clancy trial has become. Every suspicion has proven correct about the jury and every fear about their motives is proving more substantial. The trial itself symbolizes a disastrous miscarriage of justice in favor of ideology; it offers proof that in an age of social media and political cultism, finding an impartial jury is increasingly impossible.
Thanks to the "rogue juror" the deliberations did not lead to a calculating child killer going free (in Massachusetts, patients incarcerated in mental health facilities get a review and the possibility of release every six months). However, that juror has come under relentless attack from the media, from Clancy's defense team and from the other jurors involved in the case.
Their primary argument? That the rogue juror was "not following the rules of reasonable doubt" and was not acting impartially. As more information has been released in regards to jury proceedings, it's becoming clear that there was a large group of jurors who came into the case with an agenda and these jurors pressured the others to conform.
One anonymous female juror insinuated as much during an interview with local media.
As many critics predicted, there was an ideological push behind the jury's refusal to view Clancy as a criminal, despite ample evidence indicating she had planned the murders in advance. They ignored this evidence in favor of claims that she had been struck with a temporary "postpartum psychosis" and was completely unaware of her actions. In other words, Clancy was immediately held up as a victim; perhaps more of a victim than the three children she killed.
Women killers often use the postpartum claim as a defense because, at bottom, it's impossible to disprove. In the state of MA the prosecution has the added difficulty of presenting "reasonable doubt" that Clancy is lying about going momentarily insane; a state of mind which is ultimately up for broad interpretation by the jury. And, if the jury already has an agenda, then making such a case regardless of the evidence is pointless.
Juror Paula Devlin, who has been making the rounds in mainstream media and the same juror who helped to dox the rogue juror, indicates that she and other jurors viewed the case through a feminist lens. Their goal? To use Lindsay Clancy's trial as a "turning point" to further the aims of women in general.
During her next media tour stop, juror Paula Devlin says the mostly female jury knew the Lindsay Clancy trial could create change to “make it better for other women.”
“We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it… pic.twitter.com/4aBlCDzeUx
“Even though we didn’t know what was going on outside of our little bubble that we were in, we knew that this was a turning point and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women in the future for other families. You know, justice for those children. Is this never happening again?”
It should be noted that jurors are required to decide a case based only on the evidence in front of them, not on their personal feelings or ideological leanings. This language is an echo of the language used by feminist groups rallying in Clancy's defense online and in protests. The idea that the case is about "all women" rather than a single child murderer, has poisoned public discourse.
Devlin's claim that the jurors "didn't know what was going on outside of their little bubble" is also a misrepresentation of reality. The jury was not sequestered. They went home every night to speak with their friends, family and go online. There is little chance they were not being influenced by the political circus surrounding the trial.
How do 11 jurors ignore evidence showing that Lindsay Clancy sent her husband on errands, used online apps to calculate how long his drive would take, then she killed each child one by one in the basement, then she took a call from her husband in the middle of the murders and faked as if everything was fine? All of this was due to a perfectly timed psychotic break, which psychologists argue is not possible?
The truth is, feminist movements have decided to exploit Clancy's case, to use it as a weapon to further their political aims. One of these aims is to create a two-tier legal system in which women avoid all punishment and accountability, because men are either directly or indirectly to blame for every crime committed by a woman.
Not to spoil the fun and everything, but if we lived in a patriarchy, and the patriarchy is so awful and evil and to blame for everything…..wouldn’t Lindsay be in prison? 😬 pic.twitter.com/5Mw6Wek40L
— Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) September 13, 2026This might seem like low IQ insanity, but this is all part of a highly organized effort to destroy the western world. The plan? To undermine the morals and principles of the west through relativism - And women are particularly easy to target and brainwash. because of their propensity for group-think.
The Clancy trial represents a turning point, yes, but not in the way feminists believe. Rather, it is an event that has shocked western men and caused many to reconsider ideas of "equality" and liberal society. After the trial, "Repeal the 19th" was trending on social media for days. Americans are starting to think maybe abandoning "patriarchy" and putting women on a pedestal was a bad idea.
Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 16:40Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Clusterfuck Nation,
A Theory Of Everything"The Thing That Never Happens Keeps Happening."
- Kyle Becker on X
"Everyone is retarded and nothing Works."
Turns out that's the key to unlock the mystery of this particular Fourth Turning, the one here and now, of our own time. It's an excellent theory of everything happening these days, formulated by a close colleague of mine. And as far as I know, it's the only theory that makes sense. It explains, for example how and why consulting US attorney Joe DiGenova quit the grand jury investigation, as conducted by the DOJ in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL), of the treasonous conspiracy against the people of the USA running since 2016.
The most amazing part is that apparently no one in the country seems to give a shit about it. No politician has issued a statement. The blog-o-sphere, Twitter-sphere are mute. The President himself - the main target of the coup - was busy in Ireland this weekend. But let's face it: he has a duty to steer clear of interfering in juridical proceedings involving himself and his office.
The most diligent investigator of all, Dan Bongino, the podcaster who spent years documenting the serial turpitudes of RussiaGate, ImpeachmentGate, the 2020 election, the J-6 operation, and so on, who wrote several books about these crimes - and then became Deputy FBI director for a year, with access to the entire trove of evidence about all of it - says nothing now about the DiGenova affair. How is that possible? Instead, for months he's just played an insipid cheerleader on his daily podcast. Just imagine what Bongino really knows. Months ago, when he resigned from the FBI job, he stated publicly that what he saw in the J. Edgar Hoover building shocked him to his core.
I say all this because it looks like the case (or cases) in the SDFL will now go nowhere with diGenova out of the picture. Altogether, it was the gravest set of treasonous crimes against the Republic in our history, and nobody will be held accountable for it, a monumental insult following a possibly fatal injury to the country.
A certain amount of informed scuttlebutt comes my way, and the story I hear is that Joe DiGenova was of a mind to indict former president Barack Obama for his role in many phases of the ongoing coup, and that Todd Blanche blanched at that, in fear of provoking an even hotter civil war than the Red / Blue one currently raging from sea to shining sea (and especially in the three branches of government). Not just a civil war but, in effect, a civil race war, for fear of painting America's only black president a criminal.
Mr. Obama enjoys certain immunities against criminal prosecution for official actions he took as president - as determined in the SCOTUS decision Trump v. the United States, July, 2024 - but the parameters of what, exactly, official means remains squishy. The boundaries would have to be tested case-by-case in the lower courts. Which is what the grand juries sitting now in Florida might have done (or might yet somehow manage to do).
Was it an official act for Mr. Obama to turn Hillary Clinton's Russian Collusion campaign stunt into a seditious operation to run Mr. Trump out of office? Once Mr. Obama was out of office in 2017, did he direct continuing seditions through FBI director Wray and CIA directors Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel? Does a record of correspondence exist, classified or otherwise? We know that the intel apparatus captures everything. Tulsi Gabbard might know what's in there. Perhaps the same things that shocked Dan Bongino to his core.
Once "Joe Biden" was installed in the Oval Office, did Barack Obama direct the cabal that actually ran the executive branch from Jan., 2021, to Jan., 2025 - did he act as a shadow president? What would the law say about that? And is he responsible for "Joe Biden's" ruinous policies such as the wide-open border and all it has entailed. One of Mr. Obama's closest insiders, John Podesta (also Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman), became "senior advisor for climate policy" in the final months of "Joe Biden's" term. He was given $370-billion from the fraudulently-named "Inflation Reduction Act" to distribute as he saw fit, and an awful lot of it landed in Democratic Party adjacent NGOs. Was private citizen Obama involved in arranging any of that?
Is Barack Obama, the 44th President of the US, a true villain? He was a very slick performer during the eight years he was president. But now, the political faction he led - maybe still leads because, look around, who else is there? - has gone batshit crazy since his second term ended. His party beat a path straight into the overt advocacy of communism with a jihad cherry on top, and you don't hear him complaining about any of it.
What I hear is that Joe DiGenova intended to subpoena Barack Obama to give testimony to that Florida federal grand jury and that Todd Blanche nixed it, so Joe quit. The next day, diGenova told the media that if the Florida team is "allowed to do their jobs" they will "succeed supremely" and that the U.S. Attorney's office there was doing a "phenomenal job under the worst of circumstances." He later added, there was "plenty of evidence" but it "just takes time."
Whatever that means.
Yet everybody knows what went down in our country the past ten years, that a vicious blob called the Deep State has been running a continuous coup, just as everybody with half-a-brain knows exactly what Covid-19 was about.
The question that remains: does having half-a-brain mean you're retarded, and does that explain why nothing works in the USA, including the ability to manage the nation's justice apparatus?
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 16:20