The David Pakman Show - Lindsay Clancy trial concluding, judge strikes down Texas drag show ban

Episode Date: August 30, 2026

-- A free look at the Bonus Show, which we produce every weekday for our members. Join today to get full, same-day access to every episode! -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Book: https://bit.ly/m/attention -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation Walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcfwalk.ca.ca. The Royal Canadian Legion is celebrating its 100th anniversary. And now our change has a $2 coin to mark this milestone.

Honor the Legion's mission to carry forward stories of service and sacrifice to new generations and their dedication to supporting veterans and their families from coast to coast to coast. Celebrate this enduring legacy. Find the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion $2.00 coin to this year. Today. Hey, thanks for tuning into the David Packman show. You're listening to a free sample of the exclusive award-winning bonus show, which we produce every weekday for our members.

Unlock the whole lineup and support independent media at join packman.com. Welcome to the bonus show. I don't know how many people in the audience have been following the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. But if you have been following it, the prosecution has rested in the. in its rebuttal and the case is moving towards getting to the jury. I don't know if you if you haven't been covering it, this is a situation where a woman named Lindsay Clancy has stipulated that she did kill her children in January of 2023. But the defense is based on the idea that she is not guilty

by reason of insanity. I've only been watching. I have friends up in Boston who are very sucked into this trial. I've only been seeing a few clear. but some interesting legal tactics have been used. And one of the things that I noticed, how close have you been following it, Pat? Only around the edges. I haven't been following it that closely. To be honest, I'm not even sure why it's so big of a story because I feel like it's a pretty cut and dry story.

It's surprising to me why there are so many people coming to her defense and believing this insanity argument. To be honest, that's my take on it. I think it's gotten a lot of attention because. Um, often situations where people kill their kids involved taking their own lives. So there's never a trial. Number two, often in murder trials, what they're trying to prove is that the defendant did the act.

In this case, the defendant is admitting that she did the act, but it is a trial around not guilty for reason of insanity. So that's different. I think when you have a, you know, sort of like it's a pleasant looking couple, her and her, guess now ex-husband and it's, you know, rather than some kind of like, uh, uh, traditionally violent looking man, whatever that means. It's a sort of like normal-ish-looking woman and whatever. The other thing that's been interesting is that Lindsay Clancy's lawyer has been, this is my interpretation, but I've seen others sort of say I think he's doing the same thing. In his

questioning of her ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, I believe his name is, Lindsay Clancy's, Clancy's lawyer, he has not in any way come out and said, we have a theory that he actually killed the kids. He has not said that. And because she's stipulating to the fact that she did it, I don't believe that it's something that he could do. But he has created an alternative storyline in which while Lindsay did the physical acts, he was involved or encouraging or psychologically manipulative in some way where he has some responsibility, which I think is interesting because strictly speaking, it is not part of what the jury is there to decide. And I'm not even saying that he would even be legally culpable. I'm just saying it's sort of like there's been this

undertone of this from some of the witnesses that have been forward and the questioning of the of the ex-husband, which is also, I think, another interesting aspect because if you look online, you see tons of comments from people going, the husband did it. And it's like, well, did what? Because She's acknowledging she did the act, but it's a question of whether he was maybe involved or manipulative or abusive or something where he would have some shared responsibility. And of course, he was sent out to do errands by her at the time where these murders took place. So I think that really is going to undercut her insanity argument. It sounds to me like this idea trying to blame the partner, maybe the defense just trying to

throw everything at the wall and see what sticks because ultimately the jury has to decide on whether they can convict on the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, right? So if they, as the defense are able to put forward something that the jury can interpret as reasonable doubt, whether it's some alternate course of events where the partner was more involved, or if it's her being over prescribed drugs, or if it's because of the other postpartum issues she's been dealing with, well, all that stuff together, maybe the jury can consider, okay, maybe she's either not guilty or they'll come up with some lesser conviction than whatever the prosecution is going for. So that's to me what this defense argument sounds like. I don't think

that there's really all that much behind it at first glance, but you never know. I genuinely have no idea. And part of it is I haven't been watching that closely. I have no idea whether this is a jury that is really potentially going to say not guilty by reason of insanity or if it is just not flying in any way with the jury. Have you heard any commentary at all about the perceptions of the jury's kind of like interpretation of this? No, I haven't been following this case that closely because, again, to me, it seems pretty cut and dry. I don't think that the jury is going to buy the insanity argument. I know there's a bunch of people rallying behind her, a bunch of people. I don't know the extent to which there's actual genuine support for her, but there certainly is a lot of vocal support behind

defending her and basically trying to rationalize what took place because there are people who want to bring these types of issues to the forefront. I just don't believe that this is the right way to go about doing it by highlighting a triple murder and coming to this person's defense as a way to argue against like the big pharma or as a way to advocate for the issue of making it normalize this issue of depression after giving birth. I just don't feel like this is the right thing to bring forward as this isn't the right vehicle for that cause. So it doesn't make sense to me. All right.

Well, we will, assuming there's no mistrial or hung jury, we will relatively soon have a verdict and we will see what it is. Buckees is a gas station and travel center chain. They have started going after small business owners in certain states with allegedly similar logos. And there has been a lot of pushback, a lot of people angry saying, why is this huge company going after these small business owners whose logos may. may have some resemblance, maybe coincidental, maybe not.

This isn't a good thing for them to be doing. And Buckees is now saying what we're going to do for our new locations because of all these people antagonizing us over this in blue states is we are going to find conservative, business friendly states. We are going to, the CEO said, life is too short to build in places that people don't appreciate what we're bringing. We are going to go to more conservative states instead. The thing is some of the stuff is happening in states that aren't exactly blue states like Ohio.

And there's a lawsuit because Buckees opened a new or decided to open a new location in Huber Heights, Ohio. There's something called Beaver's Mini Mart 16 miles away. And they, Buckey says that Beaver's is infringing on their copyright with their logo. So they are going to take their toys and kind of go elsewhere. This to me, these, these stories are funny. because I don't think I've ever even seen or been to a Buckees. It's not even something I'm aware of. But I think it's just, it's more of a Midwest thing, right? I guess so. I had never, well, I'd heard of it, but I'd never been to one.

I saw John Oliver's clip about Buckees and how they're suing everyone for copyright infringement. Because what happens is sometimes you'll have these communities where like a beaver is a mascot for the town or, you know, the high school team. They're called the beavers. So it makes sense that you'd have a convenience store that also uses the beaver local. go and Buckees goes after that small town convenience store and it's an example of these big companies going out to the little guy. So there are a bunch of people who went after Buckees because of that already didn't like what they were doing. And now to see that they're saying, well, Ohio and some of these other states that were operating, they're not conservative enough for us.

We have to only focus on the reddest of red states. You're talking about Ohio being too liberal for you. There's a suit going on in Florida and South Carolina. Carolina, like, those are absolutely red states. So the idea that those are just too liberal for Buckees, give me a break. It's wacky. Buckees has 24, they're open 24 hours, 365 days a year. They have a variety of types of fuel. They have some EV chargers.

Their claim to fame is that the bathrooms are always open and always clean. They also offer fresh hot food, cold sandwiches, fruit cups, wrap, salads, protein, power. a jerky bar and homemade fudge. So it seems like a very, very exciting place in some sense. I'm guessing if you're a trucker, this is a nice place to be able to rely on. My understanding is that the business model is centered around the bathrooms because the idea is when you're on these long road trips, you don't want to stop at some gas station, some small convenience store where they may not even have a bathroom and it could be really dirty.

Buckies has a bunch of these bathrooms. So the idea is people on the road, rather than just going to the next exit, they'll go 10 miles further to go to the next buckies. So they've been able to make a lot of money off of that. A place focused around bathrooms. That would get to one of Trump's primary obsessions. But it doesn't speak to the flushing power of the toilets. I mean, it's the cleanliness of them. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He doesn't talk enough about that. I think how toilets out there are sometimes dirty. But I guess that's not a problem that he ever encounters. No, no, no, just at least not going into it, maybe coming out. Maybe coming out of it. All right. So that's what's going on with Buckees. If anybody's been to a Buckees, let us know. And I know it must sound so provincial of me to say it or the opposite. Anyone has. Yeah. Maybe someone out there has ever been to a Buckees. I don't know.

All right. Big drama after AOC, Congresswoman AOC has rejoined DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, after letting her membership lapse for seven years. You know, I, there are so many interpretations of this, Pat, and I don't really know which one is right. So I'll give you kind of the background. AOC when she came to politics was part of DSA. It was a big deal. This is a real Democratic socialist. But then it turned out that she had let her membership lapse. And there was speculation that as part of her maturation process into politics and being more pragmatic, she realized that if she wants to

run for Senate or for the presidency, that it would be better not to be associated with DSA, except all of a sudden it has been announced. She is indeed a member in good standing because she rejoined this month, August of 2026. So now, Pat, there's a new round of speculation. And now the speculation is not all on the same page. There is one interpretation, which is she is doing this specifically because she does plan to run for Senate or president and she proudly wants to do it as a member in good standing of the DSA to show that a DSA member can win. Okay, that's one interpretation. The other interpretation is this is actually a sign that she is not going to be running

for president. This is actually a sign that she is sort of saying, hey, you know what? Whatever speculation there is about me moving towards the middle in some attempt to prepare a presidential run. I am, this is an indirect signal. This is an interpretation that by saying I am back in DSA, she is not planning to run for president. Although others say being in DSA wouldn't hurt her if she runs for president. So those are kind of the two interpretations of what's going on. I think it's mostly political opportunism. I think it does point to her seeking higher office. I don't know if that'll be the Senate or the presidency. Yes, but I also think it just has to do with

the way things have been going these last few years. When she came into office, she was able to set herself apart by having this DSA label. And she was like part of the new thing, the squad in 2018. So like that was very beneficial to her to like label herself in that way and associate with DSA. But then once she got into Congress, it became clear that she would have to go along to get along, right? She had to have a relationship with Nancy Pelosi and see ground on certain things. So maybe that has to do with why she decided to no longer have a DSA membership. And then now the way things are going, she's able to be positioned at the top of the betting odds or near the

top of the betting odds for 2028. And there really aren't another, there aren't really other socialist or super far left candidates within that mix who are really being discussed. They're like Gavin Newsom's and Kamala Harris's who are more centrist. So she can try to make a name for herself that way. We're seeing the successive DSA candidates around the country at this moment. So I think those forces combined make it so that it makes sense for her to rejoin and have

that label once again. So basically it sounds like what you're saying is she has always been DSA at her core, but there was a period of time during which she was happier to let that association drift into the background. And now she is more interested in putting it back in the foreground. Is that a fair interpretation? That's probably right. I don't know what's truly at her core. I guess we're speaking to what has been more beneficial to her over the years politically because at some points of time, it's been better to have that DSA label, whereas other points of time, it's been better to distance herself from it. So I think she's been able to sort of read the tea leaves, see where the political winds have been moving these last 10 years or so and adjust accordingly. Interesting. I am very interested to see what she does in the immediate after.

aftermath of the midterms because I think we will, I'm guessing we will get a sense about her future plans from what she does once the midterms are out of the way, especially with the Democratic primary, presidential primary expected to be very busy, full, and contentious. My instinct is that late entry into the 28 primary may put you at a disadvantage. I don't know. What do you think? earlier is pretty much always considered better. So I would have to agree with that. I'm also thinking about the possibility of AOC running for president versus Senate. And Senate just doesn't seem big enough for her at this point,

especially if you are at the top of those betting odds, like why wouldn't you roll the dice? Why wouldn't you take the chance? Especially because she's now been in office for almost a decade. She's an established person. Yes, she's only a member of Congress at this point. But, you know, she's one of the most well-known members of Congress. So I think she's already there.

I don't think she would settle for something like Senate at this point. I could see someone coming to her with tears in their eyes and saying, ma'am, no, I mean, like, I think the case for Senate instead of presidency would be the following. You're at the top of the betting odds right now, but you have to assume that as the number of candidates is whittled down, it's not going to be easy. It's potentially a race you could win. It's not going to be easy. On the other hand, and by the way, she would have to be doing a whole bunch of firsts because

she would be the first female president. She would be the youngest president ever. She would be the first Latino president. There's all these firsts. And then someone might come to her and go, listen, this is a lot of firsts. It's not impossible, but it's not the most likely thing in the world. If you do take the easier path and challenge Chuck Schumer for the Senate and you win, you win, you then end up in a situation in, you know, I don't know whether it's 2032 or 2036.

And this is not like a wait your turn thing. It's a strategic thing. You might end up in a position where the political environment is better for you. You have more credentials that make you appear more qualified. You have built a bigger fundraising base thanks to having been in the Senate. And maybe like maybe you'd still be the first woman, but you wouldn't be the youngest president ever. Or maybe you would be the first Latino president, but maybe you wouldn't be the first woman, depending on what, who knows, right?

And the idea would be you make it less of a long shot. This is like me thinking like a political consultant, which of course I'm not. Oh, I understand the gamesmanship, especially for someone like AOC who is so young and I'd imagine wants to have a long career in politics. If you run for president and then you lose, what do you do after that? You have to make some big shift, right? Yeah. Whereas if she stays in Congress or if she runs.

She runs for Senate and has another 10 year span in the Senate, for example, and then decides to do something else. Well, then maybe that is a more sensible career path. But on the other hand, you have to take a look at the fact that Donald Trump is very unpopular. And that's going to drag down the Republican Party. It's going to drag down whoever the Republican nominee is in 2028. So there's a serious shot that the Democratic candidate's going to ultimately win in 2028. Just if you look at the pattern of history and how things are going. So if she's able to get through that primary, then she has a serious.

a pretty sizable shot at being able to win the general election. And if you can strike while the iron is hot, maybe you do that. That's another. Yeah, this is why it can be difficult to calculate, especially before the 26 midterms. We're going to get through the midterms and then see what AOC is planning to do. We will be back tomorrow with a new show and a new bonus show. I will see you then. Oh, and by the way, it looks like in about eight days, I'm going to go and sign all of the preordered book copies. So this is like I haven't mentioned this on the bonus show for a while, but if you want a signed copy of the book, it really is a good time to go and get it at David Pakman.com slash attention because I'm going to be going in and signing them. And when the Sharpie runs dry, that will be the end of it. So David Packman.com slash attention. Appreciate everybody who has already preordered. And we will see you tomorrow. Thanks for checking out this sneak peek of the bonus show. Our members get. five of these extra paywalled episodes every single week, unlock all of them and keep independent

media thriving by going to join Pacman.com and becoming a member.