Will Cain Country - I Can't Believe What the Lindsay Clancy Jurors Are Saying (ft. Jack Posobiec)

Episode Date: September 9, 2026

For the Right, tomorrow marks the anniversary of the loss of one of the conservative movement’s greatest voices. For the Left, it's known as “The Kirkiversary,” and they’re not even trying to hide their glee at the prospect of celebrating his death. Turning Point USA Contributor and Author of ‘Unhumans: Second Edition,' Jack Posobiec joins Will & The Crew to break down why the Left continues to celebrate violence, and react to some questionable takes from the Lindsay Clancy jurors who have come out of the shadows, especially to critique the lone holdout. Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@WillCainNews)\ Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

They celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kirkapalooza, it's called, scheduled for tomorrow, September 10th. The one-year anniversary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Meanwhile, the Republican National Convention, first ever midterm convention descends on Dallas. And that means here in Dallas today, we have Jack Posobit. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. They let him in. They let an Eagles fan in Dallas. Uh-oh. Big trouble. It is.

Will Cain Country. Streaming live with the Will Cain Country YouTube channel. Facebook page. Hit follow at Spotify or Apple. They did let an Eagles fan into Dallas. They'd let an Eagles fan into the Will Cain show. Studios. Jack Posobic.

I'm on borrowed time already. Of human events here with us today. What's up? What's going on? Yeah, no, you're right. And I've just been looking at the, they're calling it the Kirkroversary. And I've been seeing this stuff. Social media is what Brown's got a video out.

she was collecting some of it. And you're just going through the post, the memes, and not just online, but they're planning on college campuses. You go to Reddit right now, and it's every post, saying they want to hold zombie lookalike contests on college campuses, and it's going to be everywhere. And so what people need to understand about this social revolution is these people don't just support the assassination of Charlie.

They celebrate it. That is going to be horrific, incredible. And I'll ask this question, and I always do. And I've asked this question when it comes to Lindsay Clancy. And any other story that seems to originate online is how representative is it of the left at large? How representative of the left at large will be celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Well, so here's the way to look at it, right? And it is a certain percentage and is a committed percentage.

We saw numbers out of the Communist Party USA just announced that they have 20,000 members. writ large across the country. When you think, and we think in terms of the national political party, you would think, okay, that's 20,000, that's not that much for a national political party, but then turn it around. That's 20,000 people who would be willing to pick up a gun, and if they saw you or me walking down the street, they would pull the trigger. So when you think of someone who's that committed to violence, who celebrates the violence against, not just conservatives, but CEOs or this Bank of America VP who, you know, she wasn't even making that much money and she's walking down the street and they're celebrating that.

We have to understand that these are thousands upon thousands of committed radicals. And you should, the way you should think about it is if I was saying there's 20,000 jihadis that have been let loose within the country. So the statistic, famously the group on the far right is named the three percenters. And that originates from the idea that it only takes three percent of the population. to file mental revolution, right? A committed 3%. The vast majority of people in the country just go along to get along.

So, I mean, the math on 3% is pretty large. Like, you'd have to have way more than 20,000. Right. But it shouldn't. What's that? Couple million. Couple million. Yeah, three points.

So 1% and then it would be like, what, 6, no, about 9, maybe 10 million. Yeah, right. But the point is you cannot, should not dismiss a couple of, committed, um, ideologue, a committed member of this movement. And who knows? Does it stop at 20,000? And then the, the, the, the more disturbing, no, definitely the more disturbing angle to me is the percentage of people that will then just go along. Right. And of course, you know, for, for the vast majority of these people, it will be memes. It will be, may, maybe, you know, show up on campus and, and, and do something to, uh, to freak out folks. And, and by the way, you know,

And I've said fully in on this, and people were doing it last year as well, that, number one, if these people have employers, we're going to make them known to the employers and make their actions zone or their comments known. And number two, if these are foreigners, like foreign students or something, then you better be sure we're going to make sure the Department of State knows. And so when you're looking at this, yes, there's a committed group that will go along with it. And I always talk about this in terms of the Antifa structure. So Antiva always had this sort of pyramid structure where I used to call it the reds, the yellows, the greens, right? And so the yellows are like your organizers. That's like your tier of the, you know, the influencer. This is the person who's going to set up the event, set up the direct action.

You can't ever see any of it because they're all dressed the same to hide what they're doing. The greens are just sort of the guys who show up. They're in black. They might carry the signs, but they're not doing anything. But then right at the very tip of that pyramid is your reds. And those are the ones that you really have to watch out for. Those are the ones who are committed to what they call direct action. action and the direct action is going to be violence. It's going to be, you know, one person

throws the concrete in the guy's face and then the next two come up with hammers or the one guy smashes a window, the next one comes in with arson, or potentially, as we've seen, up into the point where people are now using firearms. So yesterday, Jack, I gave this interview as to the New York Sun. I think they wanted to talk to me because I had the great dishonor of announcing Charlie's death live on television. Got the message in my ear, had to translate that to the audience. also on air. Yeah. And I think they wanted to just talk to me. And man... Oh, you know what? They actually reached out to me

too. I haven't responded yet, yeah. I'm an optimist by nature. I really am. And I don't prepare for interviews sometimes. I just kind of like, whatever you asked me, I'm gonna... Man, I just... Oh, this is great. So now you were the guinea pig, so now you can tell me how it went before I talked to him.

Yeah, but he just asked normal questions, just open questions, like, tell me how you got the information that day, like, how did you do your job in that moment? And, and And weirdly, Jack, they're actually kind of being journalists for once. It made me emotional. I don't know why. I said that.

I don't know why I'm feeling the emotions again talking. I'm not big on therapy and these kind of things. So, like, I haven't needed to talk about it. Men don't need therapy. But you making me revisit this moment, you know, that I'm pretty far removed from. I mean, I had a relationship with Charlie, but like I'm not there. I'm not in Utah. But it just made me emotional.

But my point largely is I was pessimistic. I just kept feeling pessimistic. He'd asked me where we go from here. And I couldn't escape my own pessimism about what's happened over the past year after the loss of Charlie. Yes, of course, we need – actually, we should talk about that. We need to and should highlight the radical violent tendencies of some percentage of the left. But also what's happened to the right in the loss of Charlie. I don't know.

I feel very, very pessimistic. I actually – well, you know, I did say – I don't know if I'm going to be there on pessimism. because I'm by nature not, again, also I'm also not a pessimistic guy. I'm not like a, you know, white pill only kind of guy either to use the parlance. But, but I, you know, I try to see things realistically and say, hey, we have a problem in front of us. We have a large problem, as I just outlined. And we need to address it. And we need to face it.

And if I didn't believe that there was any hope, then I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing. I'd be, I wouldn't be in front of a camera and on a microphone, anything like this. I'd be out. I'd just be out. And I'd be figuring out where to go with my family and what to do, et cetera. And so, you know, I was asked about that earlier today in another interview and someone said, you know, what do you think Charlie would say? And I said, and again, like just speculation. I'm not going to speak for him. But I would say, if anything, he would probably say, we got to stop fighting each other and we got to start focusing on fighting to win this election. But so, okay, I'm going to explain a little bit of my pessimism on there's legitimate disagreement and divide within the right that needs to be debated.

And hopefully at some point to some level also didn't come together. Which is a debate that was going on when Charlie was still around. Absolutely. That rift had already opened up and you could see the seams. Any coalition government, coalition politics throughout history is always going to have those seams. Do you see, I see those scenes on two fronts. But there's going to be different wings and they want. different things and one's going to complain if one gets more, et cetera, et cetera.

That is a historical trend. And I see the rift now developing on basically two fronts. One is what is our position on foreign intervention, foreign policy, foreign, foreign adventurism, okay? And it's hard not to see these two rifts or sides not embodied by J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio. And the other is- Which is funny because they're friends. Yeah. But as far as I know, and I know a lot of them pretty well, the relationships are all good, despite the disagreements.

Or one could even argue because of the disagreements. Like, that's part of a healthy relationship, right? Not just nodding. Same team, different ideas. And then economic populism. The extent to which the right embraces economic populism is also, I think, a bubbling risk. I would even go so far as to say that the same thing. and because it all depends on what your outlook on politics is and your view of what the United States of America should be.

So if you believe America should be this, you know, this force for spreading democracy in the world, this force for spreading liberty in the world, then you, which is kind of the Cold War thinking, right? That's what we portrayed in the Cold War. That, you know, because we were fighting international communism, so we had to become international democracy, right? that was the idea. And the idea was we had to explain what we were in terms of anti-communism, which was international at the time. The problem, though, became that as we were busy fighting communism around the world, we sort of left, you know, left alone the middle of the country, the Rust Belt, so many parts of America, and then fighting communism abroad, and as obviously the anniversary of 9-11 is coming up, that became fighting terrorism abroad. It sort of just

fit a lot of the same patterns. Oh, we have to, we have to do this. We have to do this because we fight for freedom and democracy. And that's what we were told. And then the other option, the other side of it is like, well, wait a minute. Is that what America is? Or is America a nation state where we live and call our home? Right. And if America is a nation state that we call our home rather than this force for democracy around the world, then which one are we using as our rubric? So I think a lot of this narrative. It's like what story do we tell in our minds when we look at the flag? I actually find myself, I don't even know if I've articulated this or sounded this out, you know, on air. This is the perfect form to do so. This is how I would actually describe

myself. So I'm not a non-intervigionist. I'm also not interested in the exportation of democracy. I'm neither of those things. Sure. I am closer to let's, and I think this is like on the right, this is maybe an unpopular thing to say. I am closer to the embrace. of the American Empire. Like, I am okay being an empire as long as it serves the United. You're like a road doctoring guy. I'm like, okay, you know what? Go take out Maduro and take the oil. And if it's better for the American people, then we analyze that on a cost-benefit analysis. What did it cost us to take that military action, does the back end of it and serve the American people? So what you're

describing is that's America first to me. It's just not America first. It ends at our border. is is Western hegemony, right? So the United States should be the hegemon of the Western, the Western Hemisphere, and which we are, right? I wouldn't limit to the West. And we should act like that. As long as it satisfies the answer to the question of how does this serve America first? Well, sure, sure. And but the reason I say Western hegemon doesn't mean that you retract everywhere else around the world.

But what I say is, in this domain, we're the top dog, right? Number one. Doesn't mean we don't have other things that are going on in other parts or we limit our ourselves to to that domain. It's just that your rubric for what happens in the Western Hemisphere ought to be different than it is other parts of the world. We should be more pro-intervention in the Western Hemisphere. And no, I don't mean necessarily military. I just mean that we should, for example, the border, right, is the greatest example of this. You know, people ask, what's your policy on the border? I see, do you ever see Sicario? Right? You know,

I don't have any problem whatsoever. And I don't think, by the way, most Americans would have a problem. If we announced, or President Trump announced, oh, by the, or someone put out, by the way, six months ago, Trump signed a secret order and special forces have been operating in northern Mexico on the border side going after the cartels. I don't think anybody would have a problem. People would be cheering in

the streets if they heard something like that, if it was effective, right? Obviously, if it was being done, right, et cetera, et cetera. You got to win. Because why? Because that's a direct threat to Americans. And so when you're facing with, and I know that we're coming up towards the anniversary of 9-11, and I think about that, when

you're dealing with things that directly affect the American people, that should be your rubric. Let's take a quick break, but continue this with the senior editor at Human Events and Turning Point USA, Jack Posobic on Will Kane Country. Welcome back. We're still hanging out with Jack Posobic, the author of The Socialist Revolution, also with human events and Turning Point USA. Exactly. Politicians are elected to serve the American people. Yes.

And so, look, you know, after Bush went to Iraq, like the big critique from the left was did it for oil. Okay, well, he doesn't accept that premise. And most of the Republicans at the time don't accept that premise. And I don't think we got our hands on the vast majority of all. As the president says all the time. But if the answer had been, yes, he did it for the oil. I've been like, hmm, okay. Interesting. Trump actually criticizes them for not taking the oil. Yeah, he does. Why did you at least take the oil? We would have got something out of it. Right. Because he's a businessman. But no, I mean, and look, and we, there are, I guess, the equivalent of what you would say called text messages from Rumsfeld on 9-11 saying, how do we tie Saddam

to this? Yeah. How do we, how do we go? And in their mind, it's we've got to go around and run this, this, this, this like, clean sweep of the, you know, the bad guys. We got to go and do all this stuff. And it's got to be done in this certain way. And it just has to be done. And the dirty little secret is, this is where I, and this is where I disagree with a lot of the people who say, oh, it's just oil or oh, it's just the military industrial complex. Those are all parts of it. Don't get me wrong. Actually, when I would say with, if you want to understand foreign politics, like, you know, know that French phrase, they say, Cherche la femme, look for the woman, right, if you're trying to understand, like, a crime or something. In international politics, Cherche de la petrol, right, look for the oil, and then track the oil and you'll figure out what's really going on. But ultimately, when it comes to a lot of the folks in D.C., they just believe it. They just actually believe what they're saying. No, I know. I know. I mean, and it's not just people in D.C. There are Americans that truly believe, I know them. They believe that we should be a force for

good. Yes. But Ukraine does not, for me, Ukraine has always had trouble satisfying the American interest part of this adventurersome. Like, how does this serve the American people? And we can get into treaties and we can get into, you know, and all that. You got to have friends. You got to abide by your, your, minerals. Our allies and treaties. Of course, we don't actually have a treaty with Ukraine, though. Right, right. We don't. But the argument is just slippery slope. Whoa, NATO will go into NATO territories next, you know, so got to stop it before it gets to Poland, I guess. I suppose. If they can't even, well, correct. But if they can't, but if they can't,

But if the Russians are having trouble getting out of the, you know, the Donbas, then I don't know if that argument actually holds up. But I've just never seen the American interest articulated well about our support of the war in Ukraine. I've just never had that satisfied. So I'm not against, I do think there's a tendency on the right in some corners of the right to be like to appeal to all of these things through the lens of good guys and good guys and bad guys. And we need to always be on the side of good guys. And good guys don't seek war and good guys seek peace all that. And I think that is true. But we are a nation state, to your point, they are a nation state and our interests conflict at times.

And I want us to be on the winning side of that conflict. That's right. And this is why, you know, with what President Trump has done in a lot of his peace initiatives, obviously we saw Krishna Wicoff were there this past weekend and didn't seem like the Russians gave them a very good reception, by the way. They continued bombing Kiev even during the trip. But they did not. Because normally they would announce, you know, hey, we're going to have a cessation of bombing and that way you could fly from Moscow to Kiev. They didn't give them that.

So they made them have to fly from Moscow to Warsaw in Poland, then take the train from Warsaw all the way back to Kiev because they didn't announce a cessation for the flight. So kind of a message, just saying. And ultimately, though, what the president understands is that is it better for America and probably better for Ukraine if we try to normalize some of the situation rather than pit these forces against each other who obviously they want to fight. And yes, to your point, I'm Polish. So I'm very familiar with the region that these are disputes and border disputes and territorial disputes that have been going on since time immemorial. Right. You get the Slavs fight and we don't stop. It's one of my favorite pastimes. And so what President Trump has also said and articulated, and I've heard Marco Rubio,

this as well, is that wouldn't it also then be possible to try to break up the Russia-China alliance, which would be so much more beneficial for directly for Americans? Right. Speaking of, I'm just going to weave through something. Also, go ahead, Pat. So we had Secretary Mullen on back when he was Senator Mullen. And one of the things that he said in regards to Ukraine is that we actually, you know, if we can tie in minerals and we can extract minerals,

from the region, that actually would benefit us. And I thought that was a pretty legitimate, you know, thing when it comes to... So I was in... In Kiev with Secretary Bessent when we went on the mineral deal. And, I mean, that thing just blew up in our faces. I mean, it did not go well. It was a huge shouting match. And, I mean, I was standing outside the room when it was going on.

And Zelensky was not into it at all. And, in fact, a lot of the areas that have the minerals are now all. also controlled by the Russians, which again, which is why the Donbass matters. Remember, Churchill the petrol, right? So, you know, these are those natural gas regions. And so it, you know, it's just something that Zelensky was absolutely not going for. All right, Circe Lafim. I'm going to pick up on that as we weave through some things. Let's go through a little bit of the sound of the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy. I didn't even think that to connect that. That was good.

Thank you. You should have a podcast. They gave an interview to a local NBC affiliate in Boston. It's three of them. And Dan, you have several pieces of sense. Let's just kind of work through these. One through the four, yeah. Okay, take us away. So I found it to be biased right out of the gate.

I found them also to be kind of unprofessional and just without a heart. And for me, that right away, I was like, okay, where is this going right? From statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom right now, which I guess is expected of a prosecution. But I thought it was very cold. That's her talking about the prosecutor. It was biased. It was biased. It was biased.

And lacking in compassion. I mean, it's a prosecution. Of course, it's going to be biased. That's the whole point. It's about finding someone guilty. That is going to be your bias to win your argument. The same way the defendant is also going, and their defense attorney is also going to be biased for their client.

That's literally the definition of our system. This is amazing. The compassion. It's like the trans debate on steroids. Like compassion for whom? How about the compassion for the three little murdered children? Sure. Not for the murderer.

How much compassion am I supposed to have for the murderer? These jurors answer, apparently, is a lot. From the prosecutor. Give me another one, Dan. Same woman. He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read to 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. to highlight it and, you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reason about. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. That line. Oh, my God. He had the hardest time getting off that Lindsay viciously murdered her children. Does she realize what she's saying?

I think that she does in a sense. I think there's an additional layer that I could try to give to translate this. Soljanitin used to say that morality is relative, right? We know the left preaches moral relativism. And so morality is a function of class. Okay. And so remember, the leftist believes that all of society is in various classes. Of course, they talk about all the time.

And but most famously oppressor versus oppressed. So if you're a member of the oppressed class, like in this case a woman, then the morality changes because anything that you're doing, any bad action that you do is a function of your oppression. So therefore, the morality has to be on Lindsay Clancy. The same way they do this for murderers, the same way they do is for rapists, the same way they do this for illegals who commit all sorts of horrific acts of violence. This is what they do because they flip it around and say, no, no, no, she's oppressed.

They're oppressed. and therefore you should have compassion for the oppressed member of that class who only acted out based on the oppression. It's exactly right. It is not, this woman does not know everything, obviously, that Jack just said. She's just drank from the cup. Exactly. And internalized it subconsciously. I would imagine.

Which Reddington knew. The Clancy's lawyer obviously understood this very well. Redington's a good lawyer. He knew exactly what his audience was. I've gone back and forth on Redington. A lot of people are really mad at him, and I understand. But in a way, you have to think of Redington as an assassin. Like, you hire an assassin to do a job.

That is his job. I don't know what the assassin needs to say that he thinks of Lindsay Clancy as a daughter and those kinds of weird things and praising the TikTok investigators. But he was a good attorney. He understood what the jury was. And he got 11 out of 12 on his side. So he understood you have to play to not just the truth, which obviously he's not doing, because we are trying to look at it through that lens. He's looking at it through the lens of,

I have to persuade 12 people to feel compassion for Lindsay Clancy, and that's exactly how he played him. Okay, so this thing you just laid out for us, Solcheneas and moral relativism, Isabel Brown works for the Daily Wire, and she was on the Clay and Buck Show, and she laid this out because my point building on yours that these women have not, on this jury,

they have not rationalized and in terms, internalized leftist doctrine, they have just swallowed it whole. And that makes it possible for people, if you're drinking from a cup that's unlabeled, you don't know what you're drinking. And this has become not just a left-right issue, is my point. These, I don't know if these women are on the left. I don't know that. They are regurgent. Well, hold on a second. I might be able to put some money on it. Okay, well, I want you to listen to this for one second from Isabel Brown with Clay and Buck. I have been shocked in my own experience on my own content. with a primarily female, young female audience on social media,

just how many conservative women are making the same argument, essentially, because the defendant on the stand happens to be a woman. And I think there's a lot that goes into that. Clay, there's many, many, many factors that we could attribute that to, but ultimately, I think so much of it has to be boiled down to postmodern feminism. And this idea that women are being trained in every aspect of our culture, the entertainment we're consuming, the media that we scroll through on the internet all day, the education system that we're going through at a higher rate than men are in

2006, that men are inherently evil at their core and are not to be trusted. And women are inherently the victim, always in society. And the system somehow failed you if you as a woman ended up doing something wrong. There was a lot of that argument I saw in my own. And she went on to say the argument made from Reddington. I love Isabelle so much. The medical profession failed her. The pharmaceutical profession failed her. Ultimately, her husband failed her. These are all functions of oppression, right? The system failed is basically saying she was oppressed by these failures, including saying that the husband failed.

So ultimately, whether or not – and you will see the more extreme ones of these will go to say the husband actually did it. Right. But ultimately, it's because they need to find someone to hate and to scapegoat for this horrific crime. But the general consensus of a Lindsay Clancy fan is someone who's blaming society, the system. And you hear it in other words. Right. And that's, and the point that Isabel's making that I, I've found in our own comments as well, our own, our own viewers, it is not neatly and cleanly left right. Well, yes and no.

Because the issue is, is exactly what Isabel just said, that unfortunately, feminism and particularly toxic feminism, fifth wave feminism, we talk about this in the new book. We have a whole chapter on this, by the way. And I actually have a call with my publisher later today, whether or not we can add the holdout and the juror to all this on the Lindsay Clancy trial. Because this is toxic feminism. And toxic feminism is the one where you blame men for everything. You blame society for everything. Women can never be held accountable for anything. And unfortunately, this is the same type of narrative.

We talked about narratives earlier, the stories that we tell, the cups that we drink out of. It is everywhere. It's all throughout our society from sex in the city to. to Call Her Daddy podcast, to TikTok, to the true crime brain rot. If you listen to any, and I've been talking about this with the true crime community, which is cancer for years, by the way, is that it's all anti-cop and it's all anti-mail, which is kind of the same thing when you really think about it. It's always the police's fault.

It's the police are always, whatever story they talk about, it's a police cover-up. It's a police cover-up. Why? It's a police cover-up. That's their starting position. Or there has to be some nexus where they can blame the mail for it. And so whether or not you're someone who's got an R or a D next to your name, you're registered a certain party, you have to understand that splitting society up into classes, whether it's ethnic, whether it's gender, whether it's economic, doesn't matter. That is still a function of Marxism.

And it goes all the way back. By the way, I'll drop two data points on you right now where I can prove this. Number one, the very first country in the entire, do you know off the top of your head, was the very first country in the whole world that legalized abortion? Hmm. Well, the path that you're leading me down would lead me to believe it's America. Where did feminism come from? The very first country that legalized abortion nationwide was the Soviet Union.

Dang. Very first country. The Bolshevik Revolution was launched on a day called International Women's Day, which is still celebrated today with a women's strike. Hmm. Let's take a quick break, but continue this with the senior editor at human events and Turning Point USA. Welcome back. We're still hanging out with Jack Posobic, the author of The Socialist Revolution, also with human events in Turning Point USA. Just some facts that I'm throwing out there. But I think the larger point is that a lot of women on the right consuming these what seemed like innocuous pieces of content, true crime or sex in the city, are being, and by the way, Isabel mentions it in their college education, indoctrinary. into this viewpoint.

Right. And so my, the point that I'm bringing up, they're putting in this situation, they're like, oh, I don't know. And so my empirical point that I'm bringing up is that a lot of these ideas directly originated in the Soviet Union with the Bolshev. Right. Right. All right.

Give us another, you got two more from these jurors, right? Yep. He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses, he tried to ask a question about the medications and we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital. We had the

toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts. The nurses in the room spoke to that and talked to that. There were nurses on the jury. Yes. Sorry. They spoke to that that specific thing. That was a question that he had.

And he just completely disregarded the information that they gave. This one's pretty damning. The key this one, that she's talking about nurses on the jury overriding expert witness testimony and expecting the loan holdout juror to adhere to their point of view. So I did, and I tweeted this, and I said, if they were introducing information or acting as expert witnesses to other jurors, you could be held in contempt for that because that is jury tampering. Juries are not supposed to

be bringing in outside information. If you're an expert witness, remember, you have to have cross-examination. You have to be questioned. That's the whole point. If you're sitting in there without any question, without acting as I'm an expert, this is a really big problem. But I want to call everyone's attention to something else at these jurors. And you notice a few of them have said this, by the way. He just wouldn't listen. He's arrogant. He's biased. And I don't know if they use the word, but it's, you hear this a lot with toxic feminists, the word narcissist, right? And, and so in their mind, keep in mind, everything, they believe is true, right? It's not a difference of opinion because there can be no difference

of opinion. Everything they believe is truth. Anyone who's against that must, must be. Therefore, racist, misogynist, homophobic, whatever, you know, whatever the ism is because you couldn't possibly look at these facts and listen to the experts and come up with a different set of ideals and they've internalized we're saying in the word, the internalization, they've internalized all this stuff and they don't even realize it. So,

Dan, you said, people have asked, why do we keep talking about this case? You know, to some extent, I think people have legit. Yeah, like it's some random case in Massachusetts. Why does everyone care nationally? Because this case has been

eye opening, eye opening about apparently a gender divide in something that is as low of a bar as a triple homicide of children, a gender divide. And, you know, one of our other producers, Fran said, Will, you're an attorney. Couldn't they have vetted for some of this? Like, even the jury split being 9-3, how did the prosecution allow nine jurors to be women? Couldn't they have vetted for this?

And I said, well, I don't know going into this trial. This is how eye-opening this trial has been. I don't know going into this trial that a prosecutor would have known or should have known. Hey, women are going to sympathize with Lindsay Clancy. There is a school of thought out there that women are harder on women than men. Women hated Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris more than men. And so, you know, I can imagine. Married women.

Yeah. Our YouTube chat is very hard on her right now. Yeah. On Lindsay Clancy? Yes. Yeah. And these jurors. But they're the exception.

I can imagine. I can imagine a prosecutor also having their. eyes opened about this. Like, oh, my God, all these women are projecting into this their experience with postpartum depression, or they're projecting into it, their experience with mental health, which is an exploding category. So they have touchpoints of relation to Lindsay in some way. And then they're extending her sympathy and empathy in this process. And I don't know that I knew that would happen before this trial. That's why it's so, I mean, I use word eye-opening, but why we keep talking about this. It's stunning.

This is absolutely stunning to realize about our fellow man or woman. Well, it's, I would say we're not talking about the trial. We're talking about America. Yes, exactly. I'm talking about where America is at right now. Now, going into this, I thought, I said one or two things is going to happen. Either she's going to be acquitted, 12-0, or there's going to be one or two holdouts. So I said that just looking at the makeup of the jury.

And I said, and if there are holdouts, it's going to be one or more of the men. and ended up being one of the men. And why is that? Because that's my mental model, specifically for an area like Plymouth, Massachusetts, and that jury pool, which as blue as it is up there, is this, and this is what we write about in Unhumans. And we talk about how people have what we call this fried mental model. And you get it from, you mentioned all the places that you get it from media,

you get it from schools, and people are sort of going around with that fried mental model. And we talk about how there was that case, the name was case me off the top of my head. It was in Texas, though, a few years back where the woman drowned her four-chilled or five-childers. Susan Smith, right? Andrew Yates.

Andrew Yates. And there were, oh, no, Susan Smith, and then Susan Smith was one of the 90s. In Virginia, I think. And Virginia, New York. I have to jack. And the point being is, in those cases, you had women who showed up at the courthouse

screaming at the defendant, screaming baby killer. Exactly. How could you do this? And then you fast forward to today, 30 years later, 15 years later, whatever it is, and suddenly it's all flipped. My argument, my entire thesis for what I'm talking about is that we are sliding into a socialist revolution. And these are the things that you would expect to find if you were along the lines of a socialist revolution. Because people would be looking at the world not through objective reality and not looking at objective reality, but through the lens of moral relativism.

and specifically the Marxist lens of moral relativism. So if I was wrong, and I wish I was wrong, but unfortunately, we are on that slide to a socialism. Look at Casey Anthony, too. That was not that long ago. I mean, women hated her. Women wanted her in jail. Of course, they still do. Yeah.

And now somehow it's different. So based off of that, if I was the prosecution alone, I would have no problem with women, like you said, Will. I think what Casey Anthony, it was because she was good looking also is the reason. a lot of women are against her, whereas in this, she's in a wheelchair, she seems more empathetic. She's the reasons behind killing her. That wheelchair absolutely affords her.

The extension of empathy. And it's the inverted hierarchy of victimhood. Right. Watt Vom at 69. Nice handle. Amazing. Says misplaced empathy where FrontDB says compassion for the murderers.

And then Janice Prickett says, I live down the street from the court. These people are nuts and brainwashed in Massachusetts. These are the people on the jury. Speaking of comments, I keep getting this. So my interview several months ago now with Scott Besson, it goes, it hits little cycles of, I don't know, I don't want to call it fully viral, but accounts with big followings, pick it up and post it. It's the question I asked to Besson about being gay. And, you know, then everybody gets mad at me.

Do we have one of these comments? They get mad at me every couple weeks. It's people on the right. They get mad at me. And yeah, Deborah, here's a little example. Deborah Hostetter says, Will, I thought you were better than this. Scott Besson is a brilliant man and best secretary of treasure we've had in decades. But this is your leading question.

How ridiculous. Well, first of all, I don't think it was my question right out of the box. So, you're gay. Why are you gay? You know, I like the African dude. Why are you gay? The point of my question was that Bessent is the highest holding office holder in American history, Secretary of Treasury, who is gay.

And you don't know that. The vast majority of people, I mean, you know that, I know that. Perhaps people listening know this. But you could go a man on the street. People don't know that. But if this was the Biden administration, you would 100% know it because they'd be yelling about it, screaming about it, celebrating it. And the fact that Bessent is the highest ranked gay office holder

in the history of the United States. And you don't know it shows how this is administrative. focused on merit and best and got it through merit it's a compliment that i'm asking this question saying and yet no one knows well and i said when i had it because he would have had somebody who had to wear lipstick to get it you would have been wearing lipstick highlights that's kind of what i'm going to say is that so so the the difference there is because he doesn't get credit because so when i talked about the classes of society the marxist etc all of those classes none of that applies if you're not part of the revolution right if you're

against the revolution, if you're labeled a counter-revolutionary, when Chairman Mao would have those guys in the struggle sessions and the placards under their, you know, under their necks right before they shot him in the public square, they would say like counter-revolutionary, oh, a right-wing extremist was one of their favorites, by the way. Not that anyone has ever used those phrases recently. Right. And so if you're counter-revolutionary, none of it matters. And this is why I actually argue that ultimately looking at it as empathy is wrong because the empathy is part of it, to be sure, but that's only one layer because underneath all that, if you look under the hood, it's all resentment.

There's so much resentment. There's so much anger. And just go back to the juries, you could see the anger at them, at this man who would say no. How dare you? How dare you say no to us? How dare you not go along with the consensus and the longhouse and the experts? And the same with Bessent. They would look at him.

They would view him as, so to say that he is a gay man who worked in the Trump administration, they would, of course, view him as a class traitor. Right. You're absolutely right about resentment. Resentment is at the core of all of these divides. You must make people or tap into their existing resentment. You should have more. Yeah.

That's how you do it. And that's how the devil did it with Cain, who was the very first human being born on the planet. The devil was able to get to Cain's heart and turn on that resentment and say, You were first born. How come Abel's more favored than you? Right. Right. And now he might be a senator in Tennessee.

It's crazy. Yes. The full circle. Who's going to be a center in Tennessee? Kane. He's one of the front runners. He's talking about Kane. He means the other King.

Yes, very, very funny. He put that in my morning. No, he really wanted to talk about it. Wait, so I'll do them better. So I had Glenn Jacobs on my show once, and we do it actually at the last convention at 2024. before. And we haven't won quite a bit, but we were in person. We do the whole interview, just totally straight, totally normal, like talk politics, whatever. And the very, and then my whole

chat is going, ask him about Cain, ask him about Cade. And at the very end, I turn to him and I go, and I go, and Mr. May, if I could ask you just one more question, are you ever going to forgive the undertaker for setting that fire to that barn that killed your parents? And he just looks at me, and his face turns dark, and he goes, never. in an instant he went right in a character. Never. We've had Jesse Ventura, governor of Minnesota, right?

Donald Trump, he's a WWE character. He's in the Hall of Fame. I've always said that you can't understand the Trump. I'm not talking about on our show. I'm talking about in American politics. You can understand the Trump movement and what Trump does in politics if you haven't committed yourself to the academic study of K-Fabe and pro wrestling. And if you don't understand things like that,

you know, like, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, he said this once, he said it many times, he said, you know, I, I wrestled once when I was wrestling in Japan and America, I crossed the international date line so many times that I wrestled 400 days in a year. And if Hulk Hogan says he did it, he did it. You're 100% right, but it's funny to hear it's put in the terms of the academic study of K-Fabe. I'm, I'm, I'm, I've actually told a bunch of journalists. I'm like, you should, like, someone has to, write this book, K-Faid politics, and explain how President, and Linda McMahon's in the cabinet.

I mean, like, obviously there's connected to his issue a lot there. He has the rest of, uh, uh, Triple H comes and does the Maha stuff at the White House all the time. He cut the promo with the water bottle, you know, going, uh, out of the West Wing one time. And so it's, it's all there. And I just, I don't understand, well, because nobody wants to give Trump credit for strategy. That's the other problem, right? They can't actually say he's got to be an idiot. He's conniving. He's the conman, they can't actually admit that there's a strategy to what he does. Right. All right, I have one more piece of sound from the jurors, but first, hey, if you've ever had to try to hire somebody, you know, it's the hardest part of realizing you need help.

It's finding the right person. That's the hardest part. You wait for applications. You sort through resumes. You try to get people on the phone. Sometimes the best candidates, they're not even looking for a job. That's why the future of hiring looks a whole lot better with ZipRecruiter. Their newest tools help you find and connect with qualified candidates in minutes.

and if you find someone you really like, you can unlock their contact information instantly. Plus, they're adding hundreds of thousands of new resumes every month, giving you access to even more great candidates. So use ZipRecruiter and save time hiring. Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter, get a quality candidate within the first day. Go to ZipRecruiter.com slash country right now and try it for free. Again, it's ZipRecruiter.com slash country. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.

Let's take a quick break, but continue this with the senior editor at human events and Turning Point USA. Welcome back. We're still hanging out with Jack Posobic, the author of The Socialist Revolution, also with Human Events and Turning Point USA. All right, you have one more juror, Dan, who wasn't sitting with these three women, and this juror is hiding their face, I believe. This is in a phone interview. They don't want their... We don't have that one. Isn't that right? Oh. I don't think so. I did see the one you're talking about. That one said she went in thinking.

guilty. She flipped. That was the one she flipped. She flipped. Yeah. That was a good one. We got her. But you do have one more juror. Yes. And ultimately, though, he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview. I think that's when it was. He admitted he had

reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. I actually, there were three forms I had to fill out. And I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said, but I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.

Excited. By the way, how do they... She's the former woman, by the way. Yeah. She was the forewoman, of course. Reasonable doubt, by the way. That is ultimately undefinable. It is an undefinable concept.

So if he had doubt, he had doubt, who are they to say, well, not his doubt was reasonable or not? They don't know. They just all agree. Unless he said I have reasonable doubt. Well, I do you think there's a line that that people kind of miss, too, that reasonable doubt doesn't mean you have no doubt. Right. Right. Right.

It means that, like, within the realm of possibility, you know, could aliens have flown through the space and traveled to the house and committed this crime? Like, I don't know, maybe, but that's unreasonable. It's obviously unreasonable. So it doesn't mean that it's beyond the realm of possibility. It means, is it reasonable or unreasonable? And, but again, and this and this. gets into a real thar crime here because what happens if you have a socialist revolution and you now have a population that's so divided that we can't even agree on what's reasonable.

Well, we definitely. How do you, how do you have, how do you have, how do you, how do, our whole system was not designed for this amount of polarization, this amount of, and you can see Republicans, and Democrats, you know, who's proud to be an American, who's not, right? We all know. We all know. We all know the answer to that question. You don't even look at the numbers.

You don't even have to look. we all know. And so if you have those massive swings in your society, if you become less homogenous, if you stop agreeing on the basic issues, then all of these systems, which were set up for a group of people who were homogenous, who shared a culture, who did not have multiculturalism and moral relativism, the systems break down because ultimately what we have in a lot of these is the honor system. Yeah. This is going to back you up. One last thing on Lindsey Clancy. Whoopi Goldberg.

Whoopi Goldberg claims Lindsay Clancy haters sound like Pete Hegg said. Of course. Yeah, of course. It doesn't come out. Hold on. Here she is. Let's listen to Whoopi.

I'm going to point out the fact that women and medicine, people generally don't believe women when they come in and say something's wrong. That's correct. They touch you on the head and they said, oh, you just, you know, you just, it's the same sort of argument that this Higgs said, person is using about why women shouldn't be in military because we get periods. I don't know when Pete's ever seen anything about periods. She goes on to say, I'm going to point out the fact, oh, this is the same quote.

But yeah, we sound like anybody, well, we. Any chance to bring up Trump administration. Yes, I'm a Lindsay Clancy hater. Sound like Pete Hague, Seth. I typically hate murderers. I am, in fact, I'm going to do something a little bold here, Will, if I may, I'm going to come out as anti-murder. I am in fact anti-murder and especially when it's the murder of children

children I'm going to put that in a special category going to go ahead and say that's actually that's actually worse and I know that's like an unpopular position these days but you know I got to like I just got to be true to myself I got to be true to me and no so what she's saying is exactly

in line with what I've been outlining here so she because remember to the left who is Pete right Pete is not someone who's trying to revitalize the military and trying to get us back to what the military supposed to do hurt people and break stuff and keep us safe and and he is a misogynist so to them what what she's the trend you have to put the unhumans translator on it and through the unhumans filter we say oh well you have to translate that is they all sound like misogynist and who's the biggest

misogynist who's she's she's trying to get like a little bit of a fresh take so you know because trump like they always say that no it's it's not just trump it's also pete right because pete is even bigger misogynist so she's just saying misogynist and then picking a name out of a hat Pete's never said anything like that. You couldn't even find something where he said something like that, but it doesn't matter because it fits within the narrative that they all share. Right. Okay.

So let's take this full circle then, Jack. So, as I said, I feel all of this. So in the one year since Charlie's been killed, so everything we've outlined was obvious in the minutes in the days and even before Charlie was killed. And the response to Charlie's assassination was. was ugly. He was killed by a radical leftist who was enacting many of these things that we've laid out today. The thought processes, the worldview that we've talked about here today. Some hate can't be argued out. But he has been totally let off the hook, as has the violent tendency of a significant percentage of the left, as has this entire worldview. Because Charlie's Kirk has been, Charlie Kirk's murder has also been destroyed by podcast to stand, whatever we want to call, you know,

Candice Owen's world, this whole world, and it's a lot of the right. And this is where my pessimism comes from. My pessimism comes from the way the world has responded in the past year. We need to remember that the wolves are at the door. Hassan Piker was running around this week saying, I'm not like Nick Fuentes. I'm more like the Charlie Kirk of the left. I'm sure you heard he said that. And to which I simply responded, well, the difference, Hassan, is that you still have your freedom of speech and Charlie doesn't. because one of the people on your side took it away from him forever. That's the big difference here. And because of the things that he has said in support of that violence,

that's why I say they're not part of our system. That's not being American when you, when you say, Charlie would go to these campuses with with microphones. One for him, one for anyone who disagreed. He said, if you disagree, come to the front. And we still use that rule on Turning Point. When we go to campus, we do the pick up the mic. Erica has done an incredible job of keeping that together,

keeping Turning Point together, keeping herself, together for this year, beyond what anyone would ever believe possible. And when Hassan Piker walks around saying that, oh, I'm like the Charlie Crick, no, Charlie never supported violence. Charlie wasn't a violent guy. He was not. Charlie said, let's talk. Let's have it out in debate. That's American. That is what the bedrock beliefs of America are, freedom of speech, freedom of debate, the honor system like we're just talking about. These are the systems. These guys, they want the violence. They have, it's spread from resentment and they breed more resentment. resentment. They want the violence. They celebrate the violence. And you will come to see tomorrow on what they're holding of the nationwide quote unquote Kirk aversary. You will see just how much they, they celebrate the violence. They get off on violence. And the attention needs to be on this. Not the conspiracy. The bullshit conspiracies around Charlie. And that's what they got to get out of jail. They're not going to stop with Charlie. They're not going to stop with Charlie. They will not stop.

I said that to President of the United States. I said they will not stop at him. They will come for you again, Mr. President. I said that before the White House correspondent's dinner. I said they'll come for you again. They'll come for all of us. They will come for all of us because it is what they want. And how do I know because I listen to them?

Right. Last question with the RNC here, the midterm convention. Does any of this resonate? Like, does this impact? The wolves are at the door. This socialist revolution is in motion. as we speak. And it could be that in a matter of months here, you know, President Trump loses the House, maybe the Senate. And whatever's been happening, the last two years comes to a grinding halt.

We begin this new path. How do you feel? And it's the, it's the path that the Biden regime laid out that's still there. Yeah. And a lot of people want to go back to. And people have to remember that. I had Mike Johnson here yesterday. He's going to give me happy talk, I think, regardless, off air too. But he feels good. He's like, what do you call it a contrast, a contrast of vision? Yeah, yeah, something like that. Yeah. Contrast for America. Contrast for America, yeah.

It's, I would dial it up a little bit. I would dial that up a little bit. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it is, do you want to live in a country with the Lindsay Clancy jurors in charge? Or do you want to live in a country with fair people in charge? Can I? It's really as simple as that. Because they will, they will take charge. And if you put them on a committee, if you put them in Congress, if you put them in the house, that is exactly what they will do.

not just to the holdout juror. And you could see they were turning the screws to him and all that tried to get him kicked off the jury. Right. Now imagine what they would do to people who they view nationally as being in the way of their revolution. You have a sense of urgency. But don't you think there's a very large group of people who haven't spoken up that are just in the middle and are confused and don't have a home of where they can go? It's not as Mom Donnie or it's not as Maga, but there's a larger portion of people who are just kind of like figuring out where to live. in their belief and where they should be party-wise.

Perhaps, but those, but if you're talking about, just in practical, in practical terms of a midterm election, though, those are not the people you want to be trying to activate. In practical terms, at this point, you know, what are we, 60 days out from the election, you've got to go to, you've got to reactivate your low propensity voters from 2024.

You've got to reactivate your base supporters. You've got to get them come out. At this point, if you're trying to play, so what you're talking about is persuasion versus activation. So in a persuasion game, yes, of course. And in national elections, there's more of that because more people are paying attention in the election just by the amount of money is bigger. The stakes are higher.

It's the presidency in a midterm election because the turnout is going to be so much lower. 60 versus 46 type thing. Yeah, it's got to be. It's a base election, so it's all about turnout. I mean, what did Mom Zahna get elected by? A very small percentage of New Yorkers. And guess what? It's not just New York because Washington, D.C. is about to get to the DSA mayor too.

Yeah. People aren't even tracking that one. I wonder how Soria is going to win in Michigan? I could see it. I think he's a very well position to win. And you look at what they did to Michigan over the years, right? They demographically transformed pockets of Michigan like Dearborn through mass immigration and targeted mass immigration, right?

We actually started calling this targeted immigration because that's what it is. I just came up with that. I'm going to use it. You can have that too since I said it on your show. and and and also with a lot of these same policies plus it's a rust belt state so they're going to keep saying hey why do our jobs keep going to china And they've done this over and over and over to the point where if you have enough dissatisfied Trump voters from 2024 who don't show up and enough driven Saeed supporters in 2026 who want to see a Muslim member of the Senate like that, then, yeah, he could easily win. All right. Jack Bosopic and I are going to head over to the Republican National Midterm Convention here in just a matter of hours. Excellent analysis. It's always good to see you, man.

Nice to do it in person, man. Thank you. Yeah. I do feel good about the Cowboys. Eagles this year. It's all Eagles. I mean, I can't wait. It's pure optimism. Let's go, baby. Let's go.

Let's go. I told you I'm an optimist. Yeah, we have to be. He's a Cowboys fan. Follow us on Spotify. Apple. We'll see you again next time. Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast.

And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad free on the Amazon music app.