Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
The Lindsay Clancy jury has potentially deadlocked after 23 hours of deliberations
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 2, and the Lindsay Clancy jury has potentially deadlocked. They indicated that yesterday to the judge after about 23 hours of deliberations. And they're discussing several options, of course, in this case where Clancy has admitted that she killed her three children. And so the question is only, whether or not she is, responsible for that, which the sane answer, of course is absolutely yes. But the jury is discussing several options which include first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, which is the insanity or the psychosis defense, or not guilty. I think potentially the jury, because they have this span of options, it's not just either guilty, not criminally responsible, or not guilty. there may be some debate, within the jury of where kind of on that spectrum of those options to land. But, they're still going to deliberate and it's still entirely possible that they reach a verdict, because, in emotional cases like this, and especially ones that obviously the jury knows that this is a very high profile case, sometimes when the judge says, well, there's a lot of evidence, go back, still deliberate, they can potentially still reach a verdict. So, verdict or mistrial is still possible, but the public's reaction to this is what I want to talk about today.
Men and women reacted differently to Lindsey Clancy's case versus women
We've talked about this several times on the program, but, Caitlin Bennett, who is an online, influencer and, mother, wife, pro life is how she describes her work. she's actually there, and asking people who are showing up outside the courthouse their reaction. And it was Fascinating to see how men reacted differently to Lindsey Clancy's case versus women. And this is the speculation right now because there's three men on the jury compared to seven women. And we don't know yet who or what or what the split is. But it's really fascinating and I think a little bit terrifying, to be honest, to see how men are reacting differently than some women. So listen to this super, cut of Caitlyn, Bennett's interviews with men and women. It is wild that people support it. I've only heard dumb people agree with her.
Speaker D: We're asking people today if they stand with her. Yes. Tell me what she did. She asked for some help because she was a struggle about, like, the maternity. Well, if she did do it, I hope she burns in hell. If she didn't do it, whoever did burn in hell, does she belong in jail or does she belong to go in a nice little mental health? I think she belongs where she can get the best care. She killed her children. That's bad. Obviously, I probably disagree. I don't know all the details, but she killed her children. That's probably bad. I think that her husband gaslighted her on a lot of the issues that she was having, and he also didn't support her throughout. Where's your proof for that? Well, that's what I'm saying. My opinion is, is that she, definitely have mental challenges, but she also committed murder, so she got to be served up. I think that she was absolutely, completely drugged, and having a psychotic break. Do you support Lindsey Clancy? No.
Speaker F: No. Okay.
Speaker D: It's about a human. It's about a person. What about the three humans that were strangled to death? That's not acceptable. But we have to deal more than this problem. She was a person who asked for help. She killed three kids.
Speaker D: She did. So, no.
Speaker D: Okay. You can't kill three kids. We feel she's very sleep deprived. Her job as a labor and delivery nurse working night shifts and three children. I was like, you better not be supporting this. I told her I've heard about it, and I'm like, I would run. Mental health awareness is what is. Is coming from this. Right. So that's a positive thing. You guys support Lindsey? Oh, this one? No, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker D: Why do you stand with her? there wasn't a lot of evidence that showed that it was her. There wasn't a big, She said she did it. Yeah. We're asking St. Pete's opinion on if they support Lindsey Clancy. No, you don't. No.
Jenna Ellis: Wow.
Isabel Brown: I think this represents a turning point in our society
Well, Isabel Brown is host of the Isabel Brown show on Daily Wire and does a phenomenal job. And I'm so grateful that you're joining this morning. You are also, a young mother and have had a lot of opinions on this case, I think, like every rational conservative. So what's your reaction to all of the public, that are actually supporting somehow? Lindsey Clancy.
Isabel Brown: Good morning, Jenna. Thank you so much for having me. And you know, just like you, I've been completely glued to this case the last several weeks because I think it represents a major turning point in our society when it comes to our inability to think critically about objective truth. We have let emotions take over so, so much of not just our news cycle or what's going viral on social media, but now even allowing the court of public opinion to take over a court of law and potentially deliver a serious miscarriage of justice here for a woman who has previously openly admitted to strangling her own three children individually, methodically to death. It is absolutely tragic. But I think is indicative of just a larger problem in our society where really since Cove 19, you've seen people assume automatically that every single major story in the news cycle probably has some deeper level of a, conspiracy or a cover up associated with it. And often that has been true the last several years. I don't fault people for feeling that way at all. There have been countless conspiracies that if you really believed in them, you were just right six months to a year in advance. But I think this has been happening so often in our society that now we refuse to accept facts, evidence, objective truth when that is laid out right before our eyes. And I can't tell you how many videos I've seen the last couple of weeks on Tik Tok or Instagram or even tweets, on X, suggesting with zero evidence whatsoever. Patrick Clancy, Lindsey's ex husband, has to be the guilty party here just because he's a man or their zodiac signs must have contributed to whether they killed their children here or not, whether they're innocent or guilty. many, many women, I think, have just lost the plot the last couple of weeks and it's important for us to tell the truth about this case.
Jenna Ellis: So well said, and I could not agree more that this is a huge problem in society that we don't search overall for fact and truth as much as an explanation and how we may feel about the case, because it really doesn't matter what anyone feels about this or whether they empathize, with Lindsey, it matters what the facts and the law say. And unlike Covid, there are advocates for both sides in the courtroom that are being heard. I mean, no one is cutting off Lindsey Clancy's defense and canceling her and saying, we're not going to even listen to what your side has to say. And that's the process in a court, of law and in our system. And so when people are still trying to find, you know, some other explanation or doing their own investigation, when her own defense team isn't raising this, it's just mind boggling that people can actually believe that over what the facts of the case show. And so for, for the moms especially and for the women who are defending this, as, as some kind of, well, she cried out for help. She needs psychosis. I've said from the start of this case, it doesn't matter. Even if her entire explanation is absolutely true, that she was under psychosis. I don't care. She deserves crim for this. What does it say about our society that women want to say she, they're okay with, with her murdering three children just because she cried out for help?
Isabel Brown: It speaks volumes, and it's absolutely tragic. We've arrived here in 2026. I agree with you. I don't think it's an excuse, to kill your own three children. And I hope that this turns into a much larger conversation in our legal system about the insanity defense and how that has become unbelievably weaponized and truly broken by now at this point in our nation's history. But it's interesting. I looked back through history and both Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer attempted at some point in their legal defense to claim not guilty by reason of insanity as their plea. Of course, no sane person ever in American history would ever suggest that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy should be sent to a fluffy mental hospital instead of life in prison or the death penalty on the table. and so I think what you are seeing here is truly a result of, the conversation related to feminism we've seen become unbelievably toxic throughout, our lifetime in the United States of America. It's unbelievably tribal, what we're seeing on social media right now, that women by the droves, feel the need to automatically identify with a woman who happens to be on the defense for a gruesome, violent murder case simply because she is a woman and go out of their way to blame her ex husband for pushing her into this psychosis. Or maybe I've seen theories that he was drugging her and hypnotizing her, that he actually killed the children, and that he convinced her that she did it while he was drugging her, which is why she openly admitted to it. Or as I said earlier, even something as simple as his zodiac sign, clearly his birthday meant that he has this star sign, which meant that he was a violent person. It is just unbelievably crazy. But women have been convinced for so long, for so many years, that you have to believe and support all women and you should hate all men because all men are evil. This is an extreme manifestation of that, but certainly stems from the larger cultural and political trends that we've seen. And as for the lack of justice for these beautiful children, we live in a culture where 25% of women in America will have an abortion and at some point in their lifetime. So I think it's been really jarring for so many people to see online the quote, unquote, same Lindsay trend. I could see myself doing that. I see myself in this woman. But the truth is, there are millions of women every single year who do end the lives of their children. It just happens in a much, quieter and sterile environment than what we're seeing in this particular case. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And it's. It's so tragic that society, values children, at least currently, to an extent. Right. once they are born, but allows women to commit murder, legally, even though obviously it's not moral or lawful, when they are still in the womb. And we need to fight that arbitrary standard in the contemplation of how we think about this, not just the law and policy, but how we think about the. The dignity of human life, how we think about children. And you're also absolutely right, Isabelle, that, this is a similar to another Marxist tactic. Right. To say that women are always the oppressed and men are the oppressors in society, that is, the feminist tactic. And to say that she's only standing, trial and we need to empathize with her and excuse her because she is a woman, and this is because of an oppressive society, not just in the courtroom, but how she lived her life and the circumstances leading up to this. And so she's justified. I mean, it's no different than what the advocates for Carmelo Anthony, are. The young man who is black, who stabbed, the other kid at the track meet in Texas, and, who is white. And of course, the race doesn't matter. The overall act matters here. Gender doesn't matter. If the act matters. But it seems like our society is always wanting to go to that oppressive nature. And, and when there is an excuse for the defendant based on, saying, well, they were oppressed in some way, then they want to provide that justification. Do you think that we need to contemplate not just, the insanity defense? And I agree with you, we need to. But how we as a culture and even consider these cases? Because this isn't anything that the defense or even the prosecution is arguing. She's not, not guilty by reason of her gender. But clearly when you have people from society on the jury, they're going to take these cultural presumptions with them into the jury room. And we may be seeing that right now in real time.
Isabel Brown: We are, in an unprecedented way. It's funny you mentioned that this isn't even a tactic from her legal team. It's actually to the contrary. Kevan Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, who's become quite notorious these last couple of weeks on social media, actually answered a question outside of the courtroom just a few days ago about the conspiracy theories swirling online related to her ex husband. And he shut them down immediately. He said, we are not touching those with a ten foot pole. That is not a part of our conversation here whatsoever. There's no justification for any of these rumors swirling online. And yet the court of public opinion, of course, is influencing what's happening inside of this court of law. This is not a sequestered jury, which I think is hugely problematic and certainly could contribute to a potential hung jury or mistrial here in the next few days. We're going into day five of deliberation here, but this tribal mentality of the oppressed versus the oppressor, I don't even think we're only seeing in this particular criminal case. I really think it's going to start becoming the norm for any high profile criminal, particularly murder cases in America. Last night there was even a 56 year old woman named Don Light who was arrested for juror witness intimidation outside of the courtroom, because as the jury exited the building, she tried to take as many photos of the jurors as possible to expose their identities online, presumably if they were to become traitors to women and convict Lindsey Clancy of these crimes, either on murder one or murder two. Exactly the same type of conversation we saw with the Carmelo Anthony trial. You're absolutely on the money for that. And I've been using this case really as a litmus test for what I'm sure we can expect with the Tyler Robinson trial. as you know, I was very close with Charlie Kirk.
Isabel Brown: The worst miscarriage of justice in a case could be a hung jury
I worked for him for about eight years. And I've said from the beginning, the worst miscarriage of justice that could possibly happen in a case like this could be a hung jury. All it takes is one juror in that back deliberation room that is die hard bought into all of these conspiracy theories or based on trying to flip the oppressor versus the oppressed narrative. And all of a sudden you see our entire judicial system come to a screeching halt. Forget about, having a right to a jury of your peers or a speedy trial or, making sure our constitutional rights are protected. All of a sudden the court of public opinion is hand in hand with the court of law and whatever is politically convenient to push at the time, we will become the verdicts for all of these cases.
Jenna Ellis: M and you're right, that would then throw the entire judicial system into chaos. And for a long time even conservatives have said that the process and the substantive, rights that are protected within our U.S. constitution, particularly in a criminal law setting, are the best, in the world. And we have continued to protect that. But this relies on the presumption that you have a rationale, reasonable jury of your peers and that the jury can separate emotion from fact. They can read the law as the judge gives to them, they can follow the law and they can set aside anything from the outside. They can take their life experience, of course, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, all of those things. But they can render a verdict based on fact and based on reason rather than emotion. But as our society continues to rely more on emotion and, and more on some of these false, equivalencies and some of these false narratives of, you know, well, the law is essentially the oppressor versus the oppressed and they take that as systemic in our society and they buy all of these lies from the left. How do we move forward in a society where we're pulling in the jury pool from those very same people? how do we move forward then with justice?
Isabel Brown: It's the million dollar question, and I wish I had a perfect answer to it, because we truly are in an unprecedented time of information sharing, of virality on social media, and even just what access to the media looks like. Even 10 years ago, access to the Internet was so much different. For a jury who might not be sequestered in these trials as it looks like right now, certainly that could be something we consider for any high profile case. Moving forward is truly sequestering the jury and making sure that there's not access to everything that swirls around conspiracy wise on social media. But even then, it's still the honor system of making sure when these jurors call home and they're speaking to their spouses, nobody's telling them anything over the phone or they don't happen to see a newspaper sitting in a hotel lobby or in the courthouse. And so there's a lot I think we need to be contemplating here, but the social media digital age, and then particularly the post Covid conspiracy theory age that I think we're starting to see come to normalcy here, is an unprecedented question for the legal system. And my hope and prayer is that regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, we all can continue to advocate for the judicial system that we've create and created and built here in America over the last 250 years. That has been the greatest legal system the world has ever known. Without it, I shudder to think about what the world might look like.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, me too. Absolutely. And Isabel Brown, I really appreciate you joining us today and talking through these things. And this is where the court of public opinion, unfortunately, sometimes can drive, the court of law. And we, we've always said, and Andrew Breitbart very famously said, that, you know, politics is downstream from culture, while sometimes justice now we're seeing is downstream from culture, because culture influences how we think. And if we are just yielding to whatever we see on social media, we're not thinking, thinking through these issues critically and we're not engaging in the court of public opinion, which is very important so that if and when we get to the court of law, if anyone who is listening to this is ever on a jury in the future, we need to be contemplating these things so that we can participate in civil society rationally. We can even participate in these conversations in our communities rationally. And separate, facts, separate principles, separate the, ideas of justice from emotion. And that we can talk about this in a way that actually creates a more perfect and just union rather than, going with emotion. So we will be right back with more.
Jenna Ellis: Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's
Jenna Ellis: afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in The morning on American Family Radio.
The murder case against Tyler Robinson against Charlie Kirk is headed for trial
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we were mentioning in the last segment, the murder case against Tyler Robinson, who has been accused of assassinating, Charlie Kirk last year, year, almost, a week to the year, is headed for trial, which means that he may face the death penalty if he is convicted of that murder. So yesterday, Utah District Judge Tony Graff sided with prosecutors who said they have overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson, shot Charlie Kirk in the neck as, he spoke to that crowd in Orem, Utah in September of 2024. So that will, proceed to the jury. Robinson has pled not guilty, not yet, raising some kind of insanity defense. you know, well, that's all speculation, of course. We'll see how the defense proceeds there. But it's a very good thing that, this case was bound over, the legal term for just proceeding from that preliminary hearing, which had to establish probable cause for the charges. A pretty low, threshold, in my opinion, for the evidence that the prosecution, has here. So this is just the next step in justice for Charlie and his family.
Ron DeSantis hosted a Florida leadership forum last night
All right, well, last night I had the privilege to attend a Florida leadership forum that was hosted by Governor Ron DeSantis with all of the statewide nominees from the GOP, which in Florida are known as the Governor's Cabinet, which includes the nominee for Governor Byron Donalds, the Attorney General James Uthmeyer, CFO Blaze Angolia, and also, AG Commissioner Wilton Simpson. And this was a really great form. And even if you aren't, in the state of Florida, I know we have a lot of listeners there, but a lot of listeners around the country, that this was really important. I think for a couple of reasons, not just for Florida, but obviously that Florida has been looked to, for the last eight years as the example of what a red state can and should do and how, the GOP is leading in conservative policy. And so the, the big million dollar question for Florida has been who is going to succeed Governor DeSantis and will Florida remain that kind of that leadership, example? And I think that, if you go to the Florida gop, X page, by the way, you can watch this entire forum, which is about an hour and a half. And, and I think that if you do that, you'll see what I'm saying. I think it'll be worth your time to actually watch this because, the point of this Overall was for Governor DeSantis to say, Listen, we have led well and now we are transitioning to a new leadership team. And he gave his complete endorsement to the entire slate, at the end of the evening, which I think was very wise of him, but essentially was saying, we are handing off the reins to new leadership, but Florida's direction is, is staying the same. And all of, the. The nominees on the panel agreed with that, including Byron Donalds. I was very happy to hear that. Regular, listeners will know that. You know, I've been skeptical of where, Byron sits in terms of conservative policy, but he was very impressive in, what he was saying and his grasp of policy and how he articulated it and the fact that they all agreed that what you say is, doesn't necessarily indicate what you'll do and that it's the voters who need to be engaged and also the local governments, that need to be engaged to ensure that you're holding your elected officials accountable. And that's what conservatives have said for a long time. And so I think it was also a great example for other states to say when you have good leadership and when you're headed in the right direction, and then inevitably, you know, term limits happen or a new election happens. It seems like sometimes you lose that momentum when there's a change in leadership. And we're about to go through that as a nation. With the Trump era, that is ending, you know, in two years. I mean, Donald Trump is not going to be on the ballot. And how he transitions and hands that off to, the next leader of the conservative movement and of the GOP is going to be very critical. That transition needs to happen flawlessly. And I think this was a really excellent way that Governor DeSantis is involved and is indicating that he is going to help facilitate that transition. So he's not just leaving and saying, well, bye, I'm done, and, you know, good luck, Florida. But ensuring that, it's not just about his legacy, it's about conservative policy. And so, the.
Susan Collins: A lot of Florida's successes have come through the legislature
The panel was talking also about, the Florida super majority and how the wins for Florida have been achieved, because a lot came from the executive on, but a lot had to be, facilitated through the legislature. And so Blaze and Golia talked about this, and I want to play this clip. It's about two and a half minutes long, but it's a really excellent response that I think a lot of red states and a lot of GOP politicians, especially right now in the federal government as well, need to listen to. This is cut for a couple of points.
Speaker F: The first point, and this is for everyone up here, is, and A lot of my legislative friends who are actually in, in the crowd today, first of all, I appreciate all the work that you do, but an amazing thing has happened over the last eight years in the state of Florida. and we have shown that we are willing to be conservative and aggressive at the same time. And at some times, we have all been at odds with our own legislature because we want to be more conservative and more aggressive. It is undeniable that this legislature led by this governor over the last eight years, every year we have pushed aggressive conservative policies. And the most amazing thing has happened over the last eight years. This state has turned more and more and more red every year. So, Look, I've been in a House, I have been in the Senate. I'm, now. I'm now CFO of the great state of Florida. I have heard these conversations. They all say the same thing. Well, we're afraid to pass this law because it may make it harder to win elections. I mean, we hear this all the time. But what we have seen and the proof is in the pudding. The more aggressive you are with passing good conservative policy, the more registration for Republicans have gone up and the easier it is to win elections because we are delivering on those promises. And the other thing I want to say, and this is specifically about the super majority. The super majority in the legislature allows us, the legislature, certain benefits that a super majority doesn't. And we can shut down debate, we can override vetoes. There's a lot of things that come with having a super majority, but the legislature does not wield and has not wielded that super majority power since we have been in office. now what I have seen firsthand, because I've been on the inside, is we sort of, govern to the lowest common denominator. and this is what I mean by this, and these conversations go on all the time, and my colleagues can attest to this, is that we can't pass this bill because this person might be at risk. It's way too conservative. Right. Well, if we're not using the super majority powers in the legislature, what are we worried about keeping super, majority in the legislature in the first place? Let's just pass the most aggressive conservative policies and keep on giving people win because it has been working. The state is redder, more registered, Republican, and people are dying to move here to the great state of Florida.
Hogan Gidley: Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: Isn't that perfectly said? And I wish that everyone in D.C. could hear that and could understand that because, D.C. on the federal level, they have been operating under basically the same premise as a lot of the, even the Florida super majority that, well, we don't want to push things too hard because, you know, what if the Democrats then went in the midterms, well, now we're two months away from the midterms, and the Democrats are potentially going to win some very pivotal seats, if not the majority back, in the House and, or the Senate. And I think because, the GOP is not willing to aggressively push conservative policy. I mean, they only have to look back at Trump's first four years when he was pushing aggressive policy and, and saying, you know, we're going to do things differently. There's so much momentum. And even after the 2024 election, when he's saying, you know, we're going to go in and, you know, make sure that, we are aggressively changing what the Biden administration Destroyed over the four years of his term and signed the 200 executive orders on day one, there's a lot of momentum. The bottom line is that the voters and the base want conservative policy, period. And we don't really care whether Susan Collins loses her seat or not. We don't care about the individual person, who is elected from an individual place, or we care overall about good policy pushed through the federal government and then also in our states, we want good leadership. And so the gop, though, has some kind of notion that once they get together and they have their team, they have to protect every single individual player. And if there's, you know, somebody who's maybe weak on one issue in a certain district or in a certain Senate seat or whatever, that they can't push that policy because then potentially they'll just lose that seat or they'll lose the majority. And so they don't want to push things and then they end up losing anyway. So it's self defeating. And so I think what blase is saying, incredibly, prolifically, is that the GOP needs to push conservative policy regardless of the outcome and regardless of maybe, you know, a loss here and there, because overwhelmingly the voters will support you. The voters will actually be reengaged, and the voters will give you even more power to continue, continue to do those things. Because the super majority in Florida grew because Floridians wanted to see Governor DeSantis agenda pushed. I mean, I think we have a trifecta in D.C. because the voters understood that we wanted the Trump agenda for 2024, everything he was campaigning on. We wanted those things to prevail. And so the momentum has stagnated now ahead of the midterms only because there wasn't enough pushing of things like the SAVE Act. We didn't push Doge, they didn't push the tax, overhaul. They didn push, you know, a lot of these agenda items that Trump came into office with that mandate and with that trifecta, not a super majority but with that trifecta that he was going to push. And so the, the bottom line is that the GOP needs to get it together and instead of hesitating in order to hedge and protect themselves, which ends up actually being a self defeating position, they need to push as hard as they can and be aggressive and control conservative at the same time. Florida is doing it well and I hope that under, a governor Byron Donalds and with this leadership that Florida will continue to push and actually use that super majority. One really good thing about Byron is that he's been in D.C. he knows how all this works. He knows how to push people as long as he is pushing the conservative agenda and I hope that he is, I think that Florida will remain the best state and, and the leadership state. But we've got to get that message to DC as well. So we will be right back with more.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At ah, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound and at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand for those who cannot speak for themselves. Just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
House censures Republican Chuck Edwards over sexual harassment allegations ahead of midterm elections
Welcome back.
Jenna Ellis: Well, while Florida is full steam ahead, The House in D.C. has censured Chuck Edwards, over sexual harassment of circumstances staff. So this is a Republican from North Carolina. Chuck Edwards was censured by the House on Tuesday after the Ethics Committee found he had failed to, quote, adhere to the spirit of rules prohibiting sexual harassment and unwanted advances to House staffers. So, I don't know that you, you know, really need a spirit of the rule of all of that or exactly what that means, but, you know, yeah, you, you shouldn't have unwanted advances to House staffers. And so, this coming from Axios, they say why it matters. The vote amounts to a remarkable bipartisan rebuke with the GOP leadership team and the vast majority of Edwards own party joining Democrats to impose one of the House. House's most serious punishments. so let's welcome in Hogan Gidley, who is the afpi, vice chair for the center for Election Integrity and senior advisor for communications. And Hogan, you know, I'm just really tired of, of GOP members like this, you know, focusing and bringing the focus on just really stupid things instead of actually getting things done. I mean, this isn't what anybody needs right before the midterms. Why can't the GOP on the federal level get it together?
Hogan Gidley: Well, that is a very loaded question, Jenna. I, would argue there are plenty of Republicans, on the GOP side at the federal level who done an outstanding job. We've passed more bills out of the House as a gop, than any other House in history. Codified somewhere around 100 of Donald Trump's executive orders into law, which, you know, prevents other presidents from coming in and changing so quickly. One problem, though, as you talk about GOP leadership is the Senate. they won't take up or pass. I think there's something like 580 bills. The House is pass included in that would be the Gulf of America, for heaven's sake. They won't even take up and pass that. The SAVE act, most notably as well. So a lot of problems there in D.C. but look, when you have people like that in your party who've done wrong, it's always better to call it out, get it past you immediately as opposed to letting it drag out. And I think if they turned a blind eye to it and let it continue, then you'd have a situation where that would, in fact impact the midterms. But as you know, with your, I can't remember your, your day count until the actual election, but you know that that would be a story from now until the, until election Day. You know, it's kind of a blip on the screen with all the other things they've been passing right now. So I get it. There's a lot of frustration. There should be. I, you know, the federal government moves so slowly. I can't tell if our founding fathers were just completely brilliant or sadists or somewhere in between because it just seems to be grinding to a halt so often. But I think they did that on purpose so that there would not be radical change in a quick way. Now, I'm afraid if Democrats win, that's exactly what you're going to see. But as of right now, I think this Republican Congress really has done an outstanding job. The Senate, I think, could pick up the ball and run a little faster, but, you know, there's still some time before the midterms.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and I totally agree with you that, you know, when someone in your party has, you know, done something that is worthy of rebuke, then obviously you should do that regardless of the headlines and the fallout of that, and you should do it quickly and then move on. So 100% agree. It's just frustrating to see that there are these kinds of distractions rather than, you know, everybody being in lockstep, especially in the Senate. And you're right to call that out because, you know, the House has passed, ah, the SAVE act multiple times and you know, the Senate just won't pick, up that ball and run. And so, we're. Can the pressure points be? Because I think where the, the voting base is frustrated heading into the midterms is that they don't see a lot of what has been passed because some of the bigger focal points, like notably the SAVE act, have stalled and they haven't seen, a lot of these bigger measures and things that were promised actually make it through the Senate, which I know the President is frustrated
Hogan Gidley: with, of course, and as well as should be. And the American people, I understand their frustration. They should be. Let me go through a couple things, though. When you're talking about, like, for instance, the one big beautiful bill. Republicans, have a tendency to pass something significant and then just expect the American people to get it as to why it's good. Democrats just talk about doing things forever ad nauseam, whether it's good or bad, as if it's going to be good and, you know, lie to the American people. But you get baked in your head. These things are all great. In the big beautiful bill, 70% of this country doesn't even know Jenna. There was a tax cut. The Largest tax cut in American history in that bill. They don't know about. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, doubling the child tax credit. they have no idea of the significance of that piece of legislation. there were sanctions in that bill, some, Some funding for military. All of these things that are, extremely, popular among the American people. But Republicans don't go out there and talk about it. It's like they passed it, and then they got scared or they think everyone gets it, or they don't want to run headlong into the fight. And for the life of me, I can't figure that out. On the SAVE act front, though, I need to point this out. The House did pass it, I think you said, multiple times. I think it's five, five or six at last count. But this last time was the most significant, and here's why. Jon Thune can clearly hide behind. We can't overturn the filibuster because we don't have enough votes. He can hide behind. If I put it on the floor and every Republican votes for it, I still need seven votes from Democrats. And they're never going to vote for the SAVE Act. If you point out what the House just did, which is give the Senate the lowest bar in history, the lowest bar by law by which to pass legislation, and that is they tucked the SAVE act into a reconciliation budget bill, which means the Senate doesn't need, 60 votes. They don't even need all the Republicans. They just need a simple majority to pass it. If we can't get that done, if Thune won't put that up, no wonder the base is angry. And they have every right to be. If this is an 80, 20 issue, I don't care if you're making your members take a tough vote and you stand to lose the Senate. Now, I don't want to lose the Senate. I don't think you would lose the Senate if you passed a piece of legislation that said only American citizens should decide the outcome of American elections. But I'm, not looking at all their internal polling. It just seems, you know, on its face, a layup for these guys. And because the House put it in reconciliation, you don't need that high threshold. And Thune doesn't have to say, I don't want to say can't hide behind. I like Jon Thune. I'm just saying he can't then say, look, man, you can say all you want to about the filibuster. I don't have the votes to overturn the filibuster. Right. You're telling me though, you don't have a simple majority, 51 votes or whatever the majority is of who's present to pass the SAVE Act. That's a bigger problem.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, so much there. That's so good.
Jonathan Kennedy: When you have leadership willing to push through aggressively conservative policies
But, but I want to follow up, you know, really quickly on that because I was just talking in the prior segment about, the Governor's forum, leadership forum last night in Florida and how Governor DeSantis was talking about aggressively pushing conservative agenda, in Florida and how that has only made, Florida stronger and more deeply read and just showing through proof. I mean it's not conjecture, it's not theory, that people and voters want that and that when you have leadership that is willing to push through aggressively conservative policy and then the voters support you and give you even more of that momentum, why doesn't DC and particularly Jon Thune as a leader, why don't they get that? I mean, there seems to be so much hesitation and this really big disconnect from Trump's style of leadership. Cuz he's aggressive as well, and for the most part totally conservative and America first and, and yet even under that leadership, Thune and some of the GOP are still really hesitant and they don't want to be aggressively conservative.
Hogan Gidley: Well, I think it's because what you have is a makeup of states in this country that aren't all Florida, they aren't all aggressively conservative. Point being, here's where I'm going to defend, Jonathan. If you've got a handful of senators like Lisa Murkowski, for example, in Alaska, or Senator from Maine, who's in a tough reelect, right, with the Graham Platner situation and they got rid of him and put somebody. So Susan Collins has a tough race. A lot of times those members will come to the leadership and say, hold on a second, I support the SAVE act, but my state, I don't think it's that popular. Don't make me take a tough vote. And if the Senate is decided by two or three elections, you conceivably can make the argument that putting a couple of those seats in jeopardy will cost us the Senate and really not do much for a Mississippi or a Florida or an Alabama, or a Kansas that's reliably conservative, if that makes any sense. So by the way, a lot of us say, well, the heck with that, you know, policy, be danged. What's Right for the American people is right for the American people regardless. Now, I get that. But the Washington mentality always is and always will be. I need to maintain and, or gain political power. And if you put that power in jeopardy by forcing people in squishy states or squishy congressional districts to take what they would deem as, quote, unquote, bad votes, it puts them in the crosshairs in their own districts or states, and you could lose the, power you have by being put into the minority. So there's a calculation there. I think it's a wrong calculation. I think it's foolish, and I think there is a Trump strain that says, no, fight through this and you'll come out better on the back end. But, but, you know, the Senate is notoriously slow and they're erudite in the way they think and act, so I just don't see that changing.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's really the mentality is, is what we need to go after. Because, if that remains stagnant, and I think you're right, I think that that's going to be very difficult, if not impossible to change, then we're not going to see any of that type of movement. And, and this is where, you know, I'm a huge advocate for, overturning the 17th amendment because, you know, this is where we wouldn't be in this position, if we didn't have the popular election of senators. I mean, they would actually, as historically they originally they were intended to represent the state legislatures. And then of course, you know, the Democrats would go harder after the, state legislatures. But that's where the focus and emphasis, you know, should have been on. And so when you don't have as many seats, obviously, in the Senate, as you do in the House, then each election matters, you know, even more. but then you still have to ask the question then, you know, why, the gop, you know, the NRFC and some aren't putting more into, at least yet, putting more into the Texas Senate race. And we've been talking about this week, you know, with Senator Kennedy even going on Fox News and you know, saying that, there's not going to be, you know, a ton of, of money going into that race when every seat matters and you don't have a super majority in the Senate.
Hogan Gidley: Yeah. Two things. One, ah, about the votes and everything I need to say there is a school of thought that is always at odds with establishment politicians, which is if you do things, good things, you will get rewarded, stop hiding behind, I don't know, I got a squishy vote here or there. Do the forceful things, be a leader and you'll be rewarded for that. So I get that. And quite frankly, I agree with that mentality more. you need to be cautious and deliberate but still shrewd. and strategic. But, on the second part, one of the things Kennedy pointed out in there is, and I think a lot of the senators are angry that Donald Trump supported Paxton and not Cornyn. I think there's a lot of hurt feelings there where they say, look, there's a reality and then there are hurt feelings. The hurt feelings are you took out one of our guys, so I don't think we're going to help you as much with our money. The second rule of thumb, there is something that is the reality of picking, the way you pick candidates and the candidates you pick, and that is their calculation, their estimation is we budget tens of millions of dollars as the US Senate groups do, to give money to senators who are going to have tough races. Texas should not be a tough race. So the money they have allocated and or promised are for those in states like Susan Collins in Maine where there's a two point race. They shouldn't have to spend money on a guy fighting a guy in Texas who believes in open borders, no police, Jesus has 19 genders, God's non binary, ah, abortion's, amazing and transing, the kids are always on his mind. I don't eat meat, I don't like oil. All of those things. I think, you know, kind of culminate in the mentality that the race in Texas should be over before it starts.
Jenna Ellis: But don't you think it still would have been difficult for Cornyn, I mean, even if Cornyn had been the nominee?
Hogan Gidley: no, I'm not, I'm not advocating for Cornyn to win. I'm saying that's what Kennedy and the senators are saying. Now he is also saying, look, Trump's team is touting all this money. You guys spend money in Texas. Let us try and get, you know, the protection for the senators in a couple of these, in a couple of these states because that money only goes so far. I get both sides of it. I'm just saying, like, that's where their mentality is. I think Paxton is going to be an outstanding center and I think he's going to win. But you have to define calorico and candidates who don't get out on the campaign trail like Paxton has not been doing, he's going to have to step up his game because candidates matter. And I like Ken. He, and I've been texting. He needs to win that race against Calrico. No question. but you got to run the race, right?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And fully agree with that. And you know, the messaging has to be there and hopefully Trump will contribute some of that money. And that makes sense, you know, that the Senate has allocated it a little differently because Texas, that shouldn't be a hard race. Sadly, you know, it, it, it is and it's shaping up to be. But as far as the sour grapes, I mean, that's what primaries are for. You got to move on. Same thing as here in Florida. You know, it's like some people didn't vote for Byron Donalds, but whatever. I mean, move on. He's the nominee. But Hogan, really appreciate it as always. You can reach me and my team. Jenna F R.net preborn has rescued over
Jenna Ellis: 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives.
Jenna Ellis: Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis?
Jenna Ellis: Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.
The Lindsay Clancy jury has potentially deadlocked after 23 hours of deliberations
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Wednesday, September 2, and the Lindsay Clancy jury has potentially deadlocked. They indicated that yesterday to the judge after about 23 hours of deliberations. And they're discussing several options, of course, in this case where Clancy has admitted that she killed her three children. And so the question is only, whether or not she is, responsible for that, which the sane answer, of course is absolutely yes. But the jury is discussing several options which include first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, which is the insanity or the psychosis defense, or not guilty. I think potentially the jury, because they have this span of options, it's not just either guilty, not criminally responsible, or not guilty. there may be some debate, within the jury of where kind of on that spectrum of those options to land. But, they're still going to deliberate and it's still entirely possible that they reach a verdict, because, in emotional cases like this, and especially ones that obviously the jury knows that this is a very high profile case, sometimes when the judge says, well, there's a lot of evidence, go back, still deliberate, they can potentially still reach a verdict. So, verdict or mistrial is still possible, but the public's reaction to this is what I want to talk about today.
Men and women reacted differently to Lindsey Clancy's case versus women
We've talked about this several times on the program, but, Caitlin Bennett, who is an online, influencer and, mother, wife, pro life is how she describes her work. she's actually there, and asking people who are showing up outside the courthouse their reaction. And it was Fascinating to see how men reacted differently to Lindsey Clancy's case versus women. And this is the speculation right now because there's three men on the jury compared to seven women. And we don't know yet who or what or what the split is. But it's really fascinating and I think a little bit terrifying, to be honest, to see how men are reacting differently than some women. So listen to this super, cut of Caitlyn, Bennett's interviews with men and women. It is wild that people support it. I've only heard dumb people agree with her.
Speaker D: We're asking people today if they stand with her. Yes. Tell me what she did. She asked for some help because she was a struggle about, like, the maternity. Well, if she did do it, I hope she burns in hell. If she didn't do it, whoever did burn in hell, does she belong in jail or does she belong to go in a nice little mental health? I think she belongs where she can get the best care. She killed her children. That's bad. Obviously, I probably disagree. I don't know all the details, but she killed her children. That's probably bad. I think that her husband gaslighted her on a lot of the issues that she was having, and he also didn't support her throughout. Where's your proof for that? Well, that's what I'm saying. My opinion is, is that she, definitely have mental challenges, but she also committed murder, so she got to be served up. I think that she was absolutely, completely drugged, and having a psychotic break. Do you support Lindsey Clancy? No.
Speaker F: No. Okay.
Speaker D: It's about a human. It's about a person. What about the three humans that were strangled to death? That's not acceptable. But we have to deal more than this problem. She was a person who asked for help. She killed three kids.
Speaker D: She did. So, no.
Speaker D: Okay. You can't kill three kids. We feel she's very sleep deprived. Her job as a labor and delivery nurse working night shifts and three children. I was like, you better not be supporting this. I told her I've heard about it, and I'm like, I would run. Mental health awareness is what is. Is coming from this. Right. So that's a positive thing. You guys support Lindsey? Oh, this one? No, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker D: Why do you stand with her? there wasn't a lot of evidence that showed that it was her. There wasn't a big, She said she did it. Yeah. We're asking St. Pete's opinion on if they support Lindsey Clancy. No, you don't. No.
Jenna Ellis: Wow.
Isabel Brown: I think this represents a turning point in our society
Well, Isabel Brown is host of the Isabel Brown show on Daily Wire and does a phenomenal job. And I'm so grateful that you're joining this morning. You are also, a young mother and have had a lot of opinions on this case, I think, like every rational conservative. So what's your reaction to all of the public, that are actually supporting somehow? Lindsey Clancy.
Isabel Brown: Good morning, Jenna. Thank you so much for having me. And you know, just like you, I've been completely glued to this case the last several weeks because I think it represents a major turning point in our society when it comes to our inability to think critically about objective truth. We have let emotions take over so, so much of not just our news cycle or what's going viral on social media, but now even allowing the court of public opinion to take over a court of law and potentially deliver a serious miscarriage of justice here for a woman who has previously openly admitted to strangling her own three children individually, methodically to death. It is absolutely tragic. But I think is indicative of just a larger problem in our society where really since Cove 19, you've seen people assume automatically that every single major story in the news cycle probably has some deeper level of a, conspiracy or a cover up associated with it. And often that has been true the last several years. I don't fault people for feeling that way at all. There have been countless conspiracies that if you really believed in them, you were just right six months to a year in advance. But I think this has been happening so often in our society that now we refuse to accept facts, evidence, objective truth when that is laid out right before our eyes. And I can't tell you how many videos I've seen the last couple of weeks on Tik Tok or Instagram or even tweets, on X, suggesting with zero evidence whatsoever. Patrick Clancy, Lindsey's ex husband, has to be the guilty party here just because he's a man or their zodiac signs must have contributed to whether they killed their children here or not, whether they're innocent or guilty. many, many women, I think, have just lost the plot the last couple of weeks and it's important for us to tell the truth about this case.
Jenna Ellis: So well said, and I could not agree more that this is a huge problem in society that we don't search overall for fact and truth as much as an explanation and how we may feel about the case, because it really doesn't matter what anyone feels about this or whether they empathize, with Lindsey, it matters what the facts and the law say. And unlike Covid, there are advocates for both sides in the courtroom that are being heard. I mean, no one is cutting off Lindsey Clancy's defense and canceling her and saying, we're not going to even listen to what your side has to say. And that's the process in a court, of law and in our system. And so when people are still trying to find, you know, some other explanation or doing their own investigation, when her own defense team isn't raising this, it's just mind boggling that people can actually believe that over what the facts of the case show. And so for, for the moms especially and for the women who are defending this, as, as some kind of, well, she cried out for help. She needs psychosis. I've said from the start of this case, it doesn't matter. Even if her entire explanation is absolutely true, that she was under psychosis. I don't care. She deserves crim for this. What does it say about our society that women want to say she, they're okay with, with her murdering three children just because she cried out for help?
Isabel Brown: It speaks volumes, and it's absolutely tragic. We've arrived here in 2026. I agree with you. I don't think it's an excuse, to kill your own three children. And I hope that this turns into a much larger conversation in our legal system about the insanity defense and how that has become unbelievably weaponized and truly broken by now at this point in our nation's history. But it's interesting. I looked back through history and both Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer attempted at some point in their legal defense to claim not guilty by reason of insanity as their plea. Of course, no sane person ever in American history would ever suggest that someone like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy should be sent to a fluffy mental hospital instead of life in prison or the death penalty on the table. and so I think what you are seeing here is truly a result of, the conversation related to feminism we've seen become unbelievably toxic throughout, our lifetime in the United States of America. It's unbelievably tribal, what we're seeing on social media right now, that women by the droves, feel the need to automatically identify with a woman who happens to be on the defense for a gruesome, violent murder case simply because she is a woman and go out of their way to blame her ex husband for pushing her into this psychosis. Or maybe I've seen theories that he was drugging her and hypnotizing her, that he actually killed the children, and that he convinced her that she did it while he was drugging her, which is why she openly admitted to it. Or as I said earlier, even something as simple as his zodiac sign, clearly his birthday meant that he has this star sign, which meant that he was a violent person. It is just unbelievably crazy. But women have been convinced for so long, for so many years, that you have to believe and support all women and you should hate all men because all men are evil. This is an extreme manifestation of that, but certainly stems from the larger cultural and political trends that we've seen. And as for the lack of justice for these beautiful children, we live in a culture where 25% of women in America will have an abortion and at some point in their lifetime. So I think it's been really jarring for so many people to see online the quote, unquote, same Lindsay trend. I could see myself doing that. I see myself in this woman. But the truth is, there are millions of women every single year who do end the lives of their children. It just happens in a much, quieter and sterile environment than what we're seeing in this particular case. Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: And it's. It's so tragic that society, values children, at least currently, to an extent. Right. once they are born, but allows women to commit murder, legally, even though obviously it's not moral or lawful, when they are still in the womb. And we need to fight that arbitrary standard in the contemplation of how we think about this, not just the law and policy, but how we think about the. The dignity of human life, how we think about children. And you're also absolutely right, Isabelle, that, this is a similar to another Marxist tactic. Right. To say that women are always the oppressed and men are the oppressors in society, that is, the feminist tactic. And to say that she's only standing, trial and we need to empathize with her and excuse her because she is a woman, and this is because of an oppressive society, not just in the courtroom, but how she lived her life and the circumstances leading up to this. And so she's justified. I mean, it's no different than what the advocates for Carmelo Anthony, are. The young man who is black, who stabbed, the other kid at the track meet in Texas, and, who is white. And of course, the race doesn't matter. The overall act matters here. Gender doesn't matter. If the act matters. But it seems like our society is always wanting to go to that oppressive nature. And, and when there is an excuse for the defendant based on, saying, well, they were oppressed in some way, then they want to provide that justification. Do you think that we need to contemplate not just, the insanity defense? And I agree with you, we need to. But how we as a culture and even consider these cases? Because this isn't anything that the defense or even the prosecution is arguing. She's not, not guilty by reason of her gender. But clearly when you have people from society on the jury, they're going to take these cultural presumptions with them into the jury room. And we may be seeing that right now in real time.
Isabel Brown: We are, in an unprecedented way. It's funny you mentioned that this isn't even a tactic from her legal team. It's actually to the contrary. Kevan Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, who's become quite notorious these last couple of weeks on social media, actually answered a question outside of the courtroom just a few days ago about the conspiracy theories swirling online related to her ex husband. And he shut them down immediately. He said, we are not touching those with a ten foot pole. That is not a part of our conversation here whatsoever. There's no justification for any of these rumors swirling online. And yet the court of public opinion, of course, is influencing what's happening inside of this court of law. This is not a sequestered jury, which I think is hugely problematic and certainly could contribute to a potential hung jury or mistrial here in the next few days. We're going into day five of deliberation here, but this tribal mentality of the oppressed versus the oppressor, I don't even think we're only seeing in this particular criminal case. I really think it's going to start becoming the norm for any high profile criminal, particularly murder cases in America. Last night there was even a 56 year old woman named Don Light who was arrested for juror witness intimidation outside of the courtroom, because as the jury exited the building, she tried to take as many photos of the jurors as possible to expose their identities online, presumably if they were to become traitors to women and convict Lindsey Clancy of these crimes, either on murder one or murder two. Exactly the same type of conversation we saw with the Carmelo Anthony trial. You're absolutely on the money for that. And I've been using this case really as a litmus test for what I'm sure we can expect with the Tyler Robinson trial. as you know, I was very close with Charlie Kirk.
Isabel Brown: The worst miscarriage of justice in a case could be a hung jury
I worked for him for about eight years. And I've said from the beginning, the worst miscarriage of justice that could possibly happen in a case like this could be a hung jury. All it takes is one juror in that back deliberation room that is die hard bought into all of these conspiracy theories or based on trying to flip the oppressor versus the oppressed narrative. And all of a sudden you see our entire judicial system come to a screeching halt. Forget about, having a right to a jury of your peers or a speedy trial or, making sure our constitutional rights are protected. All of a sudden the court of public opinion is hand in hand with the court of law and whatever is politically convenient to push at the time, we will become the verdicts for all of these cases.
Jenna Ellis: M and you're right, that would then throw the entire judicial system into chaos. And for a long time even conservatives have said that the process and the substantive, rights that are protected within our U.S. constitution, particularly in a criminal law setting, are the best, in the world. And we have continued to protect that. But this relies on the presumption that you have a rationale, reasonable jury of your peers and that the jury can separate emotion from fact. They can read the law as the judge gives to them, they can follow the law and they can set aside anything from the outside. They can take their life experience, of course, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, all of those things. But they can render a verdict based on fact and based on reason rather than emotion. But as our society continues to rely more on emotion and, and more on some of these false, equivalencies and some of these false narratives of, you know, well, the law is essentially the oppressor versus the oppressed and they take that as systemic in our society and they buy all of these lies from the left. How do we move forward in a society where we're pulling in the jury pool from those very same people? how do we move forward then with justice?
Isabel Brown: It's the million dollar question, and I wish I had a perfect answer to it, because we truly are in an unprecedented time of information sharing, of virality on social media, and even just what access to the media looks like. Even 10 years ago, access to the Internet was so much different. For a jury who might not be sequestered in these trials as it looks like right now, certainly that could be something we consider for any high profile case. Moving forward is truly sequestering the jury and making sure that there's not access to everything that swirls around conspiracy wise on social media. But even then, it's still the honor system of making sure when these jurors call home and they're speaking to their spouses, nobody's telling them anything over the phone or they don't happen to see a newspaper sitting in a hotel lobby or in the courthouse. And so there's a lot I think we need to be contemplating here, but the social media digital age, and then particularly the post Covid conspiracy theory age that I think we're starting to see come to normalcy here, is an unprecedented question for the legal system. And my hope and prayer is that regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, we all can continue to advocate for the judicial system that we've create and created and built here in America over the last 250 years. That has been the greatest legal system the world has ever known. Without it, I shudder to think about what the world might look like.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, me too. Absolutely. And Isabel Brown, I really appreciate you joining us today and talking through these things. And this is where the court of public opinion, unfortunately, sometimes can drive, the court of law. And we, we've always said, and Andrew Breitbart very famously said, that, you know, politics is downstream from culture, while sometimes justice now we're seeing is downstream from culture, because culture influences how we think. And if we are just yielding to whatever we see on social media, we're not thinking, thinking through these issues critically and we're not engaging in the court of public opinion, which is very important so that if and when we get to the court of law, if anyone who is listening to this is ever on a jury in the future, we need to be contemplating these things so that we can participate in civil society rationally. We can even participate in these conversations in our communities rationally. And separate, facts, separate principles, separate the, ideas of justice from emotion. And that we can talk about this in a way that actually creates a more perfect and just union rather than, going with emotion. So we will be right back with more.
Jenna Ellis: Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net forward slg that's
Jenna Ellis: afr.net give welcome back to Jenna Ellis in The morning on American Family Radio.
The murder case against Tyler Robinson against Charlie Kirk is headed for trial
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as we were mentioning in the last segment, the murder case against Tyler Robinson, who has been accused of assassinating, Charlie Kirk last year, year, almost, a week to the year, is headed for trial, which means that he may face the death penalty if he is convicted of that murder. So yesterday, Utah District Judge Tony Graff sided with prosecutors who said they have overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson, shot Charlie Kirk in the neck as, he spoke to that crowd in Orem, Utah in September of 2024. So that will, proceed to the jury. Robinson has pled not guilty, not yet, raising some kind of insanity defense. you know, well, that's all speculation, of course. We'll see how the defense proceeds there. But it's a very good thing that, this case was bound over, the legal term for just proceeding from that preliminary hearing, which had to establish probable cause for the charges. A pretty low, threshold, in my opinion, for the evidence that the prosecution, has here. So this is just the next step in justice for Charlie and his family.
Ron DeSantis hosted a Florida leadership forum last night
All right, well, last night I had the privilege to attend a Florida leadership forum that was hosted by Governor Ron DeSantis with all of the statewide nominees from the GOP, which in Florida are known as the Governor's Cabinet, which includes the nominee for Governor Byron Donalds, the Attorney General James Uthmeyer, CFO Blaze Angolia, and also, AG Commissioner Wilton Simpson. And this was a really great form. And even if you aren't, in the state of Florida, I know we have a lot of listeners there, but a lot of listeners around the country, that this was really important. I think for a couple of reasons, not just for Florida, but obviously that Florida has been looked to, for the last eight years as the example of what a red state can and should do and how, the GOP is leading in conservative policy. And so the, the big million dollar question for Florida has been who is going to succeed Governor DeSantis and will Florida remain that kind of that leadership, example? And I think that, if you go to the Florida gop, X page, by the way, you can watch this entire forum, which is about an hour and a half. And, and I think that if you do that, you'll see what I'm saying. I think it'll be worth your time to actually watch this because, the point of this Overall was for Governor DeSantis to say, Listen, we have led well and now we are transitioning to a new leadership team. And he gave his complete endorsement to the entire slate, at the end of the evening, which I think was very wise of him, but essentially was saying, we are handing off the reins to new leadership, but Florida's direction is, is staying the same. And all of, the. The nominees on the panel agreed with that, including Byron Donalds. I was very happy to hear that. Regular, listeners will know that. You know, I've been skeptical of where, Byron sits in terms of conservative policy, but he was very impressive in, what he was saying and his grasp of policy and how he articulated it and the fact that they all agreed that what you say is, doesn't necessarily indicate what you'll do and that it's the voters who need to be engaged and also the local governments, that need to be engaged to ensure that you're holding your elected officials accountable. And that's what conservatives have said for a long time. And so I think it was also a great example for other states to say when you have good leadership and when you're headed in the right direction, and then inevitably, you know, term limits happen or a new election happens. It seems like sometimes you lose that momentum when there's a change in leadership. And we're about to go through that as a nation. With the Trump era, that is ending, you know, in two years. I mean, Donald Trump is not going to be on the ballot. And how he transitions and hands that off to, the next leader of the conservative movement and of the GOP is going to be very critical. That transition needs to happen flawlessly. And I think this was a really excellent way that Governor DeSantis is involved and is indicating that he is going to help facilitate that transition. So he's not just leaving and saying, well, bye, I'm done, and, you know, good luck, Florida. But ensuring that, it's not just about his legacy, it's about conservative policy. And so, the.
Susan Collins: A lot of Florida's successes have come through the legislature
The panel was talking also about, the Florida super majority and how the wins for Florida have been achieved, because a lot came from the executive on, but a lot had to be, facilitated through the legislature. And so Blaze and Golia talked about this, and I want to play this clip. It's about two and a half minutes long, but it's a really excellent response that I think a lot of red states and a lot of GOP politicians, especially right now in the federal government as well, need to listen to. This is cut for a couple of points.
Speaker F: The first point, and this is for everyone up here, is, and A lot of my legislative friends who are actually in, in the crowd today, first of all, I appreciate all the work that you do, but an amazing thing has happened over the last eight years in the state of Florida. and we have shown that we are willing to be conservative and aggressive at the same time. And at some times, we have all been at odds with our own legislature because we want to be more conservative and more aggressive. It is undeniable that this legislature led by this governor over the last eight years, every year we have pushed aggressive conservative policies. And the most amazing thing has happened over the last eight years. This state has turned more and more and more red every year. So, Look, I've been in a House, I have been in the Senate. I'm, now. I'm now CFO of the great state of Florida. I have heard these conversations. They all say the same thing. Well, we're afraid to pass this law because it may make it harder to win elections. I mean, we hear this all the time. But what we have seen and the proof is in the pudding. The more aggressive you are with passing good conservative policy, the more registration for Republicans have gone up and the easier it is to win elections because we are delivering on those promises. And the other thing I want to say, and this is specifically about the super majority. The super majority in the legislature allows us, the legislature, certain benefits that a super majority doesn't. And we can shut down debate, we can override vetoes. There's a lot of things that come with having a super majority, but the legislature does not wield and has not wielded that super majority power since we have been in office. now what I have seen firsthand, because I've been on the inside, is we sort of, govern to the lowest common denominator. and this is what I mean by this, and these conversations go on all the time, and my colleagues can attest to this, is that we can't pass this bill because this person might be at risk. It's way too conservative. Right. Well, if we're not using the super majority powers in the legislature, what are we worried about keeping super, majority in the legislature in the first place? Let's just pass the most aggressive conservative policies and keep on giving people win because it has been working. The state is redder, more registered, Republican, and people are dying to move here to the great state of Florida.
Hogan Gidley: Yeah.
Jenna Ellis: Isn't that perfectly said? And I wish that everyone in D.C. could hear that and could understand that because, D.C. on the federal level, they have been operating under basically the same premise as a lot of the, even the Florida super majority that, well, we don't want to push things too hard because, you know, what if the Democrats then went in the midterms, well, now we're two months away from the midterms, and the Democrats are potentially going to win some very pivotal seats, if not the majority back, in the House and, or the Senate. And I think because, the GOP is not willing to aggressively push conservative policy. I mean, they only have to look back at Trump's first four years when he was pushing aggressive policy and, and saying, you know, we're going to do things differently. There's so much momentum. And even after the 2024 election, when he's saying, you know, we're going to go in and, you know, make sure that, we are aggressively changing what the Biden administration Destroyed over the four years of his term and signed the 200 executive orders on day one, there's a lot of momentum. The bottom line is that the voters and the base want conservative policy, period. And we don't really care whether Susan Collins loses her seat or not. We don't care about the individual person, who is elected from an individual place, or we care overall about good policy pushed through the federal government and then also in our states, we want good leadership. And so the gop, though, has some kind of notion that once they get together and they have their team, they have to protect every single individual player. And if there's, you know, somebody who's maybe weak on one issue in a certain district or in a certain Senate seat or whatever, that they can't push that policy because then potentially they'll just lose that seat or they'll lose the majority. And so they don't want to push things and then they end up losing anyway. So it's self defeating. And so I think what blase is saying, incredibly, prolifically, is that the GOP needs to push conservative policy regardless of the outcome and regardless of maybe, you know, a loss here and there, because overwhelmingly the voters will support you. The voters will actually be reengaged, and the voters will give you even more power to continue, continue to do those things. Because the super majority in Florida grew because Floridians wanted to see Governor DeSantis agenda pushed. I mean, I think we have a trifecta in D.C. because the voters understood that we wanted the Trump agenda for 2024, everything he was campaigning on. We wanted those things to prevail. And so the momentum has stagnated now ahead of the midterms only because there wasn't enough pushing of things like the SAVE Act. We didn't push Doge, they didn't push the tax, overhaul. They didn push, you know, a lot of these agenda items that Trump came into office with that mandate and with that trifecta, not a super majority but with that trifecta that he was going to push. And so the, the bottom line is that the GOP needs to get it together and instead of hesitating in order to hedge and protect themselves, which ends up actually being a self defeating position, they need to push as hard as they can and be aggressive and control conservative at the same time. Florida is doing it well and I hope that under, a governor Byron Donalds and with this leadership that Florida will continue to push and actually use that super majority. One really good thing about Byron is that he's been in D.C. he knows how all this works. He knows how to push people as long as he is pushing the conservative agenda and I hope that he is, I think that Florida will remain the best state and, and the leadership state. But we've got to get that message to DC as well. So we will be right back with more.
80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At ah, PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound and at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand for those who cannot speak for themselves. Just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
House censures Republican Chuck Edwards over sexual harassment allegations ahead of midterm elections
Welcome back.
Jenna Ellis: Well, while Florida is full steam ahead, The House in D.C. has censured Chuck Edwards, over sexual harassment of circumstances staff. So this is a Republican from North Carolina. Chuck Edwards was censured by the House on Tuesday after the Ethics Committee found he had failed to, quote, adhere to the spirit of rules prohibiting sexual harassment and unwanted advances to House staffers. So, I don't know that you, you know, really need a spirit of the rule of all of that or exactly what that means, but, you know, yeah, you, you shouldn't have unwanted advances to House staffers. And so, this coming from Axios, they say why it matters. The vote amounts to a remarkable bipartisan rebuke with the GOP leadership team and the vast majority of Edwards own party joining Democrats to impose one of the House. House's most serious punishments. so let's welcome in Hogan Gidley, who is the afpi, vice chair for the center for Election Integrity and senior advisor for communications. And Hogan, you know, I'm just really tired of, of GOP members like this, you know, focusing and bringing the focus on just really stupid things instead of actually getting things done. I mean, this isn't what anybody needs right before the midterms. Why can't the GOP on the federal level get it together?
Hogan Gidley: Well, that is a very loaded question, Jenna. I, would argue there are plenty of Republicans, on the GOP side at the federal level who done an outstanding job. We've passed more bills out of the House as a gop, than any other House in history. Codified somewhere around 100 of Donald Trump's executive orders into law, which, you know, prevents other presidents from coming in and changing so quickly. One problem, though, as you talk about GOP leadership is the Senate. they won't take up or pass. I think there's something like 580 bills. The House is pass included in that would be the Gulf of America, for heaven's sake. They won't even take up and pass that. The SAVE act, most notably as well. So a lot of problems there in D.C. but look, when you have people like that in your party who've done wrong, it's always better to call it out, get it past you immediately as opposed to letting it drag out. And I think if they turned a blind eye to it and let it continue, then you'd have a situation where that would, in fact impact the midterms. But as you know, with your, I can't remember your, your day count until the actual election, but you know that that would be a story from now until the, until election Day. You know, it's kind of a blip on the screen with all the other things they've been passing right now. So I get it. There's a lot of frustration. There should be. I, you know, the federal government moves so slowly. I can't tell if our founding fathers were just completely brilliant or sadists or somewhere in between because it just seems to be grinding to a halt so often. But I think they did that on purpose so that there would not be radical change in a quick way. Now, I'm afraid if Democrats win, that's exactly what you're going to see. But as of right now, I think this Republican Congress really has done an outstanding job. The Senate, I think, could pick up the ball and run a little faster, but, you know, there's still some time before the midterms.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and I totally agree with you that, you know, when someone in your party has, you know, done something that is worthy of rebuke, then obviously you should do that regardless of the headlines and the fallout of that, and you should do it quickly and then move on. So 100% agree. It's just frustrating to see that there are these kinds of distractions rather than, you know, everybody being in lockstep, especially in the Senate. And you're right to call that out because, you know, the House has passed, ah, the SAVE act multiple times and you know, the Senate just won't pick, up that ball and run. And so, we're. Can the pressure points be? Because I think where the, the voting base is frustrated heading into the midterms is that they don't see a lot of what has been passed because some of the bigger focal points, like notably the SAVE act, have stalled and they haven't seen, a lot of these bigger measures and things that were promised actually make it through the Senate, which I know the President is frustrated
Hogan Gidley: with, of course, and as well as should be. And the American people, I understand their frustration. They should be. Let me go through a couple things, though. When you're talking about, like, for instance, the one big beautiful bill. Republicans, have a tendency to pass something significant and then just expect the American people to get it as to why it's good. Democrats just talk about doing things forever ad nauseam, whether it's good or bad, as if it's going to be good and, you know, lie to the American people. But you get baked in your head. These things are all great. In the big beautiful bill, 70% of this country doesn't even know Jenna. There was a tax cut. The Largest tax cut in American history in that bill. They don't know about. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, doubling the child tax credit. they have no idea of the significance of that piece of legislation. there were sanctions in that bill, some, Some funding for military. All of these things that are, extremely, popular among the American people. But Republicans don't go out there and talk about it. It's like they passed it, and then they got scared or they think everyone gets it, or they don't want to run headlong into the fight. And for the life of me, I can't figure that out. On the SAVE act front, though, I need to point this out. The House did pass it, I think you said, multiple times. I think it's five, five or six at last count. But this last time was the most significant, and here's why. Jon Thune can clearly hide behind. We can't overturn the filibuster because we don't have enough votes. He can hide behind. If I put it on the floor and every Republican votes for it, I still need seven votes from Democrats. And they're never going to vote for the SAVE Act. If you point out what the House just did, which is give the Senate the lowest bar in history, the lowest bar by law by which to pass legislation, and that is they tucked the SAVE act into a reconciliation budget bill, which means the Senate doesn't need, 60 votes. They don't even need all the Republicans. They just need a simple majority to pass it. If we can't get that done, if Thune won't put that up, no wonder the base is angry. And they have every right to be. If this is an 80, 20 issue, I don't care if you're making your members take a tough vote and you stand to lose the Senate. Now, I don't want to lose the Senate. I don't think you would lose the Senate if you passed a piece of legislation that said only American citizens should decide the outcome of American elections. But I'm, not looking at all their internal polling. It just seems, you know, on its face, a layup for these guys. And because the House put it in reconciliation, you don't need that high threshold. And Thune doesn't have to say, I don't want to say can't hide behind. I like Jon Thune. I'm just saying he can't then say, look, man, you can say all you want to about the filibuster. I don't have the votes to overturn the filibuster. Right. You're telling me though, you don't have a simple majority, 51 votes or whatever the majority is of who's present to pass the SAVE Act. That's a bigger problem.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, so much there. That's so good.
Jonathan Kennedy: When you have leadership willing to push through aggressively conservative policies
But, but I want to follow up, you know, really quickly on that because I was just talking in the prior segment about, the Governor's forum, leadership forum last night in Florida and how Governor DeSantis was talking about aggressively pushing conservative agenda, in Florida and how that has only made, Florida stronger and more deeply read and just showing through proof. I mean it's not conjecture, it's not theory, that people and voters want that and that when you have leadership that is willing to push through aggressively conservative policy and then the voters support you and give you even more of that momentum, why doesn't DC and particularly Jon Thune as a leader, why don't they get that? I mean, there seems to be so much hesitation and this really big disconnect from Trump's style of leadership. Cuz he's aggressive as well, and for the most part totally conservative and America first and, and yet even under that leadership, Thune and some of the GOP are still really hesitant and they don't want to be aggressively conservative.
Hogan Gidley: Well, I think it's because what you have is a makeup of states in this country that aren't all Florida, they aren't all aggressively conservative. Point being, here's where I'm going to defend, Jonathan. If you've got a handful of senators like Lisa Murkowski, for example, in Alaska, or Senator from Maine, who's in a tough reelect, right, with the Graham Platner situation and they got rid of him and put somebody. So Susan Collins has a tough race. A lot of times those members will come to the leadership and say, hold on a second, I support the SAVE act, but my state, I don't think it's that popular. Don't make me take a tough vote. And if the Senate is decided by two or three elections, you conceivably can make the argument that putting a couple of those seats in jeopardy will cost us the Senate and really not do much for a Mississippi or a Florida or an Alabama, or a Kansas that's reliably conservative, if that makes any sense. So by the way, a lot of us say, well, the heck with that, you know, policy, be danged. What's Right for the American people is right for the American people regardless. Now, I get that. But the Washington mentality always is and always will be. I need to maintain and, or gain political power. And if you put that power in jeopardy by forcing people in squishy states or squishy congressional districts to take what they would deem as, quote, unquote, bad votes, it puts them in the crosshairs in their own districts or states, and you could lose the, power you have by being put into the minority. So there's a calculation there. I think it's a wrong calculation. I think it's foolish, and I think there is a Trump strain that says, no, fight through this and you'll come out better on the back end. But, but, you know, the Senate is notoriously slow and they're erudite in the way they think and act, so I just don't see that changing.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's really the mentality is, is what we need to go after. Because, if that remains stagnant, and I think you're right, I think that that's going to be very difficult, if not impossible to change, then we're not going to see any of that type of movement. And, and this is where, you know, I'm a huge advocate for, overturning the 17th amendment because, you know, this is where we wouldn't be in this position, if we didn't have the popular election of senators. I mean, they would actually, as historically they originally they were intended to represent the state legislatures. And then of course, you know, the Democrats would go harder after the, state legislatures. But that's where the focus and emphasis, you know, should have been on. And so when you don't have as many seats, obviously, in the Senate, as you do in the House, then each election matters, you know, even more. but then you still have to ask the question then, you know, why, the gop, you know, the NRFC and some aren't putting more into, at least yet, putting more into the Texas Senate race. And we've been talking about this week, you know, with Senator Kennedy even going on Fox News and you know, saying that, there's not going to be, you know, a ton of, of money going into that race when every seat matters and you don't have a super majority in the Senate.
Hogan Gidley: Yeah. Two things. One, ah, about the votes and everything I need to say there is a school of thought that is always at odds with establishment politicians, which is if you do things, good things, you will get rewarded, stop hiding behind, I don't know, I got a squishy vote here or there. Do the forceful things, be a leader and you'll be rewarded for that. So I get that. And quite frankly, I agree with that mentality more. you need to be cautious and deliberate but still shrewd. and strategic. But, on the second part, one of the things Kennedy pointed out in there is, and I think a lot of the senators are angry that Donald Trump supported Paxton and not Cornyn. I think there's a lot of hurt feelings there where they say, look, there's a reality and then there are hurt feelings. The hurt feelings are you took out one of our guys, so I don't think we're going to help you as much with our money. The second rule of thumb, there is something that is the reality of picking, the way you pick candidates and the candidates you pick, and that is their calculation, their estimation is we budget tens of millions of dollars as the US Senate groups do, to give money to senators who are going to have tough races. Texas should not be a tough race. So the money they have allocated and or promised are for those in states like Susan Collins in Maine where there's a two point race. They shouldn't have to spend money on a guy fighting a guy in Texas who believes in open borders, no police, Jesus has 19 genders, God's non binary, ah, abortion's, amazing and transing, the kids are always on his mind. I don't eat meat, I don't like oil. All of those things. I think, you know, kind of culminate in the mentality that the race in Texas should be over before it starts.
Jenna Ellis: But don't you think it still would have been difficult for Cornyn, I mean, even if Cornyn had been the nominee?
Hogan Gidley: no, I'm not, I'm not advocating for Cornyn to win. I'm saying that's what Kennedy and the senators are saying. Now he is also saying, look, Trump's team is touting all this money. You guys spend money in Texas. Let us try and get, you know, the protection for the senators in a couple of these, in a couple of these states because that money only goes so far. I get both sides of it. I'm just saying, like, that's where their mentality is. I think Paxton is going to be an outstanding center and I think he's going to win. But you have to define calorico and candidates who don't get out on the campaign trail like Paxton has not been doing, he's going to have to step up his game because candidates matter. And I like Ken. He, and I've been texting. He needs to win that race against Calrico. No question. but you got to run the race, right?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And fully agree with that. And you know, the messaging has to be there and hopefully Trump will contribute some of that money. And that makes sense, you know, that the Senate has allocated it a little differently because Texas, that shouldn't be a hard race. Sadly, you know, it, it, it is and it's shaping up to be. But as far as the sour grapes, I mean, that's what primaries are for. You got to move on. Same thing as here in Florida. You know, it's like some people didn't vote for Byron Donalds, but whatever. I mean, move on. He's the nominee. But Hogan, really appreciate it as always. You can reach me and my team. Jenna F R.net preborn has rescued over
Jenna Ellis: 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives.
Jenna Ellis: Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis?
Jenna Ellis: Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis delves into the complexities of the Lindsay Clancy case, exploring the public's reaction and the implications of gender dynamics in legal proceedings. Joined by Isabel Brown, they discuss the challenges of separating emotion from fact in high-profile cases and the influence of social media on public opinion. As the jury deliberates, they analyze the potential outcomes and societal ramifications of the case, emphasizing the need for a critical examination of justice and truth in contemporary culture.
(00:00) Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life
(01:02) The Lindsay Clancy jury has potentially deadlocked after 23 hours of deliberations
(02:38) Men and women reacted differently to Lindsey Clancy's case versus women
(05:24) Isabel Brown: I think this represents a turning point in our society
(15:44) Isabel Brown: The worst miscarriage of justice in a case could be a hung jury
(21:00) The murder case against Tyler Robinson against Charlie Kirk is headed for trial
(22:13) Ron DeSantis hosted a Florida leadership forum last night
(25:39) Susan Collins: A lot of Florida's successes have come through the legislature
(32:51) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
(34:15) House censures Republican Chuck Edwards over sexual harassment allegations ahead of midterm elections
(42:01) Jonathan Kennedy: When you have leadership willing to push through aggressively conservative policies
Jenna Ellis delves into the complexities of the Lindsay Clancy case, exploring the public's reaction and the implications of gender dynamics in legal proceedings. Joined by Isabel Brown, they discuss the challenges of separating emotion from fact in high-profile cases and the influence of social media on public opinion. As the jury deliberates, they analyze the potential outcomes and societal ramifications of the case, emphasizing the need for a critical examination of justice and truth in contemporary culture.
(00:00) Jenna Ellis: When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound she chooses life
(01:02) The Lindsay Clancy jury has potentially deadlocked after 23 hours of deliberations
(02:38) Men and women reacted differently to Lindsey Clancy's case versus women
(05:24) Isabel Brown: I think this represents a turning point in our society
(15:44) Isabel Brown: The worst miscarriage of justice in a case could be a hung jury
(21:00) The murder case against Tyler Robinson against Charlie Kirk is headed for trial
(22:13) Ron DeSantis hosted a Florida leadership forum last night
(25:39) Susan Collins: A lot of Florida's successes have come through the legislature
(32:51) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound
(34:15) House censures Republican Chuck Edwards over sexual harassment allegations ahead of midterm elections
(42:01) Jonathan Kennedy: When you have leadership willing to push through aggressively conservative policies
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
