8 Big Questions Patrick Clancy DIDN’T Answer on ‘60 Minutes’

- And you guys are starting a family. - Yeah. - That's the biggest revelation from the Patrick Clancy 60 Minutes interview. But what about the things the segment didn't touch on? Many viewers are left scratching their heads, wondering how little could be said with so much air time. We're taking a look at what Patrick Clancy left out in his bombshell interview, and hearing from an expert about what's next. This is Scandal, presented by Lawn Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie. (upbeat music) - Lackluster. That's the word that's going through my mind. When I have to describe the Patrick Clancy 60 Minutes interview. The segment lasted for almost 15 minutes and yet so many of our burning questions weren't answered or even addressed. For starters, I wanna know what Patrick and Lindsay's relationship is like now. I mean, he testified in court in front of her, just a few feet away from her. Did they talk before or after the testimony? Did they keep in contact? And I mean, I realized they're divorced. Patrick has moved on and remarried. But he has publicly forgiven Lindsay saying he believes postpartum psychosis is to blame for the death of their three children. What about, by the way, the status of Lindsay's case right now? A mistrial was declared a couple of weeks ago, and since then, there's been much discussion about the loan holdout juror, the idea of criminal responsibility and reasonable doubt, and whether Lindsay could face a second trial, what are Patrick's thoughts about all of that? We still don't know the answer to that because it wasn't asked, at least on camera. Patrick did not discuss the specifics about the online conspiracy theories, the police investigation or the possibility that Lindsay herself could be watching the interview. As for what Patrick did address, the fact that he and his new wife, Dr. Rachel Danis, are starting a family. Reporter Ross Douthat confirming today that Rachel is pregnant. And you guys are starting a family? Yeah. What are you going to tell your child about their brothers and sister? I think every parent can agree. You have different relationships with your kids, but they're all your kids. And I can't wait to tell them about their brothers and sister. So Rachel is pregnant. And she and Patrick are starting a new family. That's the biggest bombshell out of the 60-minute interview. But beyond that, so many things were left out of the segment for starters, discussions on Patrick's relationship with Lindsay. Where did you meet the defendant? In South Boston. And when was that? I think it was May 2013. And how did you meet her? Through my cousin. And would it be accurate to state that your cousin had been college roommates of the defendant? Yes. And at some point in time, did you start dating? Yes. And around what time was that? July 2013. Did you eventually move in together? Yes. Do you remember when that was? September 2015. When he testified back in July, Patrick laid out how his relationship with Lindsay began. They were married in 2016 and went on top three children, daughter Korra, two sons, Dawson, and Callan. Now, Lindsay was charged with three counts of first-degree murder after strangling those three children with exercise bans in the basement of their Ducksbury, Massachusetts home in 2023. Her case went to trial this summer. And the world took notice. Lindsay didn't deny that she killed her kids. In fact, she admitted it. But her defense team argued she wasn't criminally responsible for murder because she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis at the time of their deaths. After seven days of deliberations, the case ended in a mistrial on September 4. Now, since then, there have been many updates in her case, but none more anticipated than Patrick Lansy's 60-minute interview. But in this segment, Patrick didn't touch on his previous relationship with Lindsay at all, or what the status of the relationship, if anything, is now. In fact, he hardly discussed conversations with Lindsay at all. Did you ask Lindsay why she did it? I asked her if she remembered it, and what did she say? She said it was like a dream. There's a possibility that Lindsay herself could have been watching the 60-minute interview from the Tucksbury hospital. But Patrick never really addressed her or the possibility of her watching. He did speak briefly about coming to terms with the death of his children, saying he personally struggled with suicidal ideations for a time and has been in contact with postpartum support international, which is a nonprofit support group. But as far as how he's moving on, he gave kind of a short answer. Has she ever asked for your forgiveness? No, but I gave it to her. So it's still unclear. Patrick's relationship with Lindsay at this point. Did they talk pre or post testimony? Did they keep in contact at all? Has he frozen her out? All are possible, we just don't know the answer. All we can confirm is that Patrick testified over two separate days in July and never attended the trial besides that. And I reported on that, by the way. There was a row in the courtroom for Patrick and his family to sit behind the Commonwealth, and it was almost always empty. Patrick himself never even sat there. And that leads to my next question. What are Patrick's thoughts about the rampant conspiracy theories that spread after his testimony? To be fair, he briefly told 60 minutes quote. It's deeply harmful to the legacy of my children. It is a huge distraction from what really matters here, which is perinatal mental health. And it's unreal harm to real people. Myself included, but also others. It's painful to see and it makes it difficult to be in public. And it's possible that some of those people, after seeing lie, after lie, after lie, they start to believe it. And that's what we're left with. But he didn't talk about any of the specific conspiracy theories. For example, that 524 surface pro-eval or the missing 15 minutes. Patrick testified he left his home in Duxbury at 515 PM on January 24th, 2023. And so you leave the house, you get into your car, and you drive to CVS, correct? Correct. And so that should have taken three minutes, correct. So after the text that was sent at 515 PM, that would have been sometime around 518 or 520 PM that you should have arrived at CVS, correct? Right. But you don't go in until 532 PM, correct? I don't know. According to Google Maps, the CVS is just 1.4 miles away from the Clancy home, making it about a three-minute drive. And here's where some of the alleged inconsistencies come in. Patrick testified he left the Clancy home at about 515. If he went straight there, he would have arrived to CVS by 518 PM. But Patrick doesn't actually go into CVS until 532 PM, and we know that timestamp, because it's caught on the CVS security camera. Online, people are referring to this as the missing 15 minutes, but it's not entirely missing. In fact, we know that Patrick sent an email at 524 PM, but once again, things get complicated. Now, sir, exhibit 76, is it an email from you? Two, and we will delete the yet. People that are on the email, if I may, run as we back it as an exhibit. Let me approach you. Does it indicate the date and the time? Very tough. You sent that email to your staff, and it was a work with you. It does. Yep. Go to your room is what the date was. It's January 24 at 524. And that was sent from your surface problem? I don't know. I actually could have been sent from my iPhone. Online discourse has suggested Patrick may have sent that email at 524 from his home, meaning his timeline wouldn't add up as he testified he left the home at 515. Then there are the theories out there that Patrick changed his jacket and shoes from the time you went to CVS and later to the 3D restaurant to pick up takeout. Some TikTokers have even suggested it may not have been Patrick at both places that maybe he had a friend or a doppelganger pretend to be Patrick so he could be back at the home. Some of these theories, and let me stress that they are conspiracy theories that were not addressed in court, suggest that Patrick is the one who actually killed the kids. And to be clear, he has not been charged with any crimes. Now in the 60 minutes interview, Patrick didn't discuss all the specifics about these conspiracy theories and the allegations there. We'll talk more about that in today's scandal interview because that really stood out to me. But Patrick, back in the 60 minutes interview, avoided discussing the alleged police misconduct in this case, too. This is also something that is addressed largely on the internet and a bit by Kevin Reddington, Lindsey's defense attorney. And when the police charge somebody with a criminal offense they have in obligation to investigate, at the end of the day, when you're talking about, well, we've got the charges that before the court, you can sit there in the court, you can feel proud of yourself, do a good investigation. You even know what this-- you'll see the photograph of the cop in the powder. What does it-- what does they don't even analyze? Do they take pictures? Did they analyze-- did they test the blood? Did they-- what was the investigation of this? Reddington pointed to the pills that Lindsey ingested before her suicide attempt. He says the remnants was never tested and no sort of piled up. pressure was ever recovered. He also pointed to Lindsay's Apple Watch that he literally handed over to police after finding it with Patrick Clancy. "I believe there was an Apple Watch recovered after the fact that we didn't recover at the search warrant. If I recall correctly." "You know, when it was recovered?" "I don't know exactly off the top of my head, no, sir." "Apple Watch that I recovered with Pat Clancy." "I believe so, sir." "There's something else that looks in the truck. Do you recognize that?" "Yeah." "It's for Apple Watch." "For Apple Watch." "This is the Apple Watch that apparently the police used it for what the stairs down stairs have great things of that nature, right?" "Yeah." "They never even seized it. They left it in the truck, right?" "Pairly." On top of the Apple Watch, Patrick testified to other evidence detectives just didn't collect. Inside the draw, sir, do you recall that there were a number of items that I see, Transendo, Lindsay Clancy, prescribed a January 5th, 23rd. Quietta Pean, January. Quietta Pean, 100 owned there, prescribed the Lindsay Clancy, December 20th. Or as a parent, you're all empty too, right? "Yeah." These are what she chopped down with that lemonade or water or whatever was in the cup that she ground up these pills, right? Lomotrogene, prescribed the Lindsay Clancy, December 16th, 22rd. Her tasseting, prescribed the Lindsay Clancy, January, 23rd. Those were in this draw, and they were all empty, right? "Right." Even still, none of this, the alleged police misconduct or botched an investigation, none of that was discussed in the 60 minutes interview. Instead, Patrick discussed leaving Duxbury a couple of months after his children died and relocating to New York. "Five weeks after I moved to New York on May 26th, I had to figure out how I'm going to celebrate Calvin's first birthday, and how do you celebrate your son's first birthday, months after his past away?" And so I go to St. Patrick's Cathedral, I light a candle, and I say, "I love you, buddy." And I walk out and step to Avenue, and I start crying my eyes out, and nobody cared. And was that good? Were you grateful for that? I thought this is where I needed to be, I can grieve." Patrick credits his new wife, Rachel, with helping him grieve and move forward with his life. But again, he hardly touched on the fate of his ex-wife, because the trial ended with a major question mark. "I remember the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial." Jurors indicated multiple times they were deadlocked, eventually revealing that the jury was split 11 to 1. 11 jurors voting to render a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and only one disagreeing. And here's where things get even more complicated again. There were allegations that this hold-up juror was not following the law as it pertains to reasonable doubt. "The court has an instruction from the four person of that juror that's been working for a week now, saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying, at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. It is that question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt." We're going to talk about this in today's interview too, but Kevin Reddington did everything he could to prevent a mistrial from being called. He tried to remove that hold-up juror and replace them with an alternate. He even called up the Supreme Judicial Court and asked for a stay on the mistrial. None of these options worked, and a mistrial was declared. But Patrick didn't comment on that. He also didn't comment on the fact that multiple jurors have now spoken out, and the hold-up juror himself has been identified. Through his attorney, he says he's not doing interviews, but he did release a statement, and it reads, quote, "I didn't have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present. Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she, meaning Lindsey Clancy, knew exactly what she was doing and planned." Once again, Patrick did not address the mistrial in his 60-minute interview, or the possibility of a retrial, because at this point, it's still unclear what's ahead for Lindsey. Will she face another trial, with three first-a-re-murder charges, with a district attorney's office bump down the charges, or come to a plea deal with the defense, or will the defense's newfound double-jeperity argument actually stave off another trial? Right now, we don't have answers to any of those questions, and neither does Patrick Clancy. If he has an opinion on any of these possibilities, he's keeping that to himself too. Now, the 60-minute interview ended discussing the future of Patrick's family with Dr. Rachel Danis, and the reporter reminding viewers that both Patrick and Lindsey have ongoing civil lawsuits in regards to her medical care. Alright, so we reviewed what was said and what wasn't in Patrick's 60-minute interview just laying out the facts, but I want to know what all of this means. And for that, let's bring on an expert. His criminal defense attorney, Jack Rice, who's been really following this case extensively, Jack, it's so great to see you. Thank you for coming on Scandal with us today. Great to be with you. Okay, so I have to ask you. A lot of people are talking after this 60-minute interview came out. A couple of bomb shells, but most of all, a lot of people are saying, "Wait, that was 14 minutes of nothing. What did he even say?" So, let me just ask you, your general impressions, were there any takeaways you had or were you shocked that a lot of things weren't addressed? Well, in many ways I think I wasn't surprised at all at some of his behavior. What was shocking was the lack of sort of shock that we were seeing. But if we really think about where we were in this case and where we are, what always comes to mind for me is sort of how people took Patrick's testimony and really went off the deep end with it. I think what they miss, and this happens all of the time, is they have no idea what it is to step into a witness box, to look at a jury of 12, and in this case 12 plus six alternates, plus everybody in the room and the entire country watching, and Patrick knows it and understand the impact of what that has as he's having to relive trauma. And then everybody is asking, "Well, why were you acting so strange?" It's because of all of those things. And when you walk into something like that and have to relive it in that context, I think what this did was just reiterate how out of control, how impossible this is to assume that somebody is going to act a certain way. Yeah, I mean, I think what are the bomb shells from all of this was the fact that he said midway during his testimony right around the 9-1-1 call when that was played. He went in a back room and started having a panic attack that an ambulance was called. He was offered, actually, prescription medication or something to help calm down his anxiety or his panic attack. And he said, "No, I want to trudge forward. I want to finish this testimony just to kind of get it over with." Were you surprised by that? Yeah, actually, that part did surprise me, and it really does highlight so much of what happens outside of the view of the jury. And frankly, everybody else, we think about the intensity. When I watched his testimony in the first place, what I watched was this man who was caving in on himself, but also what I particularly remember is right before they decide to run that tape, that 9-1-1 tape. What you start seeing is him ramping up and you can see his hyperventilating. And then he does something that really grabbed me as I watched it. He actually grabs his chest and he starts to tap. And when I saw that, I saw something else. I watched a lot of people dissolve on the stand over the last 30 years. And what I saw here was a man who was not just traumatized at the time, having to re-run through that and step back into that trauma. And then try to articulate yourself, is an almost impossible thing to do. And when I watched the Commonwealth really doing that direct examination, they were stretching it out. And they were stretching out what he was doing and what he was feeling. I understand why you do that. But at the same time, I was watching the anguish in him as he was answering those questions. And the idea that he actually had that panic attack. I'm somewhat shocked, I guess, that he didn't have it on the stand. That he didn't just completely break down on the stand and lose it on the stand because I've seen that happen, too. Yeah, it's interesting because a lot of people online, in the 60 minutes interview, they called it trial by TikTok. A lot of people took clips of him from his testimony. And they said he's so flat. He can't even describe Korra Dawson and Callan. He says like one thing about each of the kids, he has no emotion. And then to find out behind closed doors, maybe do you think he was just trying to keep his composure? He was trying not to break down on the stand because he knew the entire world was watching. - You know what, that's such a great question. It truly is because when you saw that flat effect, and that's the only way to describe it, it was almost flat. I think what happens is you're afraid to dip a toe into that pool, you know? If you start, if I start going down this path, what happens is I get sucked into what that means. And it's like standing on the top of a mountain. If you're balanced right on the tip top, you're just standing there. But if you lean one direction, just an inch, the problem is as you start to roll. And then what happens is it gets worse because it starts to create its own momentum and you can't stop. That's what I think that flat effect was. Especially when you see the interview on 60 minutes where he starts to talk about what that means, it seems even more clear that it explains that issue, which actually in the end may be the ultimate takeaway here. - So, okay, let's go back to the 60 minutes interview because a lot of it I'm comparing to his testimony and then what he said on 60 minutes. And I guess I just have to ask the basic question, why now do you think he's speaking out? I mean, he had his testimony, okay, great. But I didn't see him. I was there at the end during deliberations, even during closings during some of the other stuff. I never saw Patrick. In fact, there was an empty row reserved for him in case he wanted to go, he was never there. He kind of stayed out of the public eye. We saw one TMZ photo of him in Rachel, but that was really it. So why do you think they spoke out now? - Yeah, that's a question a lot of people have asked themselves. And frankly, to some degree afterward, I thought about the very same thing myself. I think what's missing from that is the weight that continued to come at Patrick after he left the box and the number of people and the echo chamber that gets created by people who start saying this is a factual decision and therefore it means X, Y, and Z. And the problem is is once you create the echo chamber that starts to boomerang back at Patrick, that never stopped. And I think when we look at where he is, this is a man who's clearly after this happening back in January of 2023. I mean, think about this, we're three and a half years out. This is a man who's tried to pull his life back together who's tried to find a new way to move forward, a new wife, the idea of potentially a new family, all of those things where what happens is you get sucked back into where you were before and the answer is understand, I've been living this horror for the last three and a half years. And what you're asking me to do is to continue somehow in stasis, in freeze frame. That this is the rest of my life is to be the grieving husband who's lost his family and nothing more. And if I'm anything else, that somehow means something nefarious. And I think the notion of trying to take that back and simply say, I've had enough. I can't do this. Please understand the brutality of what this was and continues to be. But that doesn't mean that that's all I am. This is not my only story. Please let me have my own story. - Yeah, and I think he addressed that too because the conspiracy theories, the trial by TikTok, have been crazy. We've talked about it on my show. I know that you've talked about it at length. It's been all over the place. There's no way that he doesn't know about it. His attorneys have now come forward kind of toward the end of the trial where they said, enough is enough, you guys. You just can't be making up lies and you better watch out and they kind of threatened defamation of people continue. Now he touched briefly on the conspiracy theories here. He didn't dive deep into the missing 15 minutes or the surface pro email. He just basically said, it's really damaging to me and my family and people who know me. Why do you think he didn't dive deeper into all the conspiracy theories? - Well, obviously I think the problem sometimes with even the risk I should add this, the risk of what happens is the more you give to it, the more you get from it. And if you think of it kind of like this, think of it in the terms of the traditional media, right? Where if there is a story and there's nothing new, there's nothing else to add until something new is added. In this case, Patrick is adding it, which would then result in a new story and then a response after the new story. And so you get multiple layers of response as a result. So potentially the more you dig, the more specificity you give to those alternate theories, the more legs they have. And so I think there's always that balance where you're simply asking yourself anytime you're dealing with, I would say the media, but the internet as a whole, anytime you do this, you better beware because once it starts, it creates a life of its own. And that is the truth, whether you're threatening lawsuits, whether you're threatening defamation, whether you remain silent, where you have a little more specificity. Maybe you start naming names. Now all of a sudden, each of them has something to say, and then there's people who are gonna respond to what they say. Of course, then the other people respond to what they say. And so on. - Yeah, I mean, it can create such a mess. And so as you're giving me that answer, I started to think, oh, maybe he was strategic about everything he said. And he didn't give any major bombshells. He didn't dive too deep into anything because he knows that Lindsey's can't spend it in a mistreatment. It could go back, it could be tried again. And I'm wondering if he said something wild and crazy, could that then be used in her future trial? I mean, could this 60 minutes interview be used as evidence in the future? - Think Karen Reed, right? I mean, there's your perfect example. I mean, obviously we had a defendant in that case who then comes back at the second trial, but what did they do during the second trial? They tried to use statements that she had been using subsequent, it's certainly before the first trial, but subsequent to the first trial, too. So the notion of any statement that gets used could potentially be used against you. And when we look at the things that were said in this particular case, and we think about that, what is the potential for that 60 minutes interview to be cut up and the notion of what that could mean? Because obviously, I don't think he wants to experience this again. Certainly that's the case. But what he also doesn't want to do is he doesn't want, I don't believe he doesn't want to cause her any more anxiety and pain and anguish than she's already facing and those levels are literally off the charts. And so he must be conscious of that, too. - Yeah, I guess that makes sense, too, because we don't know where this case is headed. And I guess I have to ask you about all of that, too, because you followed this trial, the first one, or what we have right now. You watched it, you were really into it, and then now a mistrial was declared. That wasn't discussed in the 60 minutes interview, really. It was kind of mentioned at the end, but Patrick didn't talk about it, really. I do have to wonder, though, kind of moving forward. Lindsey Clancy's due back in court next week for a hearing, and her team, actually speaking of Karen Reed, has hired one of Karen Reed's former attorneys, and it's kind of moving forward with a double jeopardy argument. Can you explain this to me? Because I was kind of confused. Usually, double jeopardy, if you're acquitted of a crime, you can't be charged with the same crime again, but she wasn't acquitted technically. Well, you know what? That's going to be the challenge that they face. Truly, the defense faces. So let's think about this big picture. The real argument in any case with double jeopardy is that the government shouldn't get a second bite at the apple. In other words, they have the burden to prove a defendant guilty. And if they fail in trial to do so, generally speaking, what that means is they don't get to try them again. We went to trial, we lost, we want to try them again. And that's generally what the rule is. Now, the problem is, is when you get hung juries, what you get is a sort of non-answer answer. And because of the non-answer answer, it's not that technically that the government failed. It's that there's a non-answer. And so that's why we've seen. And you've certainly covered this era where you'll have new trials can read, right? Where you get that hung jury, and what ends up happening is because of it, the government gets another bite. But it's kind of a different bite. And what the defense is trying to argue here is that essentially the person who screwed this up is the judge. And the reason the judge screwed it up is this. It was 11 to 1. And the judge called a mistrial when they should not have. And the reason they should not have is because this 12th juror had certain obligations as a juror. And one of those obligations is to assess all of the facts that are presented in the trial. But the others to apply the law. And they must apply it in the way that the judge required. And judge Sullivan was very specific about what he said he wanted. Now, what the four persons said in this case was that that 12th juror refused to apply the law. Or at least that's what it sounded like when they came before the court. And so when the judge-- which failed and refused to remove that juror and declared it a mistrial, that was the mistake. In other words, but for that, that person would have been removed an alternate, and there were six alternates in this case, they would have put another alternate in their place, and that would have resulted in a not guilty verdict. You see the problem? The problem is, is what Sullivan actually did was this. He called everybody back up and he said, "Can you assess the facts?" Everybody said, "Yes, yes, I can." And then he said, "Can you apply the law as I have told you to apply it?" And they all said, "Yes." You see the disconnect? The disconnect is that 12 jurors said they could. Now the problem is, is that what would happen if that judge stepped in and pulled that 12 juror aside and said, "Let's dig into your thinking process and how you have decided to apply the law." And what we never actually heard from anybody inside the box of the 12 was that the 12 juror said or admitted to, "I have listened to the facts, I understand the law, and I have decided to ignore the law as you have told me to, and therefore I'm going to go the other direction." We never heard that in that specificity, with that kind of specificity. And as a result, that's why we get the hung jury. But if we go back and look at why the defense is saying this, they're saying, "Nope, you screwed up, judge. You shouldn't have called a mistrial." It would have been a not guilty on all counts. And as a result of that, that's why the double jeopardy should stick. I think it's going to fail. I truly do. Yeah, that's, I mean, I was there. Kevin Reddington did everything he could. He was pulling everything out when he got that last minute over time, delay, went to the SJC. I mean, he did everything he could. He's a giant hard dog. He wasn't letting go. Was he? I mean, he was holding on like a, to a bone, and he was not letting go to his credit for his client. Exactly. I mean, I remember him being like, "We have six alternates. Grab one of them. Let's start this again." And everyone in the courtroom was like seven days in, we're going to start from square one. My God. So, okay. That was a great explainer, Jack. We broke that down because I know I had questions. I've had some viewers reach out to me, so that was a great breakdown. And I know our time is running long. I just have to ask you one more question, and this is just a general one. Lindsay Clancy, we'll see what happens as far as when she appears again, if she's going to be retried, whatever. But as it pertains to this 60 minutes interview, do you think it's possible? She and Tuxbury Hospital last night was able to watch this interview. Yeah. Yeah, it's possible. Wow. It is possible, and imagine what it would be like to listen to your former husband talk about what it is that she did, and see it, and listen to it from that point of view, especially, she was in the courtroom. Yes, we get that piece. But the thing is, at the same time, to see it again and to realize the trauma of this, and maybe if that's where we take this, this really highlights something much bigger than this trial. And that's that every trial has that primary trauma of those victims, those three babies. But there are many other victims in these. And those victims start with Patrick who has to walk down those stairs. But those victims include those police officers who had to walk down those stairs, too. And the medical examiners who had to drape sheets over the bodies of little kids, and pull them up the stairs. Now you start expanding that out into this courtroom, and you realize this is the brutality of what a jury trial, a criminal investigation, and ultimately whatever happens. This highlights just how it's like dropping a stone into a pool. And you see that little ripple that rolls out bigger and bigger and bigger. It's just like that. So watching him last night, I think, was really reminiscent, watching him on 60 minutes, was really reminiscent of what it is to just be in the wake. Wow, that's chilling to think about it like that, because at the bottom line of all of this, there were three young children who lost their lives, and they can't be forgotten in all of this. And I'm glad that you brought that up. Kora Dawson-Kallen. I want to make sure that we're saying their names. Jack Rice, thank you for coming on today. I mean, this has been a very interesting conversation, and thank you for your insight. Always. Thank you. Lindsey Clancy is due back in court on September 29th. She'll be there and bring you whatever the latest developments in her case are, then. And that is where today's episode of Scandal leaves us for now. I'm your host, Sierra Gillespie, and I'll see you next time.