Ep. 1832 - No News Is Bad News. The Clancy Case Should Be Over By Now.

It's been four days now, and a duly sworn jury, consisting of nine women and three men, is unable to decide whether murder is a crime in the state of Massachusetts. The judge dismissed the jury this afternoon after they couldn't reach a verdict again. And although he's obligated to send them back to reconsider and continue deliberations a couple of times, it seems unlikely they'll ever reach a consensus. One jury, an older woman, was clearly frustrated at the judge's instruction to go back to the jury room, meanwhile two younger female members of the jury reportedly smiled. And to make matters worse, there's reason to believe that several of these members of the jury, the ones who are clearly inclined to let lazy clansy go free after she murdered her three children, may see themselves as part of the larger, deranged TikTok mob that gathers outside the courthouse every day in support of women's constitutional right to do whatever they want without suffering any consequences whatsoever, particularly if you ever bought into the lies of feminism, it's one of the more depressing spectacles you'll ever see, a mass psychosis rooted in narcissism, so pervasive, it infects everything even our juries. More than a million dollars has been raised for this woman who executed her own kids, and it's enough to make you rethink the Salem witch trials all these centuries later. Remind me, who are the villains in that story again? Maybe that'd be a good topic for a real history episode sometime, I don't know. Well then, here's a thought experiment. One that up until very recently in this country's history would have been extremely straightforward and uncontroversial, albeit very disturbing at the same time. So imagine that one day you wake up from a stupor to discover that while you were not consciously aware, you had murdered all of your children. Now this scenario is, of course, morbidly absurd. The idea that a loving parent could one day just wake up to find out that against their will they'd executed their whole family is preposterous, but this is the scenario that Clancy's defense attorney and her legion of female groupies want us to imagine. They insist that Clancy was indeed a loving mother, a good mother who was driven by forces outside of her control to systematically slaughter her children. They tell us that this could happen to any of us. Now, there's ample and conclusive evidence that this scenario did not actually occur. It's clear that Clancy intentionally murdered her children. There was no psychotic stupor, but for the sake of argument, let's imagine that something like this kind of murderous days were to actually happen. So put yourself, as impossible as it is, into this fictional nightmare scenario. The one that the defense and Clancy's defenders want us to imagine. So put yourself there. You've just killed your children through no conscious fault of your own. Well, what do you do next? Okay, let's go through this. Here are a few steps you would immediately take without any doubt. First you try to revive your children, even if it's clearly a hopeless situation. I mean, this would be the first inevitable step for any loving parent who suddenly regained consciousness to find themselves in the middle of this kind of horrifying scene. The first thing you do is you would rush to your children and try desperately to revive them. Next you would call the police and you would explain the urgency of the situation to the 911 operator. That's a given. And then once you were confident that first responders were on the way, you would do two things. One of two things. One possibility is that you would either kill yourself with ten times the rage and determination that your unconscious, psychotic evil self had used to kill your children, or you would remain alive to face justice. And when I say face justice, I mean, you would beg the court to give you the harshest possible penalty. You would forego a trial entirely, not only because you wouldn't contest your guilt, because you would know that you did it, but also for the sake of sparing the spouse whose life you just ruined. You would not drag your spouse and your family through a long, highly publicized trial. One where your spouse would be demonized and become the target of conspiracy theories by hordes of retarded feminist tiktok zombies. You would simply plead guilty and you would go to prison in shame and repentance. No loving parent would even want to go on living a normal life out in society after having done something like this, you wouldn't fight for your freedom, you wouldn't desire freedom, you wouldn't desire anything but to just crawl into the darkest hole in the jail that they can give you and just die as quickly as possible. Okay, a loving parent on the other side of a catastrophe like this could not ever find joy or purpose in their life ever again. A loving parent would hate themselves far more than any stranger could possibly hate them and desire to see themselves punished far more than any of us could desire that. But Lindsey Clancy, strangely enough, did not take any of these actions after she murdered her children. On every point, she did the opposite. Around the time she was committing the homicides, she took a phone call from her husband, whom she had sent away on an errand, demonstrating of course that she was not out of her mind at the time. This is all planned. After the murders were completed, she did not call the police. She did not attempt to revive her children or contact the emergency services. As the prosecutor pointed out in closing arguments, she didn't even pick them up and put them in their beds, at least giving them some symbolic shred of dignity in death. Instead, she left them face down on the basement floor, this loving mother. Then having strangled her three children to death in a methodical, systematic, violent, determined manner, one by one with exercise bands that collapsed their airways and forced their eyes to bulge in their heads, Clancy suddenly became extremely tentative and apprehensive in her alleged suicide attempt that followed. Armed with a knife, Clancy somehow managed to cause only superficial injuries to her wrists when she was supposedly trying to end her life. And for her grand finale, Clancy jumped out of a second story window. Yes, a second story residential window. I mean, short of, I don't know, shooting yourself with a nerf gun, it would be hard to imagine a more cartoonish, ineffective, unserious way to kill yourself, then jumping out of a second story residential window. But that's how Lindsey Clancy attempted to leave this world or so or told. Immediately after she methodically murdered her own children, applying the necessary force while she determinedly snuffed the life out of one child, then the next, then the next. Clancy transformed into a kind of bumbling idiot, who simply couldn't figure out a way to die. And then for several years, up to this very day, as the trial now moves into tomorrow, now that they ended the day without a verdict. So up to this very day, she has done everything in her power to reduce the amount of time she has to spend in prison. She hired the fanciest defense attorney, money could buy and fought for her freedom. Her defense attorney has said multiple times during deliberations when he's been asked by the media, how Clancy is doing. He has said multiple times that she's nervous, she's scared about the verdict. But what would a loving mother be nervous or scared about in this situation? I mean, you're only nervous or scared about a verdict if you're hoping desperately that you won't be found guilty. But why would a loving mother, who knows what she did, have any desperate hopes for her future at all? I mean, at a minimum, wouldn't a loving mother in this situation be totally indifferent to what the jury verdict is? Your life is ruined and you're in a living hell no matter what. What do you care if you go to prison or not? But she does have hopes for the future because she's an evil, she's psychotic. She's a psychopath, rather, just like many mass murderers and serial killers before her. Now, Clancy supporters could claim that she was insane when she committed the crime. That's certainly nonsense, but none of us were there reading her mind when she did it. Not that it matters anyway. She deserves to fry no matter what was going on in her mind at the time of the murders as we've established. But we can all observe what she's doing right now, starting with hiring a very savvy lawyer and fighting for her freedom. These are not the actions of a loving mother who accidentally executed her entire family. And if I could accept that one might accidentally do something like that, which I don't. If Clancy was actually a loving mother who killed her kids through no conscious fault of her own, then she would be in total despair right now, utterly indifferent to the jury verdict. And if she had any hopes or plans for the future, it would be just be the hope that she could find a way to kill herself in jail, okay, to be very frank about it. That's the only hope that I can imagine any parent who's actually a loving parent in this kind of situation could possibly have. Now to be clear about this, the mere fact that Clancy half-assed the suicide attempt and is now fighting for her freedom tells you everything you need to know. I mean, you don't even need to get into the fact that she failed to mention. you know, that she killed her children when her husband showed up, or the way that she went doctor shopping for pills or her Google search history showing that she had planned this, the fact that she had an extraordinarily robust support system despite what people claim, including a nanny. You don't even need to think about the voice she supposedly heard in her head telling her to murder her children. A voice that had never appeared before that moment or sense and won that even if it did appear, which I don't think it did, she could have just said no to the voice. You don't even need to think about it. The way Clancy behaved after the murders, by itself, is enough to conclude that she was not in the throes of some horrible, mystical, temporary psychosis that briefly controlled her mind. Lindsey Clancy is exactly what she appears to be. A demon, I mean, she's the reason we had witch trials. And the jury in her murder trial should have concluded in less than an hour that she should spend the rest of her life in prison for first degree murder, which would still be a sentence far more lenient than what she deserves. But after three and a half days of deliberations, the jury still has not returned a verdict as they head now into the next day. According to courtroom reports, there are nine women and three men on the jury. And you could only imagine what those three men have had to deal with over the past few days. This is not exactly 12 angry men. We're talking about here. This is this, we can only assume is a kind of tick-tock jury. Maybe some of the women are probably debating astrology or fantasizing about how the husband really did it. Meanwhile, the men are saying, no, wait a minute. You can't just murder your children and get away with it. And they're fighting a losing battle. Now, in short, this is a trial that threatens to set the American legal system along with women's suffrage, the women's suffrage movement back about 150 years or so. There is now a very real possibility that the jury will not reach a verdict in this case because several jurors want to acquit Lindsey Clancy on the basis of her alleged mental illness. And actually, that might be the best case scenario at this point. It's also possible, of course, that the jury simply finds her not guilty by unanimous verdict or that the prosecutors decide not to retry the case after a hung jury. In any of these scenarios, the odds are substantial. That before long, Clancy will be a free woman, which she apparently wants to be because, again, she's not in any kind of despair over having killed her kids. She doesn't care because she's an evil psychopath. And that's because in Massachusetts, once you're found not guilty by reason of insanity, you're released from jail, the moment psychiatrist determined that you're no longer a threat to yourself or others. There's a 40-day evaluation period followed by a six-month period of commitment, which has to be renewed endlessly in one-year increments if the prosecution wants to keep you in prison. But as soon as a doctor determines that you're not crazy anymore, you're free. It's as if you never murdered anybody. If a doctor says that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis, then in all likelihood, she'll be out of prison within a year. Maybe she can go have more kids. Well, I've decided, as a society, in that case, that women occasionally become so overwhelmed with hormones that they aren't responsible for anything they do, even slaughtering their own children in a premeditated triple homicide. We will have determined, as a matter of law, that women simply cannot control themselves and therefore should suffer no consequences whatsoever. That's the argument on that side of it. If a voice tells them to do something, then they have no choice but to comply. Well, if that's the case, if that was the case, and why would we ever entrust a woman to do anything? Run a business, lead a country, treat patients. What's to stop the first female president from launching all of our nuclear warheads in a moment of postpartum psychosis? If something like that happens, who are we to judge? She couldn't control herself. She was struggling. Men wouldn't understand. So the feminist defending Lindsey Clancy are by their own arguments. These are their arguments. They're making the strongest case for the patriarchy that anyone could ever make. So in summation, the defense of Lindsey Clancy is to put a mildly self-defeating. But it's a very widespread belief among women right now, which is why this case is blown up on TikTok. And indeed, there's a very obvious split in this case between men and women. Men generally believe Lindsey Clancy deserves to die for what she did. Women, many of them are saying she's not responsible. This is from Savannah Hernandez, watch. The jury is deliberating on a verdict for Lindsey Clancy. And so we are asking people today whether or not they think that she's innocent or guilty. I think she's innocent. I think if she wants guilty, I think it needs to be a state of psychosis. She does not deserve prison time. Based on all the evidence I've seen, the time stamps, just doesn't add up to, I don't think she had enough time to kill all three kids and harm herself. Whether or not she did it from a state of sanity, she killed her kids. Yeah, I mean, she shouldn't be walking for you probably. Lindsey Clancy Trial, have you guys been following it? My girlfriend has, I don't know, nothing about it, but she's on TikTok for like three hours in the morning. What does your girlfriend say about it? She thinks she's innocent. What do you think? Well, I don't know enough about it. I just know what she says. I wish I knew something about it. The guilty party is like the medical system that failed both her and the children. I hope that Lindsey Clancy not only gets strapped to an electric chair, but that they legally inject her three different times. And here's the crazy part about the Clancy trial. I'm not gonna go on for days in this, two things. Number one, if you think that men are holding women to too high of standards and your poster child is Lindsey Clancy, how low do you want the standard to be? The only thing we're asking she refrain from doing is killing the kids when her husband goes out to get her my doll. Is that too much to ask for? Is that a Leviathan lift for you? Please don't kill the kids while we're all getting bananas? And number two, you can't have it both ways, okay? The same women that are standing outside of the courthouse railing on and on about how her husband should have intervened and taking control of her medications. And God forbid involuntarily how her committed and separated from her children would have been the same women. Who, if he had done that, would have said handmaids till. Do you feel like men's response to this trial has been fair? No, I don't think I mean, I don't think a man should have any say in it, honestly. Now speaking to Caitlin Bennett, some Clancy supporters openly admitted seems openly admit that they would potentially harm their own children. Watch. Do you stand with her, yes or no? I don't think she did it, yes. We feel she's very sleep deprived. Her job is a labor and delivery nurse working night shifts and three children is a lot, a lot. Do you have children? Yes, would you ever hurt them? Yes and no, as a mom or as a dad, I think that you are not perfect. So what are the consequences she should face for this? Obviously she's already in a wheelchair. She should go to jail for negligence. He needs to take care of his kids. Now there hasn't been a poll on this officially as far as I know, but it's apparent that a large preponderance of women in this country are supportive of Lindsey Clancy. And that's why these videos are so easy to find. It's also why mobs of Clancy supporters, almost all of them women have been gathering outside the courthouse wearing pink as a show of solidarity. You know, they say they're trying to break the stigma surrounding postpartum psychosis. They claim the healthcare system failed Lindsey Clancy but they're clearly projecting themselves onto Clancy. They see this case as a potential vindication for all of their own deluded and narcissistic psychopathic behavior in their own lives. A not guilty verdict for Clancy to these women is also a retroactive justification for their own horrible parenting. It's an official statement from the court that when they mistreat their spouse or their children, they're actually blameless. They have no agency. They have no ability to control themselves. That's why so many of these women have taken an interest in the case. Lindsey Clancy is, you know, she's not a supermodel. She's not an actress. She's a woman of kind of average looks if also somewhat which like an appearance and therefore she's the perfect avatar. Any self-absorbed woman can easily see herself in Lindsey Clancy as they've said that they do. And this footage makes the point. For me, watch as women mob Clancy's lawyer outside of the courthouse treating them like some kind of celebrity and listen to what they tell them. - I would have asked when this part of my second son was eight months old. - You're the worst. - Sorry, I don't know what Kelly went for. - Sorry, Lindsey went for a walk. - I know what she went through, I feel like. - I've watched you every day and I've just been like, I wish you had a heart. - Now notice how they're all talking about themselves in the most pathetic way imaginable. They're not even really interested in the case. They're interested in prattling on about their own problems. Clancy, as I said, is an avatar. And as always, they have no self-awareness about that whatsoever. Most of the women rallying around Clancy don't even know why they're doing it. They don't understand their own psychology, let alone hers. And now these freaks want to buy this slimy lawyer a stake dinner as if he wants to be anywhere near them. But now that they've burned through every other relationship in their lives, are desperate for any dinner date they can get, I guess. And of course, the great concern is that the crazy feminist women aren't just outside the courthouse or on TikTok, they're also sitting on the jury. And although we can't know for sure right now, there is reason to be concerned about that. This is opposed from Justice Serve TV, which was in the courtroom on Monday, quote, "jud Sullivan takes a seat, jury in dapper Dan, alternate, still in his tie, handsome woman has on pink jean shorts, and juror in front row far left white woman 40-ish is wearing a pink sweater." So that's two jurors who are wearing pink to the courtroom, you know, women wear pink sometimes, it could be that, but also, Clancy supporters are wearing pink outside the courthouse to signal their support for child murder. Is that what these women are signaling? At LA Magazine, a reporter named Lauren Conlin had the same observation, quote, "On Monday morning, jurors shuffled into the courtroom looking more dressed up than usual, several male jurors wore collared shirts, including one with a tie, while several female jurors wore dresses, notably two females wore pink, one in a pink sweater and another in pink pants. The collared choice stood out as supporters of Lindsey Clancy have previously worn pink as a show of support." This is like something out of, you know, runaway jury, and it raises an obvious question, which is why is the judge allowing this? Why didn't he ask any of these jurors about the clothes they were wearing? Why didn't he immediately dismiss these jurors and install the alternates? I mean, if there's even a suspicion that they're biased in that way, that's enough reason to kick them off the jury. There was reporting that the judge did pull each juror aside for questioning under oath after the August 20th demonstration outside the courthouse, where the demonstrators all wore pink. And the judge asked each of the members of the jury whether or not the protests had affected them or their ability to remain impartial, but obviously this doesn't go anywhere near far enough. You know, none of these women are going to tell the judge, "Yeah, you know, my brain is fried on TikTok Slop. I can't be an impartial juror anymore." When a trial involves this much publicity to the point that members of the jury can't avoid hearing about it on social media or seeing the protesters when they drive up to the court in the morning, then the judge has an obligation to take some affirmative action to ensure a fair trial. And I'm not saying the judge could have solved all the problems with this trial, but he could have done a lot more than we've seen so far. Like for starters, the jury should have been sequestered from the beginning of the trial. They should have had no access to the internet whatsoever from the moment testimony began. This is the whole point of sequestering the jury. It's for very high profile cases like this one where there's no realistic way for the jury to avoid seeing information about the trial when they leave the courtroom. If you can't sequester the jury in this case, then there's no situation where you can do it. If not now, then win. Now, it's inconvenient for the jury, sure. I mean, nobody likes being locked away in a hotel under armed guard without the ability to contact the rest of the world or to browse TikTok, but in this case, more than any other case in recent memory, I mean, that's precisely what the jury needed. Think of it more like a TikTok detox than sequestration. You know, these people needed to be forcibly prevented from scrolling their feeds and rotting their brains even more than they've probably already have. And who knows, after their fifth week of being imprisoned in a holiday in, maybe these people would have some of them started to use their own brains again. Maybe they'd develop an attention span and critical thinking skills. It's actually something that would do almost any of us some good. Be sequestered away from the brain rot for five weeks. I think we could all benefit from that. As far as I know, no one's ever run this experiment. No one's ever, you know, jailed the brain rot obsessed women and taken their phones away for a month and observed the effects. So this trial could have a perfect opportunity to give that a shot. At some point, eating became a research project. You're supposed to track everything, measure everything, read 17 conflicting studies and somehow construct the perfect diet every time. Most people aren't going to do that. That's part of the appeal of balance of nature. It's a simple way to add more whole fruits and vegetables to your routine with 31 fruits of vegetables in their fruit and veggie supplements, simple ingredients, simple routine. That's generally a good philosophy. Go to balsamature.com and use promo code wall. She'll get 10% off any subscription plus a free guiltless snack. There are companies that reward you for being a loyal customer, pay with a specific credit card and earn miles, then you get upgrades on flights. That makes sense. And then there are wireless companies where loyalty often means you've quietly paid them too much money for 10 years. Maybe stop doing that. Pure talk offers affordable wireless service with 100% US-based customer service, no contract, no service contract, no cancellation fee. And right now for just a few more weeks, any plan is just $15 a month for your first three months. Go to puretalk.com/walsh, see how much you could save. It's not complicated. Go to puretalk.com/walsh. But as best I can tell, for reasons that aren't clear, the state of Massachusetts never sequesters its juries. I mean, it's an option that's available to judges and it's left up to their discretion, but they never seem to actually exercise the option and force jurors to stay in a hotel. And that's strange because there's plenty of precedent for sequestering juries in long trials in other states. And it can have a very significant impact. So consider the trial of Bill Cosby, for example. So the jury was sequestered for nearly a month at the height of the Me Too panic. You couldn't turn on a TV or scroll your phone without seeing some reference to the Me Too movement and how it was finally time for a reckoning and Hollywood and so forth. And yet because the Cosby jury was sequestered for the entire length of the trial, the jurors said that they didn't hear anything about the Me Too movement. This is from ABC following the verdict, quote, "Moreover, while many speculated that the Me Too movement loomed large and perhaps swayed the jury in the Cosby trial, Harrison Snyder said he doesn't believe it played a role in the jury's decision at all." I didn't really even know about the Me Too movement. He said, "I really only found out about that after I got home." Then I looked online to see what everything was. Yes, in a centerpiece trial of the Me Too movement, the jurors who were locked away in hotel room didn't even know what the Me Too movement was. Now assuming this guy is not lying, it's a very relevant data point when you're deciding where to put a jury during deliberations on a high-profile trial. Would sequestering the Clancy jury have had a similar effect? We have no idea. The case was receiving a lot of attention prior to the jury being seated. It's very possible some of the jurors were already prejudiced in favor of Clancy before the testimony even began. All the same was clearly worth a shot. There's no reason not to do it. As it stands throughout the entire trial and deliberations, the jurors have had constant access to people who want to sway their verdict. While we're on the topic, a change of venue was obviously appropriate as well. This was actually something the defense wanted on the grounds that Clancy had demonized, been demonized by the local press in Plymouth supposedly. They wanted to be moved to Boston, which was denied because the judge thought Plymouth had a diversity of opinions on the matter. The real problem with this motion for a change of venue is that it didn't go nearly far enough. The trial should have been moved to the single most remote location the judge could find. Pick a jury on St. Matthew Island in the Bering Sea and hold a trial there. Yes, it's an uninhabited island, but you could easily find some commercial fishermen nearby or maybe a few search and rescue pilots. I guarantee you a jury in the Bering Sea is not going to care about TikTok and conspiracy theories about Lindsey Clancy. It would be the least precious jury in the entire country. They listened carefully to the facts of the case, which are undisputed, and they would return a verdict in about 30 seconds, and then they would return to their lives, and nobody would have to think about this infernal trial ever again. Although they don't realize it, this would be the best possible outcome for Clancy supporters as well. Yes, it could be intoxicating to absolve yourself and your gender of all personal responsibility, but in the long run, it leads to a lot of very uncomfortable questions for these people. For example, this was an incident that unfolded yesterday in Times Square. Beast woman stabbed someone to death, then threatened to stab the NYPD officers who were gathered on the sidewalk to confront her. You'll note that most of the officers are standing around with their hands in their pockets, which is obviously a very tactical posture. As the woman charged at the officer, she was shot by one of the few officers who was paying attention to what was going on, and she died shortly afterwards. Now, let's say that instead of getting shot to death, this woman survived, and was put on trial. Well, what exactly is the argument for sending her to prison? If you're a Lindsey Clancy supporter, why not send her to a mental hospital for a few months and then release her back on the streets? If you're going to let Clancy walk because of postpartum psychosis, who's to say that this obese woman wasn't suffering some kind of psychosis as well? But her hormones were out of whack. Who knows? Maybe she had a child at some point in the last five years. Clearly, she wasn't acting like a sane person. So how can we hold a responsible for stabbing random people to death and trying to decapitate a few police officers? These are not rhetorical questions. I mean, these are precisely the kinds of obvious problems you run into when you start pretending people have no agency or responsibility. Every single killer who's ever lived has had various biological factors you could point to as an explanation. nation for what they did. Maybe they were impulsive by nature, thanks to their genetics. Maybe they had an unexpected surge of testosterone that made them more violent. Maybe they were irritable because they had low blood sugar. Maybe they're simply too dumb to understand the consequences of their actions due to a lack of brain cells. All of these factors may have contributed to the killer state of mind in like thousands of crimes, but none of these factors can ever justify murder. They don't mean we have to live around these people either. When you reach the opposite conclusion, when you excuse murders because of some biological imbalance you think you've identified, then you're effectively legalizing murder as a category. There is no limiting principle you can apply anymore. You're endangering all of society and providing a massive incentive for people to murder anyone who inconveniences them, and you're doing it all for what purpose exactly? Well, the Lindsey Clancy case is what happens when you tell millions of people that they're oppressed on the basis of characteristics they can't control, and then you give those people immense power in society, power that they've never had at any other point in human civilization. You know, we're approaching the logical endpoint of the 20 different waves of feminism, the legalization of post-birth abortion of murder on demand. Yes, it remains possible that Jerry will ultimately reach the correct verdict in this case, although at this point it doesn't look very likely, but what we do know, and what I didn't realize until this case went mainstream, at least it fully realized, is that a not insignificant number of women have at least considered harming their own children. I mean, that's what many Clancy defenders have admitted, sometimes implicitly, but also sometimes explicitly. And whatever happens to Lindsey Clancy, we have to confront the fact that these people are living among us. They're living with children in many cases. They're sitting on juries. They hold elected office. Their judges and police officers and DMV clerks and bus drivers. And they are harboring murderous desires in their hearts. They're the kinds of people who look at a monster like Lindsey Clancy and find common cause with her. And because of this case, these kinds of women are now realizing all over the country that should they ever act on those desires, they can probably get away with it and become famous and wealthy in the process. And that's why whatever the jury ultimately decides in this case, the mere fact that deliberations have taken so long, basically guarantees that very soon we'll all find out how depraved these people can get. And particularly if there's a Lindsey Clancy supporter in your life, for your sake and your children's sake, you should be very worried about that. That'll do it with the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow of a great day. Godspeed. In all of my years of public life, I have never profited from public service. I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their president's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. For more than five decades from Iran Contra, to Monica Lewinsky, to Russian gate, every political scandal has been measured against one, the Watergate affair. But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth? What if Watergate isn't what it seems? What if hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony, memoirs, and newly released government documents tell a different story than the one you learned in school? I know America. In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide in modern American history with grand plans to remake the federal government. Two years later, he was out of office. You were taught that Nixon's men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to spy on his political opponents. You were taught that when he found out Nixon covered it up and that the cover up was worse than the crime. You were taught that two heroic Washington Post reporters guided by a righteous FBI whistleblower brought the most powerful man in the world to justice. But you were never taught what really happened. I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. The real history of the Watergate scandal is available now at the early marketplace.