President Donald Trump is not going to pardon Lindsay Clancy, the courtroom controversy and the legal aftermath are now playing out in public, and the case facts demand a serious criminal response.
There’s nothing more that needs to be said here: President Donald Trump isn’t going to pardon Lindsay Clancy. First, I don’t think he can, and it just isn’t going to happen. That still didn’t stop Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, from making the plea on the morning news shows:
A mistrial was declared. Reddington lost his chance at getting an acquittal by reason of insanity. The Plymouth County DA should refile charges immediately.
Clancy killed all three of her kids in January 2023. Those are hard facts that cut through the noise and the theatrics on cable. For anyone who believes in basic accountability, a single mistrial should not become a get-out-of-justice free card.
https://x.com/townhallcom/status/2097316213244264725
There are two separate threads here: the legal technicalities and the political theater. On the legal side, presidential pardons do not reach state criminal prosecutions in the way many people assume, which is why the notion of a federal executive override never had much traction. That constitutional reality matters because it keeps the prosecution and potential retrial squarely under state law, where the facts of the killings must be addressed by local prosecutors and juries.
On the public side, the attorney’s media appeals are meant to persuade hearts before minds, and that tactic can shift public perception even when the legal record is harsh. But sympathy and spin do not change the recorded outcome of the events in January 2023, and they should not deter prosecutors who have an obligation to pursue justice. Political actors and commentators can shout, but the court system should follow the evidence.
There are sensible procedural steps available after a mistrial, and the most straightforward is a refiling and a new trial. Double jeopardy does not bar retrial in the case of a mistrial declared under circumstances like this, and a district attorney who believes the case has merit should not hesitate to bring it back. That path respects victims, preserves the integrity of the process, and keeps the focus where it belongs: on the facts and the law.
This is also a test of priorities. Conservatives who talk about law and order need to be consistent when the headlines get raw and emotional. Advocating for the due process that leads to a fair, full retrial is not soft on crime; it is an insistence that justice be done. Letting a high-profile mistrial halt accountability would send the wrong signal to victims and communities that deserve safety and closure.
The political chatter about pardons obscures what prosecutors and juries must determine. If evidence supports convictions, those convictions should be sought and defended in court. If evidence is lacking, the legal system should expose those gaps rather than letting negotiations on cable determine outcomes. Either way, the decision should rest with the legal process, uninfluenced by press cycles or performative pleas.
The families affected by this tragedy deserve a process that does not get derailed by spectacle. Local officials need to act decisively, and the community deserves transparency about the steps being taken. This case will be measured not by talking points but by how the system handles a brutal crime and whether it puts the rule of law first.
