The 2009 Obama Press Ban the Media Hopes You Forgot and the Holdout Juror is in HIDING! | Nancy Mace

[00:00] Good evening, and I am Congresswoman Nancy Mace. I'm broadcasting from the great state of South Carolina tonight. Thank you for tuning in. And if you haven't yet, please subscribe to my YouTube channel. We're trying to hit 70,000 subscribers. We're very close. We started off at 13. We've come a long way in a few weeks since the tattoo story and launching this podcast. I'm giving you a view from the inside out. Tonight, we're going to tackle a couple of different stories. But before that, let's head into the intro.

[01:00] Thank you again for tuning in tonight to Get Maced. This is my new podcast where we talk common sense and we take no prisoners here. Tonight, we're going to talk about the White House and the press corps and the press pool. On Friday, three outlets lost their White House press pool privileges. They lost their privileges. They didn't lose a right. And we'll get into that. Nobody smashed the printing press. No one tried to spike a story. Not to say that that doesn't happen because trying to do that is not going to happen. But we're going to talk about the stories and spiking stories goes on all the time in Washington, D.C. And I loathe the press, but we have freedom of the press. So and it's important to make the distinction between a right and a privilege. And that's what we're going to talk about tonight. Fox News went to bat for CNN, which I find interesting. But CNN went to bat for Fox News a couple of years ago when the Obama and Biden administration tried to target Fox News as well, saying they weren't a real news outlet.

[02:00] Where have we heard that from? But as someone who loathes the mainstream media, I'm going to I'm going to defend CNN's right to be wrong, but I'm not going to defend their right to be in the building because that is a privilege that is not a right. And we'll get into the difference between the two. We're going to talk about Lindsey Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington. I can't get his name out of my mouth because he continues to, I believe, really push the boundaries of decency. He's now trying to pull the lone black jurors phone records. He has targeted the only black juror, the only presumably Republican on the jury who happens to be black. They are out. They've already doxed him. He's in hiding right now somewhere in the Northeast. And that juror is at an undisclosed location because he's been targeted for harassment, for doxing. They put his face on the Internet. There'll be no jokes in that segment.

[03:01] And, you know, we'll get to that and prayers for that, man. But one thing I want you to keep in mind tonight, I want you to keep this question in your pocket all night, is what do you actually have a right to?

[03:16] And what are you just what do you have a right to? And what are you just what are you just used to?

[03:24] So on Friday, President Trump announced he was going to ban CNN, MSNOW, and CNN. Politico from the White House press pool. And the stated reason, he said, was because of negative news coverage. Now, I sympathize with President Trump on this. I don't think that's the right reason to ban them for negative news coverage. Three major news outlets have been banned from the White House one day after President Trump said he was kicking out CNN, MSNOW, and Politico. On Saturday morning, journalists from all three news outlets tried to go to work in the White House complex. All three were denied. On Saturday, these reporters were turned away from the gate of the White House. And by Sunday night, White House guidance dropped CNN from Monday's TV pool slot. CNN was scheduled to cover the president's U.N.

[04:25] trip this week. And all five networks suspended their pool coverage. So Fox News jumped in and other networks jumped in. ABC, NBC, CBS, everybody jumped in to suspend their pool coverage. They weren't going to give pool coverage to the president. There was no replacement pool. And Fox News jumped in. It was the D.C. bureau chief that chimed in as the acting chair of the TV pool. So they decided to ban together to defend CNN, MSNOW, and Politico and what they believe is a right. And I believe it's a privilege. Courts have disagreed in the past. The three banned. The press does not. The media and media outlets are claiming that this is a first amendment right. To protect our first amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and guarantees freedom of the press and guarantees freedom of religion, assembly and petition. That is the basis for the first amendment.

[05:26] It doesn't give you the automatic right to have a badge to go into the White House. For whatever reason, the president wants to ban these networks from the White House. I believe he has that right. I believe that other presidents have that right. So this is the position I will have now and going forward. And so if the precedent is we can ban news networks from the press pool and from the White House, I expect the next Democrat president to follow suit and, you know, share that precedent. Obama tried to do it in 2009, and that's when CNN stepped in to defend Fox News. But the First Amendment also protects people from government interference as well. So, you know, I'm going to argue and fire an attorney and I'd gone to law school and I were in a courtroom. In this case, I would argue on the merits of rights versus privileges and what that means. And so what the president has done, it doesn't limit CNN from never writing a story about him again. It doesn't limit their First Amendment right.

[06:26] It doesn't get it doesn't limit their freedom of the press. They are free to write whatever they want. They can send questions into the comms team at the White House. They can request interviews. They can do all those things. There's nothing limiting them from taking public space. They can write statements of the White House and then writing stories about it. I get the president's, you know, anger toward the press. I get it. I have had so many negative headlines. Got to turn my phone ringer off. I've had so many negative headlines that are just flat out false and not true. Most of them are not true. And there's really nothing you can do about it as a public figure because all these things are, quote, alleged. And we went into this last night. If you didn't see my segment on Lauren Boebert and the horrible allegations against her that I are vehemently false. She responded. She responded over the weekend. I responded last night. But that's just a few handful of examples that, you know, I get it. I mean, and it happens to both Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it happens to Republicans more frequently. There's been some data on that, particularly to President Trump.

[07:29] Whether you like him or not, the deck is stacked against him in the mainstream press. He could say the sky is blue and they would say, oh, my gosh, the sky is purple. But he said it was blue. They would they go nuts. And.

[07:43] So, I mean, that's the thing. And so they put out a joint statement that no administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting. Well, it was just an announcement that the White House decided, you know what, CNN, MSN, MSNOW, maybe the New York Times was included. You just can't come to the White House press briefings anymore because you're giving the current president unfavorable coverage. I'm trying to think what would have happened if I had said, you know what, Fox News, you're out of here. I believe it was Obama in 2009. Run the clip. But it was the Obama administration in 2009 that tried to kick Fox News out, saying Fox News was basically fake news. It wasn't real news. That it was political news. Well, all news is political news these days. So but he tried to do it. He said Obama set the precedent. So now the White House lists Real America's Voice as the backup travel pool. And the five majors won't touch.

[08:44] They're not going to give Real America's Voice the time of day. That's probably the biggest media promotion in American history at the White House. So congratulations to Real America's Voice for at least temporarily getting the press pool coverage.

[08:58] My position is that nobody's been no one's been censored here. CNN, Politico and MSNOW still have the right to to all of their publishing, you know, all of their First Amendment rights under the freedom of the press. Then the First Amendment. They have all of those rights. None of those rights were taken away. It does not say White House press badge in the Constitution under the First Amendment. It does not say that that that did not exist at the time. OK, so it's not a constitutional argument, in my opinion.

[09:29] They can still publish stories trashing the president. Republicans all day long. They're very good at it. Nothing is banning them from doing that. Number one, they're not censored. OK, so that's a whole nother bag of. That's a whole nother bag we should actually talk about, because I believe both administrations, Republican and Democrat, all administrations are working with our tech companies to censor you, to censor content that is not limited to Democrat administrations. But the First Amendment protects what you report, how you publish. Your sources are protected. It doesn't guarantee a seat in the White House. It doesn't guarantee a seat. It doesn't guarantee a parking space in the West Wing. That's not. First Amendment. Right. You know, you're conflating these things. The hard pass is it's a privilege that it's not a right. That's the argument here. Who cares about negative coverage? I mean, I care, but that's not a that's not a constitutional argument. And that's the way I would be looking at it right now.

[10:30] In 2009, the Obama's Obama's Treasury tried to cut Fox News out of the press pool and with interviews with Pazar, Ken Feinberg and the other four networks refused to go in without Fox. So. There is a precedent, and I respect it, that the press has banded together and supported one another so that they could be in the press pool. So then Fox got its seat back. Obama wasn't able to Obama wasn't able to kick him out. He tried. If you cheered when Obama attempted to do this, spare me the constitutional seminar. I don't want to hear it.

[11:09] The Obama communication shop branded Fox News an arm of the Republican Party and said it wasn't news, said it was fake news. The pool defended Fox in 2009 and the pool is now defending CNN in 2026. The same pool, the same job, some of the same reporters, the pundits who cheered them and who cheered them on then and grieve today failed the test.

[11:32] Conversations, not edicts, not orders. This is complicated, but harm reduction is possible. Harm reduction is possible by adding more news and less opinion to the content. Harm reduction is possible by. Pushing some of the QAnon craziness out of your news feed on Facebook.

[11:50] This is not ultimately about freedom of speech. It's about freedom of reach. You failed because you're a hypocrite. So did the ones grieving then and cheering now. All of them hypocrites. So have a standard. Keep the standard. It should be a constitutional standard. On Monday, I cheered. Excuse me. On Monday, I agreed with Sinkwigger. On Tuesday, I'm partially defending the press. I'm not defending their right, their privilege to the White House. I'm I'm defending their right to the First Amendment and freedom of the press. So if I if I endorse kale and raw okra by Wednesday, somebody do a wellness check on me, please. In 2023, the Biden White House tightened the press pass rules. They went from credentials from one thousand four hundred and seventeen to nine hundred and seventy five. And guess what kind of media outlets took the brunt of those credentials being.

[12:50] Rebutted being reversed. Those one hundred forty passes mainly went to conservative reporters. They took a heavy share of those over four hundred press passes that were declined. Those credentials were declined in the Biden administration. So they didn't call it a First Amendment issue back then. But all of a sudden it is it is now when President Trump wants to limit the number of press in the press room at the White House. So a credential rule is what it was called, not an outlet ban.

[13:21] This White House is the first White House in history who has selected a pool who's taken pool press pool selection away from the Correspondents Association. I kind of say good for Trump on this. Finding more fair minded media, more podcaster type of media, new media. They have a microphone and they are reporting more fairly. You can't get a fair shake as a conservative on mainstream media. It's very hard unless you sympathize with one of their causes.

[13:53] That's the only time you get a fair shake. So it's the first administration to pick its own pool. And I say good for President Trump on that CNN has spelled my name wrong twice while I've been live on air and I still go on. I don't I don't fault them for it. My take is a little bit different. I feel that even on leftist leaning networks, the people deserve to hear our side. They deserve to hear the truth. They deserve to hear it from someone who will not filter it. And you've got to hear different perspectives because we all live in this bubble. And I think that the American people deserve to hear all sides and not just be in a one sided bubble. But the Correspondents Association presidents of Fox News report, he pointed out the case law. Case law is actually against the president. Once the White House grants access, courts have generally held it can't be inked arbitrarily.

[14:48] Or over the content of the coverage. It can't be yanked because of negative news coverage. That's not why that's that's how the courts have handled this. So I expect that the court will rule, even though it's a Trump appointed judge. My expectation is that the courts will rule against President Trump on this because of what he stated in that tweet. That it was over negative coverage as opposed to constitutional rights versus privileges. So but the roles and precedent will be set. Whatever this White House can do to CNN, the next White House can do to Fox News. So the precedent is being set and it runs in both directions.

[15:26] Now we're going to talk about the lone juror. On

[15:32] Monday, the filings were made public. The defense filings. Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's attorney, has requested the private phone records of the lone black Republican juror who refused to find Lindsey Clancy innocent of murder. They have named him. Now docs him. They've named him. And I won't. I won't put his name up. I'm going to show his photo with his beautiful newborn baby that he gave to the media outlets. But they want his phone and text records every day of the day of deliberation. Now, they're not asking for the other jurors who allegedly pressured some of the last few holdouts. He's not asking for those jurors text messages, private text messages and phone communications. Just the black one. Just the black man. Because he wouldn't go along to get along. A holdout juror in the Lindsey Clancy murder trial was speaking out this morning for the first time since the mistrial. He says his views were misrepresented by his fellow jurors.

[16:35] In a statement, the juror said, 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 presented. Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned. This to me sets a very frightening and terrifying judicial precedent. This juror, you know, one juror says he was scrolling through videos.

[17:09] Doesn't mention if they were on a break or eating lunch or whatever. So basically what Reddington, basically what I believe Reddington is trying to do is get the trial dismissed on double jeopardy.

[17:21] He wants to get the whole case dismissed. He's going to try to find some way that this juror did something wrong and ignore the improper behavior of the other jurors. The lone juror, lone black juror said the other jurors were more like activists. The majority of them were more like activists than jurors and were operating that way. So there's going to be no obviously discussion, debate or research or pleadings about the activist jurors. Just the one who's just the only black man. That's it. And I've told y'all. I think that the left, these white privileged leftists are the most racist group in the country. Special liberal white women. My complaint, you know, his name and his photo were surfaced on social media. Kevin Reddington's wife, who's Lindsay Clancy's attorney, got in on smashing the lone juror online. A newspaper printed his name and death threats followed. This guy has had to go into hiding. He heard. He felt that she was guilty and felt that at the time she was not or I should say not guilty for a reason of insanity.

[18:30] He felt that she was sane when she did it. And that's exactly what he told me. Okay. What about the reasonable doubt part? Did he did he mention to you? Because that's what they say. He and his wife left their home for an undisclosed location in New England. This is crazy. And it's terrifying to me. That this passes for a court system is like a kangaroo court. I'm not going to say his name. The Democrats in the left have doxxed this guy. I'm going to show his photo through his lawyer. He said that his client, the lone black juror, had no doubts. And other jurors have gone on television against him, outing him and making statements about him. Mere strangers have raised over three hundred and fifty thousand dollars for him and his wife. And a jury vote now comes down to a manhunt and a fundraiser. And I just, you know, to me that this is setting a very dangerous precedent that as a juror, this guy wasn't he didn't want to be there.

[19:33] He didn't ask to be there. He didn't ask to be. He didn't ask to be on the jury.

[19:38] This is not what he asked for. He didn't ask for his life to be threatened. But this is what the left did to a black man. This is basically a modern day lynching of a lone black juror. It was Democrats. Democrats that were pro slavery. Also, it was Democrats that started the KKK. And now Democrats are are figuratively lynching the only black juror on the Lindsay Clancy case. That's what this is. This is a modern day lynching of this guy. I don't know if he's had to quit his job. I don't know how anybody can afford to go through what they're what he's going through right now. How do you do that? Three hundred fifty thousand dollars is not enough for this guy. And, you know, his vote to me, his vote was right. Contrary to Lindsay Clancy's attorney, I did follow along with the case as I could. And although I was in the courtroom, neither were Patrick Clancy's kids. They'll never be in that courtroom. They'll never get the last word like you will, Kevin Reddington, on behalf of your client. So last night, jury duty is the one job that the government can compel you to do.

[20:42] You don't get to say no. You have to show up. So the lone black juror. Answered the summons. He showed up. And if answering honestly in a jury trial ends with a man hiding, going into hiding out of his own state.

[21:02] The next holdout falls on day one. Folds in a few hours. Nobody wants to go through this sort of thing. But that is the danger that I believe is the psychosis going on on the left. I'm in the middle of drafting an op ed about this. But, you know, it's not Lindsey Clancy's psychosis. It is the psychosis of the Democrat Party. It's the psychosis of the modern leftist. They're coming for me. The right wingers. They put voices in my head. It's a conspiracy. I have to resist. Today. And I've gotten in some debates with people about liberalism versus leftism. I think that's an honest debate. But most people don't see the difference right now. Because it's all coddled on one side.

[21:50] No one's going to vote guilty if this is the outcome. That you get pushed out of your own home. You can't even live in your own home. There will never be a guilty verdict again in Massachusetts if the answer is if you are the lone guy voting guilty.

[22:13] You can't live safely. You can't live freely. You have to move out of your home. You have to move out of state to keep your family alive. That's where we are today. That's where the racist left is gone with this thing. Last night I defended Patrick Clancy from internet detectives. He didn't kill his kids. And you are if you think so. The same rule goes tonight for a juror plenty of people are furious at. Fight in the courtroom on the 29th of September. Get the woman a retrial. It's going to be what it's going to be. Hopefully it won't be the death penalty because they don't have that in Massachusetts.

[22:51] But leave the jurors out of it. Tonight was about the difference between rights and privileges and duties. The press has a right to report. The press has the right to publish.

[23:03] A poll seat is a privilege. It is not a right. And that is the argument. Privileges come and go. They come and go. And that's what this is about. But the juror, the lone black juror, he had neither.

[23:18] He had a duty. The one thing he had was a duty. He was required to be there. The one thing in this country you can be summoned to that you're required to do is jury duty. You can't get out of it if they pick you.

[23:30] Rights have lawyers.

[23:33] Privileges have lawyers.

[23:36] Duties, duties just have you. A juror showed up for a summons he never agreed to and never asked for. And voted in what he believed in. Which was the truth. He's now in hiding. Nobody throws a parade for unglamorous jobs and unglamorous people. The whole system runs on people doing their job anyway just like that juror did. I see you're not following me. Hit the follow button now.