On September 8, 2026, attorney Kevin Reddington requested a presidential pardon for Lindsay Clancy during a “Good Morning America” interview. However, because Clancy faces state-level murder charges in Massachusetts, a U.S. President lacks the constitutional authority to grant a pardon, as that power is strictly reserved for federal offenses.
The Audacity of a GMA Appearance
If you were watching Good Morning America yesterday, you might have choked on your avocado toast. Kevin Reddington, the man who has been steering the legal ship for Lindsay Clancy through one of the most gut-wrenching trials in recent memory, looked directly into the camera and asked President Donald Trump for a pardon. Yes, you read that correctly. After a five-week trial ended in a hung jury and a mistrial on September 4, Reddington decided that the best next step wasn’t just a legal brief, but a direct appeal to the Oval Office.
Our analysis via Ground News shows a stark divide in coverage. Right-leaning outlets are focusing heavily on Trump’s earlier “horrible thing” comments and the rule of law, while left-leaning and center-leaning outlets are prioritizing the mental health crisis and the medical failures Reddington highlighted during the GMA interview. Center-ground reporting remains focused on the technical impossibility of the pardon itself.
Watch the Exclusive Interview
The interview, which aired on the morning of September 8, featured Reddington speaking out for the first time since the mistrial. You can watch the full segment below, where he discusses the potential for an agreement with the district attorney and makes his direct plea to the President.
Source: ABC News Exclusive: Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney talks case
The “Small” Matter of the Constitution
Here is where the narrative hits a brick wall made of solid constitutional granite. Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” Note the phrasing: against the United States. That means federal crimes. Lindsay Clancy is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Unless the federal government suddenly decides to charge her with a maritime crime or mail fraud, a presidential pardon is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
So, why did he do it? Some suggest it’s a strategy to influence the potential pool of jurors for a retrial. If the defense can frame this as a case so extraordinary that it warrants “presidential” attention, it shifts the narrative from “triple homicide” to “unprecedented medical tragedy.” It’s a bold play to humanize a client who has been vilified in the darker corners of the internet.
Psychosis, Pills, and the “Price to Pay”
Reddington didn’t just ask for a pardon; he used his airtime to blast the medical establishment. He blamed over-prescription and a failure to recognize the severity of Clancy’s postpartum condition. This isn’t just a legal defense anymore; it’s a crusade. However, he’s fighting an uphill battle with the President himself. Just last Friday, Trump told reporters that Clancy did a “horrible, horrible thing” and that “there will be a price.” It seems the attorney and the President are reading from very different scripts.
No. The President can only pardon federal crimes. Clancy is charged with state-level crimes in Massachusetts, meaning only the Governor of Massachusetts could theoretically issue a pardon.
Most legal analysts view this as a “strategic communication” move to garner public sympathy and pressure the local District Attorney into a plea deal rather than a retrial.
The trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026, after the jury remained deadlocked, reportedly split 11-1 in favor of an “insanity” verdict.
A hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026, where the judge will discuss a potential retrial or other legal resolutions.
As of now, the White House has referred back to the President’s previous comments where he stated that “there will be a price” for the tragedy.
Stay Informed on the Clancy Case
This legal circus is far from over. Join our investigative newsletter for deep dives that the mainstream media is too afraid to touch.