US Ability to Fight China in Question as Iran War Has Drained Stockpiles

(Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com) US and Taiwanese officials are alarmed at the status of the US military and its ability to fight a future conflict with China

According to three sources speaking with The Washington Post, officials at Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACCOM) have expressed frustration with the dwindling military resources available to deter China. 

One official said 30 warships were taken from INDOPACCOM’s area of command and moved to the Middle East. This includes the USS George Washington aircraft carrier, leaving East Asia without a carrier. 

“It’s clear that they’re paying a big price, especially on the Navy side of things,” the official explained.

The US has also used a significant number of the munitions it would need in a conflict with China during the war against Iran. Multiple leaks and studies have revealed the US used a substantial amount of its stockpile of THAAD, Patriot, SM-6, SM-3, Tomahawk, JASSM, PrSM, and ATACMS missiles. 

A Taiwanese official told The Post Taipei that it expects “significant delays” in the delivery of Patriot interceptors and described the backlog as “troubling.”

The official expressed frustration that Washington expects Taipei to keep buying American weapons even as delivery delays increase. “The situation is very challenging,” they said.

President Donald Trump has also held up arms transfers to Taiwan in an effort to maintain his relationship with China. Trump is planning to meet with Chinese leader Xi Jinping next month in Washington. 

Beijing suggested that if Washington approved additional arms sales to Taipei, Xi would call off the upcoming summit. One Chinese official said any signals that the White House will approve the package would “severely undermine” further potential visits.

This article originally appeared at Antiwar.com. 

CIA Chief Ratcliffe Warned Russia Not to Attack NATO Countries

(Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com) Update: US officials told multiple outlets that President Donald Trump dispatched CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Russia to warn Moscow not to attack any NATO countries. Earlier this week, an adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that “unknown actors” could attack UK facilities producing weapons for Ukraine. Additionally, Ratcliffe relayed to his Russian counterpart that if Iran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the US will impose additional economic penalties.

The White House and Kremlin confirmed that CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow this week to meet with his Russian counterpart. 

On Tuesday, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe flew to Russia to meet with officials, according to CBS News. At the time, the sources did not say who Ratcliffe met with or what was discussed. 

Washington and Moscow confirmed that Ratcliffe was in Moscow to meet with the top Russian intelligence official. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump told Glenn Beck that the meeting was “sort of semi-routine.” 

On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that “contacts between intelligence agencies are, in and of themselves, a positive phenomenon, a positive process,” but he stressed that Russia-US relations remain in a “profound crisis.”

While President Donald Trump pledged that he would end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office, the conflict has continued to escalate. In his conversation with Beck, Trump suggested the talks were not leading to a deal to end the war. 

On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported speaking with sources close to the Kremlin who said Russian President Vladimir Putin believes talks are at an impasse and is considering increasing the number of missile strikes on Kiev. 

On Wednesday, Russia reported that a Ukrainian missile struck a bus in Luhansk, killing nine. Additionally, Ukraine used a European cruise missile to attack the center of the Donets region. Russian officials reported that eight civilians were injured in the strike. 

This article originally appeared at Antiwar.com. 

US Begins Sending Staff Back to Middle East Embassies

(Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com) Staffers have begun returning to US diplomatic facilities across the Middle East. US embassies in the region have been at a minimal operational level for several months due to the ongoing war against Iran. 

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported obtaining an internal State Department memo that ordered the return of some diplomatic officers to their posts in the Middle East and rescinded some emergency measures put in place during the war against Iran. 

The memo said some staff would return to embassies in Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, Iraq and Kuwait. The US embassies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were hit by Iran during the war. 

The return of staff to embassies in the region is a sharp reversal for the State Department. Earlier this month, US diplomatic facilities across the Middle East were preparing for an extended period of reduced operations because of the ongoing war against Iran. 

CNN reported speaking with sources who said that the State Department is preparing to operate with minimal staff in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. Washington has asked embassies in the region to draft plans for continued minimal operations and is offering diplomats curtailed assignments. 

The outlet notes that “the developments underscore that the State Department does not expect to return to normal staffing in the region soon amid the looming threat of a full-scale return to war.”

The reversal followed a shift in President Donald Trump’s approach to the war against Iran.  Axios reported speaking with US officials who said Secretary of State Marco Rubio told allies that the US was not planning any new attacks on Iran. The US will focus its efforts on enforcing sanctions and a blockade against Iran.

This article originally appeared at Antiwar.com.

Former DOJ Lawyer Calls Suit Over Mail-in Ballots Unnecessary

(Chris Woodward, The Center Square) California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a lawsuit Wednesday to block a new federal rule governing mail-in ballots. But a former U.S. Department of Justice lawyer who’s now working at a think tank says the suit is unnecessary.

Prompted by President Donald Trump’s Executive Order No. 14399, the U.S. Postal Service rule requires states to enroll eligible mail-in voters onto USPS-managed lists and conform to new postal envelope design standards. The USPS stated it would refuse to deliver ballots for voters not on these lists or ballots sent in non-compliant envelopes.

The lawsuit by Democratic attorneys general was filed Wednesday morning in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.

But the litigation wasn’t needed, said Hans von Spakovsky of Advancing American Freedom, a Washington, D.C., conservative advocacy organization founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, a Republican.

The claims made in Wednesday’s lawsuit area are as “defective” as those made in the states’ previous lawsuit against the Trump administration over mail-in ballots, according to Spakovsky.

“All the state has to do is provide a list to the Postal Service of all of the registered voters that are qualified and approved by the state to receive a mail-in ballot,” Spakovsky told The Center Square Wednesday.

“The procedure set up in the rule will in no way prevent any eligible, registered voter from being able to cast a ballot,” said Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom.

Spakovsky noted the U.S. Postal Service’s tracking system will give states an ability they haven’t had to track mail-in ballots to ensure they’re not delivered to the wrong address or stuck in a USPS distribution center. He added that the USPS rule applies to federal agencies and does not “unconstitutionally infringe on the states’ administration of election.” 

But Bonta and his fellow Democratic attorney generals say states, not the federal government, should set rules for elections.

This is California’s 86th lawsuit against Trump in 83 weeks.

The litigation follows a Monday decision by the U.S. Supreme Court granting an emergency stay requested by the Trump administration. The Supreme Court ruled that the states’ earlier challenge to the executive order was filed too early but noted attorneys general could challenge the U.S. Postal Service rule implementing Trump’s order.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday in a virtual press conference, Bonta said Trump “does not have the authority” here.

“Neither Congress nor the Constitution give the Postal Service the power to regulate elections or refuse to deliver lawful mail-in ballots,” said Bonta, a Democrat running for reelection on Nov. 3 against Republican attorney Michael Gates.

Trump issued the executive order in March, stating that this is about enhancing federal election integrity, preventing noncitizens from voting, and establishing new standards and procedures for mail-in and absentee ballots.

Twenty-three other Democratic attorneys general are involved in the lawsuit, along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who’s also a Democrat.

“President Trump doesn’t get to rewrite our voting system on a whim,” said Bonta. “And the United States Postal Service cannot sidestep the laws that govern the Postal Service just to carry out the president’s agenda.”

After the Supreme Court decision in favor of Trump, California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded by saying that the Golden State would be filing a new lawsuit. Newsom also pushed for state legislation that will establish new felonies and misdemeanors for seizing election materials or interfering with mail-in ballot delivery.

The White House dismissed the Democratic governor’s comments.

“The Supreme Court ruling was a major win for the security of American elections,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told The Center Square Tuesday in an email. “Radical Democrats continue to oppose commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders.”

Bis added that the Trump administration will “continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on – which includes the safety and security of our elections.” 

When asked Wednesday for comment, Bonta told The Center Square that “the president and the United States Postal Service are violating the Constitution” of the United States. 

“We have a U.S. Constitution that is stronger than any president or any federal department, including the U.S. Postal Service, and they’re blatantly, brazenly breaking the law, and they are interfering with our elections,” said Bonta. “They have no right to do it. So whatever their spin, their script, their disinformation, the people of this country deserve better than a president who continues to break the law and tries to interfere with our elections.”

Bonta added that Newsom was “absolutely right” when he said California was going to sue.

“Today, we are suing, and we feel very confident in our case,” said Bonta.

The Center Square reached out to Bonta’s office in hope of getting answers about whether regulations could prevent potential fraud with mail-in ballots and ensure noncitizens aren’t voting in state and federal elections. The Center Square also contacted the office to ask if the new U.S. Postal Service rule could inadvertently keep ballots out of the hands of registered voters. The Center Square did not hear back by publication time.

Besides Bonta in California, the Democratic attorneys general filing the suit are from Nevada, Washington state, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, is also among the plaintiffs.

ICE Agent Accused in Minnesota Released from Texas Jail

(Andrew Rice, The Center Square) An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent accused of shooting into a Minnesota home was released from a jail in Texas Thursday after a federal judge refused to extradite him to Minnesota.

ICE officer Christian Castro was in custody in Cameron County, Texas. Castro was arrested in May by the Texas Rangers after Minnesota prosecutors issued a warrant for his arrest on four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.

He is accused of firing a gun into a Minneapolis home, striking a Venezuelan national in the leg in January.

Under Texas law, Castro had to be released after 90 days of detention, which was Thursday.

Minnesota prosecutors sought to extradite Castro to the state, citing fears he would flee the country. However, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he is waiting on the outcome of an internal state investigation before granting extradition.

U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. said he found no evidence Abbott was acting in bad faith by waiting to review Castro’s case before determining extradition, the Center Square reported.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued Abbott last week, in an effort to require the Texas governor to sign the extradition order.

“The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the case is not ripe for adjudication,” the judge’s order read. “Minnesota cannot premise its causes of action on the allegation that Governor Abbott may violate those authorities in the future; it must prove that a violation has already occurred.”

‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ Gets GOP Pushback at Capitol

(Madeline Shannon, The Center Square) Republican lawmakers, independent journalist Nick Shirley and a large crowd of activists spoke out against a bill Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed into law that some said would impede the work of journalists reporting on immigration services providers.

Assembly Bill 2624, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, was signed into law by the Democratic California governor late last week after it passed Aug.19 on the Assembly floor in Sacramento. The bill protects the personal identifiable information of immigrant services organization workers from being published online, in large part to protect those workers from being harassed, threatened and doxxed.

However, some ardent opponents of the bill said at the press conference on Wednesday that the bill keeps journalists from asking questions of those groups and reporting on the work those organizations do. Republican lawmakers nicknamed the bill the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” invoking the name of independent YouTube video journalist Nick Shirley.

“In America, we have a right to free speech and freedom of the press,” Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, said at the press conference outside the Capitol, where Shirley stood next to Strickland. “This bill has vague language that could raise serious First Amendment concerns and interfere with the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.”

Shirley also spoke at the press conference.

“Here in California, instead of going after the fraudsters, we are now going after those who are going to expose the fraud,” Shirley told the crowd. “There’s actually no need for this bill. They just created a protected class by calling this group, immigration support services providers, saying that I, and you, cannot expose them.”

The press conference outside the Capitol was part of a rally that continued after speakers finished talking to reporters. Later, posts on X showed videos of California Highway Patrol officers, who handle law enforcement at the Capitol, arresting a man who allegedly clashed with those attending the rally.

The Center Square contacted the CHP’s Capitol Protection Division, which declined to answer questions but said it would issue a press release soon. The release wasn’t issued by publication time.

According to previous reporting by The Center Square, Democrats defended the bill as a measure that would ensure the safety of employees and volunteers at groups that provide immigration services.

“Right wing agitators are intentionally misrepresenting my legislation, AB 2624, because they believe that people who have dedicated their careers to serving their community should be silenced and forced into the shadows,” Bonta said in a video message previously sent to The Center Square. “People who work to help immigrant communities should not have to fear being doxxed for doing so.”

The state-run “Safe at Home” program that already protects the personal information for other groups of people, including domestic violence victims, reproductive care workers and those who work for gender-affirming care providers, Bonta added.

“My bill and the Safe at Home program defines this as sharing personal information with the intent to incite imminent great bodily harm or place someone in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety,” Bonta said.

According to the bill, a court could fine the person convicted of breaking the law $4,000, possibly more.

Ex-Border Chief Claims There are Over 100 Million Illegals in the US

(José Niño, Headline USA) Former Border Patrol commander at large Gregory Bovino used a recent sitdown with Tucker Carlson to repeat a claim he has made for months, that the United States currently harbors 107 million people living here illegally.

Bovino, who oversaw border operations from October 2025 until his March 2026 resignation following fatal officer involved shootings during his deployment to Minneapolis, told Carlson directly, “Right now, in the US, I’ve got the number 107 million illegal aliens currently residing with impunity, one quarter of the total US population.”

Pressed further by Carlson on the figure, Bovino doubled down without hesitation. “A hundred and seven million? Hundred and seven million. One quarter of the population. We’ve got three hundred and thirty thousand, approximately, American citizens, add another 107 million onto that. I think you can look around in any state, any region, or any city in the United States if you’re just a regular American citizen and say you know what? There’s an awful lot of illegal aliens and foreigners in our country,” he said.

Carlson agreed with the sentiment, responding that the country “is a completely different country because it’s got a completely different population” and suggesting Americans face social pressure to avoid discussing it openly.

This isn’t a new talking point for Bovino. According to Raw Story reporting, he has floated numbers between 100 million and 108 million across several interviews since March, calling deportation of that population his “one and only priority.” Bovino has explained he built the figure by examining a 2006 financial document from the defunct Bear Stearns firm, then extrapolating outward using his own estimate of illegal crossings over a 20 year span based on what he says he personally observed during his career, as reported by Border Hawk.

Demographers and immigration researchers have poured cold water on the number cited by Bovino. Pew Research Center’s most current data places the illegal immigrant population at roughly 14 million within a total U.S. population of nearly 340 million. The Independent reports that even counting all immigrants, both legal and illegal, the Census places that total closer to 50 million, about 15 percent of the population.

José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino 

Local Woman Faces Fines, Legal Action for Serving Free Breakfast at Home

(Morgan Sweeney, The Center Square) A local Missouri health department has told Kathy Kite, a grandmother who serves free breakfast to her neighbors from her home, that she will face legal action if she continues doing so without a permit.

That letter came in July, and Kite has continued to serve breakfast since. Think tank and public interest law firm the Goldwater Institute has taken up her cause.

“Citizens should not be required to get the government’s permission before offering passers-by some coffee and a bite to eat while they socialize,” Dave Roland, the Institute’s Director of Allied Litigation, told The Center Square in a statement.

Breakfast at Kite’s started as a joke back in May. The local gas station had stopped serving breakfast, and when Kite asked one of the owners about it, he goaded her into making some at her house, sending some locals her way.

“I said, OK, come on over, guys. I’ll make you breakfast,” Kite said, recounting the story. “So the next morning, I got up at like 4 o’clock in the morning because they come at like five.”

It grew from there.

Now she makes 20-25 servings – which Kite noted usually amounts to about eight to 10 people, who often take some for their families – six days a week, and she does it all free of charge. She keeps a jar out where people can donate, but donations are entirely voluntary. Kite said her parents taught her to take care of those in need.

“My mom and dad were raised in the Depression, and so we were raised hearing the stories of how they went hungry,” Kite told The Center Square. “My mom once told me, she said, ‘You never know when you’re entertaining an angel. So if someone comes to your door, you welcome them in, and you give them something to drink. If they’re hungry, you feed them.’”

But the local health department received an anonymous complaint that claimed Kite’s food had made people sick and that her home was “very dirty and she had a lot of cats that made it unsanitary.”

Kite says she doesn’t have any cats and is not aware of her food having made anyone sick. Kite said her daughter owns a cleaning company and also helps Kite clean her home.

The Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services sent Kite a letter in July threatening legal action if she continued providing free breakfasts to community members without a permit or a commercial kitchen, which would likely require tens of thousands of dollars to install.

“A complaint has been issued for [Kite’s address.] The resident is allegedly serving items that are not approved under cottage law, making the business subject to inspection. Therefore, you are currently in violation of The City of Columbia Food Code numbers 8-301.11,” the letter states.

It goes on to cite the code.

“A person shall not operate a food establishment without a valid permit to operate issued by the regulatory authority.”

Under Missouri law, people are allowed to sell foods approved under cottage law – like baked goods and canned jams – but the law doesn’t seem to differentiate between those supplying unapproved foods for free or for sale.

The Center Square asked the department whether that included family and friends one might have over for dinner.

“It is not illegal to serve food to family and friends. Food establishments are required to have a permit,” wrote Austin Krohn, a spokesperson for the department, in response. “At the time the first complaint was received, Ms. Kite’s home had an open sign, tip jar, advertised food on social media and a sign in her yard – all things typically associated with a food establishment.”

Kite claims she bought the open sign to let people know when they could come by.

The Goldwater Institute says that food codes across the country fail to clearly distinguish between commercial food establishments and noncommercial food service. According to the department, the framework for the current food code was established in 1962, and state policies were in place before then.

“The model food code that’s been adopted over and over all over the country is written so broadly that it can indeed be applied outside of commercial contexts,” Roland said on a local radio show.

This has led to other instances where charitable people and organizations have come into conflict with health departments. In some cases, health departments have bleached unpermitted food. Roland also defended a St. Louis pastor who served food to the homeless for roughly 40 years before his ministry came under fire by local health officials.

This case is different even than those, Roland notes, because Kite is serving people in her own home.

“Americans have always embraced the virtue of opening their homes and tables to friends, family, and even strangers – and there has never been a need to get the government’s permission to engage in this sort of hospitality,” Roland told The Center Square.

Roland argued in a letter to the Columbia/Boone County health department submitted Thursday that Kite’s right to provide free food in her home stands on legal precedent set by the Supreme Court and that Missouri’s food code may violate both the state and federal Constitutions.

The letter gives the department until Friday, Aug. 28, to respond. If it holds its ground, the Goldwater Institute says it may file a lawsuit.

Jury Deliberates Whether Lindsay Clancy is Liable for the Murder of Her 3 Children

(Headline USA) Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts, are deliberating Wednesday whether the former labor and delivery nurse is criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023.

While both sides agree she killed her children, Clancy’s defense team argued she suffered from postpartum psychosis, with defense attorney Kevin Reddington stating that “ lousy medical care ” exacerbated her condition. Prosecutors at the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office argued she intentionally planned the killings and that the nation’s healthcare system is “ not on trial here.”

Postpartum psychosis is estimated to afflict 1 to 2 per 1,000 women after delivery.

Experts at the Cleveland Clinic describe it as a mental health emergency affecting someone’s sense of reality. It can happen to anyone after giving birth, but the chances are higher for people with certain mental health conditions. Though most people with postpartum psychosis don’t harm their children, mothers with severe cases may try to do so, and also may try to harm themselves.

Jurors must decide whether Clancy committed first-degree murder in each child’s death. 

The charge, which requires proof of premeditation and malice, carries a sentence of life without parole.

If jurors acquit of her that charge, they must consider lesser counts.

Those include second-degree murder, which carries of sentence of life with the possibility of parole. To be convicted on this charge, the killings must have been deliberate but not planned.

If they find her not guilty on that charge, the jury will consider a manslaughter conviction, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in state prison. It is defined as an unlawful killing without intent to cause harm.

The jury could also conclude that Clancy killed the children but is not guilty because she lacked criminal responsibility due to a mental disease or defect. This is known as the insanity defense.

If the jury finds Clancy not guilty, a judge can order an evaluation. If she is found mentally ill and a danger to herself or others, the court can commit her to a state mental hospital for six months. She would be assessed annually, but could remain hospitalized for the rest of her life.

If she is no longer considered dangerous or suffering from a mental illness, Clancy would be discharged.

After jurors left the courtroom, Sullivan commended the prosecution and defense for their efforts.

“Unless you’ve tried a difficult murder like this one, you may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this,” he said. “It’s emotionally taxing. It’s intellectually challenging. It’s physically exhausting.”

The jury has started to deliberate in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, a mother accused of strangling her three young children in a case that has drawn attention to postpartum mental health. Clancy has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Her lawyers have argued she was experiencing postpartum psychosis when she killed Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy at the family’s home in coastal Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. The rare mental illness is linked to the stress, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes that follow childbirth. Prosecutors say Clancy planned the killings and understood her actions were wrong. Jurors must decide whether she was criminally responsible and, if so, exactly what crimes she committed.

Before the jury left the courtroom, Sullivan appointed one of the jurors, identified only as No. 257, as foreperson.

He told them a deliberation is not an easy task, and to respect each other’s opinions.

Sullivan has told jurors that Clancy retains the presumption of innocence unless they find her guilty.

“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt,” the judge says.

“The charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you’ve compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true.”

Sprague has ended her closing argument describing how horrific and cruel the killings were.

“She left them discarded on the basement floor like broken toys because she was done playing the game,” Sprague says. “You know to a moral certainty she is guilty.”

The judge is now giving the jury more instructions ahead of the start of deliberations.

Sprague confronts one of the central questions in the case: Why would a mother who loved her children kill them?

“She was depressed. She was exhausted. She was done. She didn’t want to try anymore. She felt damaged,” Sprague says. “But those kids, those kids were her protective factor. Those kids were keeping her from ending her misery.”

And so, Sprague says, Clancy “had to remove the protective factor.”

Sprague adds Clancy had other options, including moving to her mother’s for more support or killing herself and leaving the kids alive.

“It was a choice to take them with her. It was a horrible choice,” the prosecutor says. 

“It is a choice that we don’t want to think about that a mother could make, because that doesn’t make us feel safe or comfortable in this world. But it’s a choice she made.”

Sprague alleges Clancy sent her then-husband to get some take-out food at a local restaurant to give her time to kill the children. She even checked a map to see how long it would take him to collect the food and return home.

“What she needed to know was how long specifically on that night it would take to get there,” Sprague says, “because she knew she would have a limited amount of time to do what she wanted to do. And what she had decided to do was to kill the children and then kill herself.”

When Clancy saw she would need more time than the restaurant trip would take, she asked her then-husband to also pick up medication at a local pharmacy, Sprague says.

“She’s adding to this errand and she has to make sure she’s not interrupted,” Sprague says.

Sprague says Clancy’s decision not to tell her mental health providers about thoughts she had in December 2022 of harming her children shows she understood those thoughts were wrong.

Clancy disclosed the thoughts to her then-husband and to her mother, but not to her doctors, Sprague says.

Clancy feared her children could be taken away if she told a mandated reporter, Sprague says.

“That’s a rational thought,” Sprague says. “It also shows you that she knew it was a bad thought, a wrong thought.”

“Not only is she hiding it. She is lying about it.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague acknowledges that Clancy sought help for her mental health struggles, but argued that she did not always take medications as prescribed or give her providers complete and accurate information.

“She wanted to get better, but she wanted to get better on her own terms,” Sprague says. “And as a nurse, she knew that’s not the right way to approach it.”

Sprague rejects the defense’s argument that Clancy did not receive the care she needed, saying her providers were working with the information Clancy gave them.

“This doesn’t mean that she wasn’t struggling, that she wasn’t dealing with these mental health issues,” Sprague says. “She had depression.”

But, she adds: “They were doing the best they could with her level of cooperation and compliance with the plan.”

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague says the case isn’t about the “mental health system or how it treats women.”

“That’s a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that’s not on trial here,” she says.

The case, Sprague says, is about whether Clancy could recognize what was wrong with her actions and conform her actions to the law. In Clancy’s case, she had more support and resources than most have when navigating the American health care system.

“This wasn’t a woman suffering from a lack of care, a lack of resources,” she says. “She had an abundance of health, an abundance of care. She had all of that and more.”

Before Reddington concluded his closing argument, he held up a posterboard with some of Clancy’s desperate writings as her mental health deteriorated.

He says she was in “the depths of the despair” before the killings.

She wrote that he was having “horrible, intrusive thoughts” that prompted her to seek treatment.

At one point, her writings became like gibberish, he says.

“There’s nothing other than little chicken scratches because her mind was gone,” Reddington said.

Reddington describes Clancy attempt to research support for postpartum depression, called a suicide hotline, visited multiple providers and was voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

“My God, what does she have to do? She was reaching out for help and she wasn’t getting it,” he says.

Reddington has told the jury that Clancy ’lived for her kids” but after she starting seeing a doctor, “it was not a wonderful life anymore.”

“You have the medical records. You heard the testimony. You know her concerns. You know her fears,” Reddington said. “Does this sound like a young lady that didn’t care and wanted to score more drugs off somebody? That’s another repulsive allegation.”

Reddington holds up a posterboard with some of Clancy’s desperate writings as her mental health deteriorated.

He says she was in “the depths of the despair” before the killings.

The defense attorney holds up a small “wish box” that Lindsay Clancy and her then-husband, Patrick, bought on their honeymoon in Hawaii, before they had children.

Over the years, the couple filled the box with slips of paper recording their hopes for the future. Some were dated 2017, 2018 and 2020.

“They reference her wishes to have healthy kids, her wishes for her kids to be successful, her wishes to have a good birth the second time around,” Reddington says.

The box offers a glimpse of the life the couple had imagined for their family years before Clancy killed their three children, he says.

Reddington is reminding jurors of what he told them at the beginning of the trial.

“In my opening statement, I told you, I said, ‘Watch the evidence, watch the manipulation,’ because that’s what this case was built upon originally and how it developed as the case progressed until it’s in front of you,” he says.

Reddington says the prosecution has tried to paint Clancy’s suicide attempt as less serious than it was.

“She made a very, very significant suicide effort,” he says. “They were arguing that it was a fake suicide. Dinky little cuts. No bleeding … You know that’s not what happened.”

Reddington is up first.

He thanks the jury for their service during the monthlong trial, through tough and gut-wrenching testimony.

“Sadly, juries carry this burden with them for years,” Reddington says.

He names all three children.

“They are the victims in this case,” Reddington says.

Lindsay Clancy stares straight ahead as the judge goes over the instructions.

At one point, she dabs her eyes with a tissue.

Judge William Sullivan printed out a copy of the instructions for the panel.

He reminded jurors that Clancy is innocent until proven guilty, and went over the elements of the charges.

He said a defendant is not criminally responsible for their conduct if they have a mental diseases or defect.

Sullivan tells the jury that they will consider three counts of murder in the first degree for each of the children but can consider murder in the second degree.

“If you find the defendant guilty of murder you shall decide the degree of murder,” he told the jury.

The judge says a defendant may form the required intent needed to prove a murder charge and act with premeditation even if she suffered from a mental impairment or consumed prescription.

The doors of the courtroom have opened and about 90 people have shuffled inside.

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s office has several people in the front row, including District Attorney Timothy Cruz.

Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, is pacing back and forth and Clancy has yet to arrive.

Clancy’s parents Mike and Paula Musgrove are in the front, sitting alongside members of Reddington’s defense team. Neither Patrick Clancy nor his family are here.

The courtroom is filled.

“A month ago, five weeks ago, I didn’t know anything about this, and it’s just been quite a very, very scary eye-opener for me,” defense attorney Kevin Reddington told The Associated Press before proceedings began Thursday.

“I do hope that it has opened a discussion and people realize how serious this is. The mother’s postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, the babies, the statistics, it’s just horrifying,” Reddington says. “And you cannot just deal with human beings in that type of distress on a telemedical Zoom call and throw pills at them.”

Asked how Clancy has been coping during the trial, Reddington said “not well,” describing her as scared and sad.

Reddington declined to offer a preview of his closing argument, saying he had nothing written down and would decide what to say when he got to the courtroom.

Many are dressed in pink and calling attention to women’s mental health issues.

“I feel that mental health is at the cornerstone of this, but so is community, family — and we need to believe women,” said Marta Quijano. “And we need to support people and help people when they ask for help. And as a physician myself, I’ve been on both sides of this coin when women are dismissed for our concerns, and it’s not fair.”

Lyn Feeney said women suffering in their mental health, especially new mothers, need support from a variety of people.

“The more children you have, the harder it gets,” she said. “So I feel like women just need support from mental health professionals, physicians, family and the justice system.”

About 75 people were waiting around 7:30 a.m. ET to get into the Plymouth County court building, including journalists and other members of the public.

Several media outlets have set up canopies on a nearby grassy area. A handful of people wearing pink in support were also in line.

Postpartum psychosis usually happens within several days of giving birth but can occur up to six weeks afterwards.

Symptoms may include hallucinations, delusions, paranoia or other behavior changes.

A woman may also have mood changes, such as mania or depression, disorganized thinking or behavior, insomnia, irritability or agitation.

Mothers with the condition need inpatient mental healthcare, which can include involuntary hospitalization. Treatments include medications or electroconvulsive therapy, a procedure done under anesthesia in which small electric currents pass through the brain, intentionally causing a brief seizure.

Experts say getting help early increases the odds of a good outcome.

Postpartum psychosis is estimated to afflict only 1 to 2 per 1,000 women after delivery. 

Experts at the Cleveland Clinic describe it as a mental health emergency affecting someone’s sense of reality.

It can happen to anyone after giving birth, but the chances are higher for people with certain mental health conditions. In a journal article on the subject in 2023, researchers at the Medical University of Lublin in Poland said about half of people with postpartum psychosis have a previous history of psychiatric problems and the most common risk factor associated with the condition is bipolar affective disorder, which causes extreme mood swings.

Though most people with postpartum psychosis don’t harm their children, mothers with severe cases may try to do so, and also may try to harm themselves.

Experts say it’s important to seek immediate help if you or your partner or family member show signs of postpartum psychosis.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Shackled Tate Brothers in Court Asking to be Released from Jail During Extradition Fight

(Headline USA) Social media influencer Tristan Tate took the witness stand in federal court on Thursday and said he and his brother Andrew can’t adequately defend themselves from criminal sex charges if they have to remain in a Miami jail while fighting extradition to the United Kingdom.

Lawyers for the Tates are asking a judge to allow them to be freed from custody at least until an extradition hearing can be held on their U.K. rape and trafficking charges. They have remained in a federal detention center in Miami since they were arrested July 18.

Prosecutors said they appear to have money and have bragged about multiple passports. Their attorneys argued that their high profile and active social media presence make it nearly impossible for them to flee and they have shown they won’t run through cooperating in a separate sex crime case in Romania.

The Tates have become among the world’s most polarizing internet personalities by promoting wealth, male dominance and misogyny through their social media empire.

Andrew Tate, 39, has said women who are sexually assaulted should bear some responsibility for the attacks and shared graphic descriptions of how he might attack women. Tristan Tate, 38, has worked with his brother on multiple businesses, including the production of online webcam pornography.

No date for an extradition hearing has been set. The U.K. has until mid-September to provide evidence to the State Department.

On his way into court Thursday, defense attorney Joseph McBride told reporters he hasn’t heard of a case where U.S. Magistrate Lauren Louis has allowed someone out on bail while awaiting an extradition hearing.

But while the odds aren’t in their favor, McBride felt like the truth was. He called them innocent, good men who have never run from the law.

In court, Tristan Tate was called to the stand Thursday and said he can’t prove he is innocent if he is kept in jail.

“I need to clear my name. I need to take part in these proceedings, I can’t do that from the secure housing unit,” he said.

Tristan Tate also complained of conditions at the Miami jail. He said there are ants and the only toilet in his cell is where anyone walking by can see him. He said he has lost 14 pounds (6.4 kilograms) eating mostly junk food in the nearly six weeks he has been in custody.

The brothers were wearing tan prison clothes and shackled for Thursday’s hearing.

Their lawyers said the U.K.’s request was out of line because their criminal case in Romania is going first. Romanian officials have let them remain free until the proceedings conclude and they have not tried to flee and are complying with all court restrictions.

The judge reminded defense attorneys she has to follow U.S. laws.

Attorneys for the Tates said they largely exaggerated their claims of wealth to boost their social media personas, their claims of multiple passports were satirical and a “$50-million-dollar superyacht” featured in one of the brothers’ videos does not actually belong to them. The expensive luxury cars, including a $2.1 million Aston Martin, that were featured in other videos were rented, the defense says.

The brothers have long claimed that their violent and misogynistic statements have been taken out of context or were intended as jokes.

“That is not the real Andrew Tate, the person Andrew Tate,” said his lawyer Howard Srebnick, who in court Thursday compared Tate on social media to Sacha Baron Cohen’s confrontational Ali G character.

The former professional kickboxers, who have dual U.S. and U.K. citizenship, have millions of social media followers and are vocal supporters of President Donald Trump. The White House has said the brothers shouldn’t expect any help from the president.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press.