Patrick Clancy, whose three children were killed and whose wife Lindsay Clancy stands accused in their deaths, is reportedly preparing defamation lawsuits against those who publicly blamed him for the crime—and one of the first legal letters has landed on Billy Bush’s desk.
According to an American Thinker column by J.R. Dunn, the lawsuit effort stems from a wave of online claims suggesting Patrick Clancy bore responsibility for the tragedy. His attorneys at Todd and Weld have begun sending letters of intent to people accused of spreading those allegations, warning that a suit will follow unless a retraction is issued promptly.
The letter to Bush, a television and podcast personality, reportedly opened by noting that Patrick Clancy “should be able to focus his time and energy on grieving and healing,” but instead has been forced to contend with “the impacts of irresponsible and horrific misinformation, conspiracy theories, outright lies that resulted in real-life threats to his reputation, livelihood and life.”
What Bush Said and What the Letter Says He Said
Bush read the letter aloud on his podcast—a decision that Dunn concedes earns him “at least some minimal credit.” But Bush’s on-air commentary largely condemned the internet as a whole, as though he were not part of the problem. “The internet,” Bush said, “has no way of filtering out the crazies.”
The letter counters with a specific allegation: that Bush “falsely published as unqualified fact that Mr. Clancy, quote, whether he did this or not, he was very much involved end quote, in the murder.”
Bush then offered what Dunn describes as a convoluted explanation of what he actually meant—an extended clarification that, in Dunn’s view, Bush probably should have run past his own lawyers before saying it out loud.
Dunn points to a post that Asmongold shared of Bush’s original remarks, which differ markedly from Bush’s later recollection. In that version, Bush called Patrick Clancy a “weasel of a man,” said that if Clancy “didn’t do it, he definitely did something,” described his “dereliction of duty as a husband” and “emotional abuse while his wife suffered” as over the top and despicable, and concluded: “Whether he physically did it or not, he is very much involved… Set her free. Set her free. She has suffered enough.”
Dunn flags the closing line as a particularly odd note: “Set her free” reads as a call to action, yet has nothing to do with Patrick Clancy regardless of whether the accusations had merit. The column argues the record strongly suggests otherwise. If killers were released whenever someone had been unkind to them, Dunn writes, Jeffrey Dahmer would still be at large.
What the letter has not produced, at least so far, is a retraction. That means, by Dunn’s reckoning, Bush will likely be explaining his comments in court before long.
A Long History With Trump and the Spotlight
Dunn frames the development as a moment of satisfaction for Trump supporters, given Bush’s history. Bush was caught up in the October 2016 Access Hollywood tape scandal, in which Donald Trump was secretly recorded making crude remarks about women while Bush laughed along. Bush later wrote an editorial in The New York Times attacking Trump and, in Dunn’s description, providing ammunition to Democrats. NBC ultimately fired him from the Today Show anyway. Bush subsequently said he believed the women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct.
The column’s verdict on the whole affair is blunt: Bush, in Dunn’s telling, simply cannot stay out of trouble—followed by a partisan jab about his family name.
The Bigger Legal Question
Strip away the partisan framing, and the Clancy case raises a question courts have been wrestling with more often in recent years: when does speculation about a crime cross into actionable defamation? The letters of intent reportedly describe a pattern of accusations that produced tangible harm—threats to reputation, livelihood and personal safety—rather than mere commentary.
The mechanics of a letter of intent are simple. It puts the recipient on notice that litigation is coming unless a retraction is issued. For public figures like Bush, that recipient faces a high bar to prove defamation, but a retraction demand is the standard first step regardless.
The unanswered question is whether Bush—or any other recipient—will retract. So far, according to the column, none have. If that holds, the next stage will be in front of a judge, where Bush’s own recorded remarks will be the central exhibit.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/billy-bush-gets-a-letter/