content for usaapay.com courtesy of thenotimes.com
WELCOME

spread the word
.


The No Times
comments, ephemera, speculation, etc.
(protected political speech and personal opinion)

- If this is your 1st visit to this page, please start at the bottom -


2021-


2021-11-20 f
BRAIN DEAD BARBARIANS CANNOT BE TRUSTED

10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked

Of all the willful lies and omissions in the media’s coverage of the
Steele dossier, Brian Sicknick, the Covington kids, Jussie Smollett, the Wuhan lab, Hunter Biden’s laptop and so on, nothing beats the evil propaganda peddled about Kyle Rittenhouse.

They try to make the Rittenhouse case about race, but it’s about class, punching down at the white working-class son of a single mother because they don’t see him as fully human, and it makes them feel good. 

They lie about him because they can.

The central media narrative is that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist whose mother drove him across state lines with an AR-15 to shoot Black Lives Matter protesters. All lies.

“A white, Trump-supporting, MAGA-loving Blue Lives Matter social media partisan, 17 years old, picks up a gun, drives from one state to another with the intent to shoot people,” was typical from John Heilemann, MSNBC’s national affairs analyst.

So, let’s go through 10 lies about Rittenhouse, debunked in court:

1. He killed two black BLM protesters. All three of the men he shot in self-defense during violent riots in Kenosha on Aug. 25 last year were white.

2. He crossed state lines. He lived 20 miles from Kenosha in Antioch, Ill., with his mother and sisters. But his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, cousins and best friend live in Kenosha. He had a job as a lifeguard in Kenosha and worked a shift on Aug. 25 before helping clean graffiti left by rioters at a local school. There, he and his friend were invited to join other adults who had been asked by the owners of a used car lot in Kenosha to guard the property after 100 cars had been torched the previous night, when police abandoned the town to rioters. Kyle took his gun to protect himself, since the rioters were violent and armed, including, for instance, Antifa medic Gaige Grosskreutz, who lunged at him with a loaded Glock pointed at his head before he was shot in the arm.

3. Rittenhouse took an AR-15 across state lines. Esquire accused him of “terrorist tourism.” False. His rifle was kept in a safe at his best friend’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha.

4. The gun was illegal. Wrong. Under Wisconsin law, he was entitled to possess the AR-15 as a 17-year-old. The judge dismissed the gun charge, which the prosecution never should have brought.

5. Rittenhouse’s mother drove him across state lines to the riot. Wendy Rittenhouse, 46, never went to Kenosha. She slept late the morning of Aug. 25 after working a 16-hour shift at a nursing home near her home in Antioch, she told the Chicago Tribune. Kyle had already gone to his job in Kenosha when she woke up.

6. He was an “active shooter” who took his gun to a riot looking for trouble. “A 17-year-old kid just running around shooting and killing protesters,” said MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, “who drove across state lines with an AR-15 and started shooting people up.” On Friday, after evidence in court already had debunked his talking points, Scarborough called Rittenhouse a “self-appointed militia member … unloading 60 rounds.” When the defense called out the lie in closing arguments, Scarborough had the gall to tweet that he was “embarrassed” for the lawyer.

7. Rittenhouse is a “white supremacist,” as then-candidate Joe Biden labeled him in a tweet showing the teenager’s photograph. When White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked to explain why recently, she slyly slimed Rittenhouse again, without naming him, as a “vigilante.”

In one story, the Intercept used the term “white supremacist” 16 times. The accusation has become holy writ, but there is zero evidence. The FBI scoured Kyle’s phone and found nothing about white supremacy or militias, the court heard. All they saw were pro-police, “Blue Lives Matter” posts from a kid who had been a police and fire department cadet, wanted to be a police officer or paramedic and once sat near the front of a Trump rally. That was enough for the media to brand him a white supremacist.

8. He “flashed white power signs” with Proud Boys. After spending three months in jail, Kyle was freed on $2 million bail two days after his 18th birthday last year, and went to a bar for a beer, with his mother and other adults, which is legal in Wisconsin. He posed for selfies with strangers at the bar, who the media say are Proud Boys, and was pictured making the OK sign with his thumb and forefinger. The false claim that this is a white supremacist sign comes from a 2017 hoax on the website 4chan, to punk liberals, who keep falling for it. Biden uses the gesture frequently. It was unwise to pose for the photo, but it does not mean Kyle is associated with white supremacists.

9. He wore surgical gloves “to cover his fingerprints.” This pearl was spread by Matthew Modine, another celebrity bigmouth. Kyle wore gloves because he was giving first aid to protesters. His face was bare, so he was hardly hiding.

10. Judge Bruce Schroeder is a “Trumpy” racist biased toward the defense. This slur is based on the fact he would not let the prosecution use the term “victim” — common practice when the jury has not ruled on a case. He told a lame joke about Asian food for lunch being held up by the supply-chain crisis, and his phone’s ring tone sounds like a 1980s ditty played at Trump rallies. Ridiculous. In fact, Schroeder is a Democrat, has run as a Democrat for the Wisconsin Senate and was first appointed by a Democratic governor. Bias was also perceived in what the Chicago Tribune said was his “highly unusual” decision to allow Kyle to draw names randomly out of a container at the end of the trial to determine which 12 of the 18 jurors would decide his fate. It’s something this judge always does, he told the court.

On the second day of jury deliberations Wednesday, the judge railed against media distortions, although he seemed most aggrieved about attacks on his reputation, rather than Kyle’s. He threatened to stop trials from being televised, but that’s exactly the wrong solution.

Only because the public was able to hear the evidence for themselves did they become aware of the malevolent dishonesty of the media coverage, which has threatened a fair trial and ensured riots if Kyle is justly acquitted. (read more)

2021-11-20 e
BRAIN DEAD BARBARIANS WILL BE TRIGGERED


The difference between Rittenhouse and the vaxx is that Kyle’s shots were effective.

— Chad Prather (@WatchChad) November 18, 2021


2021
-11-20 d
BRAIN DEAD BARBARIANS (LIKE AOC & PELOSI) WILL HAVE THEIR HEADS EXPLODING

Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty and deserves a not guilty verdict. 

In fact, he’d make a great Congressional Intern. https://t.co/WcldfhfdIx
pic.twitter.com/GwaLBFJ5Hi

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) November 18, 2021


2021-11-20 c
BRAIN DEAD BARBARIANS PREFER ILLUSION OF SAFETY OVER LIBERTY


Fauci: There is a “misplaced perception about people’s individual right to make a decision that supersedes the societal safety.” pic.twitter.com/hBwObFKOI8 

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 15, 2021


2021-11-20 b
BRAIN DEAD BARBARIANS ON THE PROSECUTION
(They suggested Kyle should have submitted to a beating by the mob instead of defending himself.)

This is what the prosecutors wanted to happen to Rittenhouse.pic.twitter.com/kdPixETivY

— Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) November 16, 2021


2021-11-20 a
BRAIN DEAD BARBARIANS ARE NOT HAPPY
(Would their outrage be less if the mainstream media had published the truth about the knife-wielding Jacob Blake, the Kenosha riots and Kyle Rittenhouse?)

Psychotic racist still has a job at MSNBC. https://t.co/LppAvoqiEu

— Rob Carson (@RobCarson) November 18, 2021

*

We just witnessed a system built on white supremacy validate the terroristic acts of a white supremacist. 

This only further validates the need to abolish our current system. White supremacy cannot be reformed.

— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) November 19, 2021

*

Fuck this murderer. https://t.co/j2aZidns1D

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) November 19, 2021

*

“Fuck America” a woman says before having a seizure on the Kenosha Courthouse steps pic.twitter.com/Lmx8LxBCLQ

— Kyle Hooten (@KyleHooten2) November 19, 2021

*

Murderer Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted is a crime in itself

— rosanna arquette (@RoArquette) November 19, 2021

*

The far-right trolls who think it makes a difference whether a violent gunman got his weapon before or after he crossed state lines are missing the point: two people are dead and their killer is left unaccountable. That’s not justice and they know it.

— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) November 19, 2021

*

Ha, let the boy be black and it would’ve been life…hell he would’ve had his life taken before the bullshit trial.. sad

— Bubba Wallace (@BubbaWallace) November 19, 2021

*

So as long as you're white you can shoot anybody and get away with it. Yet, if you're a POC and don't even possess a weapon you can be murdered and they'll get away with that as well.
That's America for you. #WhitePrivilege #KyleRittennhouse

— BluePatriot (@jessilyn_b) November 19, 2021

*

Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted. Now more vigilante white boys can have their mommies drive them to the upcoming justified protests to kill more people.

— Randi Mayem Singer (@rmayemsinger) November 19, 2021

*

Kyle Rittenhouse.. found 'not guilty' of being black.

We know he'd have been guilty if he was#WhitePrivilege #WhiteSupremacy #AmeriKKKa pic.twitter.com/fZW2Xb42ME

— #LabourHasToSplit (@TrueMythocracy) November 19, 2021

*

It’s funny how pundits are trying to make all these convoluted legal arguments to justify the ruling in this complete farce called the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

This “strategy” in this case was not complicated at all.

The common law used in this trial boils down to one word pic.twitter.com/JigQG4ymC1

— Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) November 19, 2021

*

This is what #WhiteSupremacy looks like. #KyleRittenhouse https://t.co/PaV8tw9sVI

— Bri Buentello (@Bri4CO) November 19, 2021

*

I knew it. Kyle Rittenhouse is proof that white people can still break the law, carry illegal weapons, shoot and kill people, and get away with it in America by shedding tears and claiming self-defense.

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) November 19, 2021

*

Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict Proved What We Already Knew. They Get To Start Sh*t, Can’t Fight & When They Start To Lose They Get To Shoot & Kill U!!! That’s Why The Law Was Put Into Place Anyway. It Was Designed To Protect One Group Of People. An So Far It Has Worked Flawlessly!!!

— Plies (@plies) November 19, 2021

*

People said this acquittal couldn't be racist because the killer and his victims are all white. Wrong.

This encourages conservative white ppl to use every deterrent possible — incl. violence — to discourage other white people from protecting civil rights. https://t.co/vMpa7AOihP

— Ja'han Jones (@_Jahan) November 19, 2021

*

The Rittenhouse verdict will be remembered as the moment american fascism turned into Nazism proper, and there was no turning back from the path of Holocaust

— Umair (@umairh) November 19, 2021

*

"three black lives" pic.twitter.com/5IbwCd3sZz

— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) November 19, 2021

*

This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest. https://t.co/Uh95Uc1Ddo

— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) November 19, 2021

*

Adam this is so incredibly stupid. The media unanimously portrayed this as a racial justice story. The AP filed the story under the "Racial Injustice" news category. Yeah I really wonder why people thought the case involved a racial conflict. pic.twitter.com/6FI7fd4j2n

— Shant Mesrobian (@ShantMM) November 19, 2021

*

“F*** Kyle” chants from protesters outside the courthouse this Friday night #RittenhouseTrial #Kenosha pic.twitter.com/E8LxYarzSW

— Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) November 20, 2021

*

Lmaooooo Kyle Rittenhouse actually scared the Truth into CNN.

Thats legit legendary. https://t.co/IFUx5RvTKE

— FleX Luthor Political Villain- flexyoursuccess.com (@ReturnOfTheFleX) November 20, 2021

*

HAPPENING: BLM takes to the streets in Brooklyn NY chanting "EVERY CITY EVERY TOWN, BURN THE PRECINCT TO THE GROUND" after the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. pic.twitter.com/EiZubh0i2w

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) November 20, 2021

*

Following mass #antifa violence last night in Portland, Ore., the antifa cell in Los Angeles has announced a direct action for today at Pershing Square. #Rittenhouse pic.twitter.com/FBoZk5zPK7

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) November 20, 2021

*

NOW: Large group of Antifa black bloc marching in Seattle protesting the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.

They are chanting “Fu*k Kyle Rittenhouse.” pic.twitter.com/sV9OHpuzES

— Katie Daviscourt (@KatieDaviscourt) November 20, 2021

*

The NYPD takes its responsibility to protect the 1st amendment rights of peaceful demonstrators seriously. Just as important is the safety of NYers & the protection of property from people breaking the law in the name of protest. As seen tonight in Queens, they will be arrested. pic.twitter.com/a6bL0Fewv9

— NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) November 20, 2021

*

Solidarity with Kenosha, protest march from Barclays Center in Brooklyn to Foley Square in Manhattan, New York City, 9:56pm, Friday, November 19, 2021. 1st tweet is on Brooklyn Bridge.

Instagram: @ForOurLiberation#Kenosha #nyc nyc

THREAD
1/ pic.twitter.com/dKleynRTXe

— DataInput (@datainput) November 20, 2021

*

#BlackLivesMatter Activists take to the streets of Brooklyn NY in response of the #KyleRittenhouseTrial and chant " EVERY CITY EVERY TOWN BURN THE PRECINCT TO THE GROUND "#NYPD #NYC pic.twitter.com/WyyUJcjR0B

— Leeroy Johnson (@LeeroyPress) November 20, 2021

*

#BlackLivesMatter shut down down Manhattan Bridge and chant " IF WE DON'T GET IT BURN IT DOWN " in response of the #KyleRittennhouse case pic.twitter.com/lJRQnPpEHN

— Leeroy Johnson (@LeeroyPress) November 20, 2021


2021
-11-19 f
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXXVII
(Will fewer meth-men show up at the next "mostly peaceful" riot the Left calls a social justice protest? Might they fear another Kyle will defend himself with an AR-15?)

marksman

2021
-11-19 e
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXXVI

The Rittenhouse jury just gave Biden his second colonoscopy of the day.

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) November 19, 2021

*

Awesome! Vehicles have been driving by in Kenosha honking in celebration of the verdict, with some stopping to react outside the courthouse.

pic.twitter.com/3vwD1P0NSa

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) November 19, 2021


2021-11-19 d
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXXV
(The impacted colon known as Tony Evers, governor of Wisconsin, is not fit to govern. There are many who blame him for the out-of-control riots in Kenosha last August.)

Here's my statement regarding the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial. pic.twitter.com/YekSP9F5Cb

— Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) November 19, 2021


2021
-11-19 c
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXXIV

RITTENHOUSE VERDICT: NOT GUILTY ALL COUNTS!

Free at last!

(read more)

2021-11-19 b
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXXIII

If you do not know what is meant by a "Karen" or "mask Karen" (as mentioned yesterday) here is an example of one.
A "Karen" is not exclusively Caucasian. I have met white, Asian, South Asian, black, and Spanish-surnamed Karens.
A "Karen" cannot be debated. Facts or science or reason or logic do not matter to "Karens."

a Krazy Karen

2021
-11-19 a
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXXII


2021
-11-18 h
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXXI

Rittenhouse VERDICT WATCH: Has Jury Foreperson Gone Rogue And Holding Back Acquittal?

Judge allowing the jury to take home instructions raises concerns they’ll play the “dictionary game”

[...] There wasn’t much real action today, with the exception of a couple of notable events, and my own increasing belief that we’re dealing with a single hold-out juror for guilt, and that this juror is #54, the foreperson.

Juror Requests to Take Jury Instructions Home

When the jury was brought into the courtroom for purposes of dismissal, shortly after 4:00 p.m. Wisconsin time, Judge Schroeder imprudently asked if any of them had any questions for him.  One did.  A woman juror asked if she could be permitted to take home a copy of the 36 or so pages of jury instructions.

The judge looked over at the parties, and although the State appeared to make no particular signal, defense Attorney Marc Richards shook his head slightly but observably in the negative.

Despite this, Judge Schroeder announced that he would agree to the request and that the same option would be extended to all the jurors.  Whether only the one juror who made the request ultimately took home the instructions, or whether multiple or even all jurors did so, is unknown.

Frankly, it’s rather remarkable that any juror who had already been struggling with the instructions for more than 7 hours today alone, as well as the two prior days, would be interested in continuing to work with that at home in the evenings.

Frankly, I think it was a bad call both for Judge Schroeder to agree to this request, as well as to do so in the manner he did.

First of all, if he wants all the jurors to return to deliberations fresh and rested tomorrow morning, the last thing he should want is any jurors continuing to work on these instructions, alone, into the night.

Second, allowing the jurors to take the instructions home encourages what lawyers call the “dictionary game.”   This occurs when the jurors start to do their own research into what various terms in the instructions might mean—including looking words up in the dictionary.

The trouble with encouraging such behavior by the jurors is that a word—like, say, “provocation”—has a specific, narrow legal meaningsin the context of the jury instructions that differ from the general, broader, common-use meaning one might find in a dictionary.  Jurors are not supposed to make use of outside resources to inform their arriving at a verdict, but permitting them to take the jury instructions home encourages exactly that.

To illustrate, many types of conduct might be considered “provocative” in the general sense, but in the specific legal use-of-force sense conduct is only “provocative” if it immediately results in a forcible response.  So, Kyle’s coming to Kenosha open-carrying an AR-15 rifle might be considered “provocative” in the general sense, but not in the narrow legal sense that would strip him of the legal defense of self-defense, because that conduct did not immediately result in a forcible response.

Third, the judge addressed this question from this juror in front of the lawyers and looked to them for a response.  That means that Mark Richards’ shaking of his head, indicating he preferred the jurors not to be given the instructions despite the request, could be observed by the jurors.  Richards appearing to prefer the denial of the juror’s request could be perceived negatively by that juror and others, creating a bias against the defense.

The judge should instead have either discussed the request with the lawyers while the jury was removed from the courtroom, or more conveniently have held an impromptu whispered bench conference with the jury present but outside of their range of hearing.

Next, I have my suspicion of what—or, rather, who—is holding up a verdict in this case:

My Suspicion: Juror #54, Foreperson, Is the Holdout Against Acquittal

I have a growing suspicion that this jury has not yet arrived at a unanimous verdict of acquittal only because of the resistance of juror #54, a woman who also happens to be the foreperson, who seems to be the hold-out against acquittal.

The jury selection risk to Kyle was always going to be that a “mask Karen” type, usually of leftist political persuasion, bossy, entitled, and status-sensitive, would be seated on the jury.  Such a person would be most unlikely to ever vote for acquittal—her social group would necessarily know she had done so, given the unanimous nature of an acquittal.

In addition, this type of person is likely to seize the leadership position of foreperson on a jury, to suit their bossy and entitled nature.  Such a person also tends to be outspoken and forward in circumstances where other people would defer to apparently higher authority.

There has been one apparently female juror who on several occasions can be overheard being unusually familiar with Judge Schroeder—not in the sense of knowing him personally, but in the sense of engaging in a relaxed discussion that one does not usually find between a juror and a trial judge.

Then we have the jury note from yesterday asking for access to the Exhibit #5 drone video footage and related evidence.  It was written by juror #54, the jury foreperson, and an apparent woman:

juror #54

The tone of that note suggests to me that the person who wrote it is accustomed to giving orders to underlings—personal assistants, staff, household help—and here the note is being addressed in this tone to the trial judge as if the judge were a staffer to the jury foreperson.

Then this evening we had the very unusual request to be permitted to take the jury instructions home, made by a single juror—a female juror.

I suspect that all of this conduct is that of juror #54, the female foreperson of this jury—who I suspect is precisely the kind of “mask Karen,” left-leaning, bossy, entitled, and status-sensitive juror who would be most likely to hold out against acquittal.

Finally, my friend Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) was kind enough to remind me that during jury selection I’d made a particular note of juror #54 at the time, as I was live commenting right here at Legal Insurrection:  “#54: Knows some of the witnesses named, but could set that aside.”  I’ve also heard from sources in a position to know that when polling was done around jury selection, prospective jurors who knew any participants in the August 2020 riots–which would likely include some of the witnesses–tended to trend 75% against acquittal.

That’s all just a guess—but one informed by some experience with both juries and mask Karen types. (read more)

2021-11-18 g
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXX

4:09 p.m.: Court adjourned for the day, no verdict
(read more)

2021
-11-18 f
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXIX

UPDATE WITH VIDEO: MSNBC BANNED FROM RITTENHOUSE TRIAL AND COURTHOUSE! Reporter Taken Into Custody – Was Following, Stalking Jury Bus and Ran Red Light!!

Judge: “I have instructed that no one from MSNBC will be allowed into this building for the duration of the trial.”

The Kenosha Police Department announced this morning that they took a suspect into custody last night.

The person was working for a national media outlet [MSNBC and/or NBC] and was suspected of trying to photograph jurors. (read more)

2021-11-18 e
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXVIII


HOLY MOLY.

The prosecutors admitted a drone video broadcast by FOXNEWS  into evidence. 
Someone appears to have just cropped out the FN header


LOOK:

— Jay H8s Tuatter (@FuarFearg) November 17, 2021



2021
-11-18 d
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXVII

11:23 a.m.:  Parties in court, judge on bench, something is up.
(read more)


2021-11-18 c
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXVI

Rittenhouse Trial Mayhem – Courtroom Fights Over Videos and Mistrial As Jury Deliberates

Rittenhouse defense makes a third motion for a mistrial based on concealment of high definition drone video – Prosecutors stammer to defend themselves while Judge promises the prosecution “house of cards” will come down if video altered.

Yesterday completed the second day of jury deliberations in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, with no verdict being achieved before the jury was sent home for the day.

The jury deliberations take place in private, of course, so we can only speculate as to what discussions are taking place amongst the 12 jurors.  That doesn’t mean the day was uneventful, however, as the defense once again asked Judge Bruce Schroeder for a mistrial–notably, this time a mistrial without prejudice, meaning that Rittenhouse would be subject to a retrial on these charges.

This newest request for a mistrial is based primarily on the undisputed fact that the prosecution had provided a copy of the drone video to the defense that was 1/16th the resolution of the version that would be actually shown to the jury during the trial.  With no way to know that the high-resolution version existed, the defense now tells the court that they would have shaped their legal arguments, and prepared their client to testify, different than they did with only the low-resolution version in their possession.

The drone video is particularly important because it is the only evidence offered by the State to support their argument that Kyle Rittenhouse has no privilege of self-defense in this case because he provoked the attacks upon himself, and therefore the State need merely prove provocation, rather than have to disprove self-defense itself.

The act of provocation–specifically, the claim that he pointed his rifle at others, provoking Joseph Rosenbaum to chase him across the Car Source parking lot–is supported by no other evidence but for this video.  Without the video, then, there is no act of provocation, and the prosecution would then have the unlikely-to-win task of attacking Kyle’s claims of self-defense directly.

The prosecution has a Constitutional obligation to provide the defense with the evidence to be used against the defendant in court and failed to substantively meet this obligation by providing the defense with only a low-resolution version of this video, rather than the high-resolution version actually used as evidence before the jury.

Assistant DA Kraus had a laundry list of excuses for why the defense ended up with only a lower-resolution, smaller file size, different file name version of this critical drone video, including blaming everybody but himself–indeed, both this colleague ADA Binger and lead Detective Howard were blamed by Kraus, as well (of course) as the defense itself.

The judge was unconvinced by these excuses and suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to how this video mix-up occurred.

Interestingly, a photo purportedly of ADA Kraus’ laptop screen being projected onto the large 4k TV screen in the courtroom shows the presence of an imaging software named Handbrake. I lack any technical expertise or experience with Handbrake software, but apparently, a core purpose is to generate low-definition versions of high-definition videos.  This has led to speculation that the provision of the low-resolution video to the defense was not an accident at all, but rather an intentional act of the prosecution.  If so, this would be prosecutorial misconduct sufficiently grievous to not only warrant a mistrial with prejudice but certainly misconduct perhaps even malicious prosecution charges.

In fact, Judge Schroeder even cautioned the prosecution that he had warned them that there would be a day of reckoning about this drone video left on the prosecution’s doorstep mid-trial, and the very fuzzy “enhanced” still-image photographs pulled from the video that supposedly shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle in an act of provocation–the photos that defense Attorney Marc Richards referred to as “hocus-pocus, out of focus” during his closing argument.

Today was not to be that day of reckoning, however, as the judge simply took the defense motion for a mistrial without prejudice under advisement.  He appears to be leaning towards not ruling on this third motion, or the two prior, before waiting to see if the jury will return a verdict of acquittal.  If they do, then the whole mistrial issue becomes moot. On the other hand, if the jury returns any guilty verdicts, the judge can theoretically revisit these mistrial motions then.

That the drone video was playing an important role of some kind in the jury’s deliberations became clear this afternoon when they asked to be able to view the video as part of their deliberations, and on the large 4k TV screen in the courtroom.  This was permitted by the judge, who had the courtroom vacated so the jurors could deliberate in privacy, as is the norm.

As for why the defense, which had been asking for a mistrial with prejudice, would today ask merely for a mistrial without prejudice, we can only speculate that the defense may be concerned that with the third day of deliberations rapidly coming to a close, and the prospect of a quick acquittal now only a fond and unrequited hope, that the jury might have begun leaning towards a conviction on one or more charges.

A mistrial without prejudice would be a better outcome than a conviction, despite the awareness that a re-trial would surely follow.  With presumably adequate financial resources available for a second trial, Rittenhouse may be thinking that a second shot with a different legal defense team and more aggressive jury selection might better position him for complete acquittals on all counts the second time around. (read more)

2021-11-18 b
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXV

Bricks in Kenosha? Again? Pay No Attention to the Brick Wizard Behind the Curtain....

Follow the Money Trail Road....

Let’s talk about the mysterious [pallets of] bricks surfacing in Kenosha….

There are already calls of suspicious activity coming through the police scanner.

Between 12 and 1 PM EST earlier today, a Kenosha officer checked a local alleyway and verified there are "bricks everywhere." The audio begins here at the 1:11 mark.

Hmm… preparing for the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict already, are we?

This should all sound familiar because it’s how we got into this mess to begin with….

In 2020, during the Kenosha riots when Kyle Rittenhouse was arrested, mysterious bricks were delivered. In fact, every single city where a riot broke out had stacks and stacks of bricks delivered, seemingly out of nowhere. In most places, security had been disabled so that no one could access security camera videos and see who delivered the bricks in stacks off of trucks on huge pallets.

Naturally, if you happen to put this question in front of thousands of curious researchers who have fun working together and you ask, “Who is the Brick Wizard?” it’s basically like firing off a shot at the beginning of a race.

Urged to “follow the bricks,” we dove right in….

[...]

Acme Brick is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway.

And that would be Warren Buffett.

And that's Bill Gates's mentor.

Behold the Brick Wizard.

List of assets owned by Berkshire Hathaway. First on the list is Acme Brick Company.

[...]

We started to see all of this divide and conquer interplay with oligarchs, politicians, business people, and corporate entities paying off criminals via an elaborate bail money laundering scheme that funneled money from non-profit organizations to the courts to be returned to the criminals through the bail system, not back to the non-profits.

And, no matter which trail we followed… bricks, drugs, stocks, banks, non-profits, corporations… it didn’t matter… every single money trail led us back to the same groups: Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, and Berkshire Hathaway.

Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, and Berkshire Hathaway are the four largest investment firms on the planet.

They own literally everything. There is no competition. There is only the illusion of competition.

So, ultimately, if you want to know where the bricks are coming from, we're really looking at asymmetric warfare funded by many billionaires on behalf of the entire cabal to destabilize America.

And the only things they fear are unity and people like Kyle Rittenhouse. (read more)

2021-11-18 a
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXIV

It appears that “liberal” prosecutors have de facto rewritten the Constitution, statutory law and common law.

1. Left Wing Militias, e.g. Antifa, [Only] Black Lies Matter, have a constitutional right to riot. See e.g., Portland, Seattle and Kenosha riots. Patriots have no similar right. See January 6 protest, Malheur [National Wildlife Refuge] occupation.

2. Law enforcement is prohibited from actively interfering with left wing militia riots, this includes when left wing militia beat people or suppress patriot’s rights to peacefully assemble. However, depending on the optics law enforcement may take action after the fact, but under no circumstance will they intervene in real time.


3. Patriots assume the risk of serious bodily injury or death if they appear at Left Wing Militia riots. See Andy Ngo Doctrine. Patriots peaceably assembling that are attacked by Left Wing Militia immediately lose all Constitutional rights. Under no circumstance are Patriots allowed to use deadly physical force in self defense. See Binger’s Rittenhouse Doctrine.


4. Homeowners are prohibited from threatening Left Wing Militias that are threatening homeowners. See McCloskey Doctrine [St. Louis, MO]. All property owners will allow
Left Wing Militias to trespass, vandalize and commit arson.

5. Any patriot or citizen violating these rules is entitled to mob justice only.


Did I miss anything?

Did I forget something?

— rightway, 18 November 2021

2021
-11-17 j
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXIII

4:40 p.m.:  Court recessed for the day with no verdict, back at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
(read more)

2021
-11-17 i
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXII


2021-11-17 h
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XXI

The best outcome is for the jury to come in with a verdict of not guilty on all counts. The judge knows that Kyle is innocent. Anyone who looks at the video and follows the evidence knows that this case never should have been brought. But he also knows that it is important that the public accept the verdict.

We in the US and in much of western Europe are living in a world where there is a great deal of pressure to believe a bunch of lies. To maintain these fictions it is necessary to control as much as possible the means of communication. For example, to maintain the view that gender is a matter of choice, you need to accustom the population that “the truth” is a matter of obedience and dissent from such “truth” is a punishable offense. Another example is that the police are going around murdering black people for no reason other than their skin color. The reality is that the number of unarmed black people killed by police in a year is fewer than 20 and in most cases it involves resisting arrest.

The sources of information are largely controlled by a small number of people who have used that control to promote these fictions. In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, Facebook banned support for Kyle from its platform. Paypal refused to allow Kyle to raise money for his defense. The notion that everyone has a right to a fair trial before an impartial jury and to be represented by a lawyer committed to one's defense is a bedrock principle of our democracy. We are now living in a country where this principle is not accepted by most of the media, the entertainment world, the internet oligarchs and much of the Democratic party.

Hakeem Jeffries, one of the most important members of Congress, tweeted “Lock him up and throw away the key”. Jeffries should be the first person to be given a MLGA (Make Lynching Great Again) hat as a reward for his tweet. Biden isn’t much better.

The mob outside the courthouse in Kenosha is a trifle in comparison to the mob out there including the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft Edge, Merrick Garland, General Milley and many more. Judge Schroeder knows that if there is an acquittal in this case, a lot of these powerful people and institutions will not accept it even though the video evidence for acquittal is overwhelming. I believe he feels that a not guilty verdict will receive greater public acceptance if it is delivered by a jury of ordinary citizens.

In their closing arguments, the prosecution based its case on the proposition that the town of Kenosha had no right to protect itself from a mob destroying it and Kyle Rittenhouse had no right to defend himself because the mob chasing him might have only beaten him up and not actually killed him.

It is hard to believe that any rational person would go along with the prosecution but if you can force people to believe that a biological male is actually a biological female, you can convince someone of anything.

— Jonathan Cohen, 17 November 2021

2021
-11-17 g
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XX

Nick Sandmann reaches out to Kyle Rittenhouse

And as so often is the case with news of special interest to the US right, it’s
a British paper that publishes it.

Sandmann has learned more in a few years through the crucible of his personal experience than most people learn in a lifetime. He writes:

Kyle was 17-years-old when he became a household name after that terrible tragedy in Kenosha.

I was 16-years-old when I was catapulted into the national conversation by video of an encounter with a Native American activist on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

In only hours a CNN host tweeted an image of me, writing: ‘Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?’.

Kyle wasn’t given his day in court by his critics.

And neither was I.

The attacks on Kyle came from the national news media, just as they came for me.

They came quickly, without hesitation, because Kyle was an easy target that they could paint in the way they wanted to.

This is the problem with liberal media outlets in the United States. They want to get the story first, get the most views, make the most money, and advance the agenda from liberal patrons.

Absolutely true. And almost every word from the MSM was a lie in both cases, meant to defame and set the narrative at the outset:

Taking a life, for any reason, sticks with someone forever and yet the liberal elites would rather turn it into a joke for likes.

Not only does Kyle have to deal with that, but it is compounded with the overwhelming stress and trauma of the character assassination taking place against him.

From my own experience, the death threats, feeling of no future ahead, and that millions of people hate you, is enough to alter you in many concrete ways and permanently.

Make no mistake: even the strongest of people cannot resist the mental impact when the media war machine targets you.

There’s much more at the link, including a discussion of whether Rittenhouse could sue and what might happen if he does. Sandmann adds that he is still involved in six suits against the media for the defamation he suffered.

He adds:

One of the saddening parts of this media onslaught is that it has taken young people like Kyle and myself to expose how corrupt the media really is…

At this time I would like to use my platform to let Kyle know that I am here for you and if you ever would like to reach out to me, I am about the only person our age to have an idea of how the media is treating you. The way the media has treated you is terrible, and you don’t have to face it alone.

(read more)

2021-11-17 f
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XIX

On the Larger Goals of the Left in Bringing Rittenhouse to Trial

Stamping out the right to self-defense

It’s jury deliberation time in the Rittenhouse trial, and while we wait I’ve been reflecting on the big picture of where we are right now. I don’t think there’s any way a case as weak as that against Rittenhouse would have been brought ten years ago and certainly not twenty years ago, and the fact that he was charged at all is a bad sign.

Not that we need any more bad signs. But this trial is a reflection of the ways in which the left has gained power lately, despite the fact that there’s been a current backlash against it.

The left wants power to be invested in the state and the state only, and they intend to be the ones in control of the state – and by “state” I don’t just mean an individual state such as Wisconsin. Their preferred repository of power is the federal government, and they want that power strengthened. That means that the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense must be quashed or at least greatly weakened and that only certain people will be allowed to have that right.

The message is that someone such as Kyle Rittenhouse – a young white man of conservative leanings – is not allowed to have that right. But this trial isn’t primarily about Rittenhouse himself nor is it really about the situation in which he found himself that August night in 2020 in Kenosha. That’s just the pretext. The fact that there is an enormous amount of evidence that would overwhelmingly support his claim of self-defense is just a small obstacle easily brushed aside with a combination of media lies, prosecution lies, and threats to destroy the city if Rittenhouse is acquitted.

To the left, Rittenhouse the person is just a vehicle for delivering the message, which goes like this:

(1) Rioters in causes that the left deems righteous are allowed to destroy cities, and ordinary citizens must lay low and take it. They may not defend property or even their lives.

(2) The most they can do if attacked is take a beating and hope to not be killed, throwing themselves on the tender mercies of the mob screaming for their destruction.

(3) The prosecution of those who would defend themselves goes hand in hand with the lack of prosecution, for the most part, of the rioters. This has the intended result of emboldening rioters.

(4) The MSM and the left will mount a defamatory campaign against their designated enemies (in this case Rittenhouse, but it could be anyone who meets their criteria). They will attempt to taint jury pools so badly that a lack of evidence to bolster the prosecution’s case won’t matter. This is especially true if the goal isn’t necessarily conviction (although that’s desired), because a hung jury will do for the purpose. The principle is that the process is the punishment, and the state will not relent in its pursuit of its quarry – multiple trials if necessary in the case of a hung jury.

Do the prosecutors realize Rittenhouse is not guilty? They may or may not, but they simply don’t care about his actual innocence. He is guilty of being who he is, and that’s enough. Rittenhouse is useful to them as an object against which to stir up hatred and to deter future self-defense from anyone not on the left, which is their larger goal. The individual is nothing; the goal is everything. (read more)

2021-11-17 e
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XVIII
(The Left, the media and Democrats hate Kyle Rittenhouse because he interfered with their ongoing Color Revolution and planned chaos and strategy of tension. Worse, he might become a self defense/civic defense role model for others and also discourage (a few) protestors from rioting, fearing civilian defenders could shoot them even when the police have been ordered to stand down.)

Black Lives Matter Princeton Report Violence Map

Princeton Report Violence Map

2021-11-17 d
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XVII

Lying Media Deliberately Incite Riots in Democrat-run Cities

The only way the establishment media can feel influential anymore is to incite riots in Democrat-run cities, so the media are desperately using the Kyle Rittenhouse trial to incite riots in Democrat-run cities.

It’s an act of naked evil, but it’s also fascinating to watch.

Because their credibility with and influence over the public is completely shot, encouraging the left-wing terrorists in Antifa and [Only] Black Lives Matter to burn down blue cities is all they’ve got.

The media first tried to incite riots with the
Trayvon Martin Hoax by spreading the lie that the man who shot Martin in an obvious case of self-defense was white (he’s Hispanic) and a racist on the hunt (all the evidence proved that to be a lie). Then, to gin up racial violence, the media, especially ABC News, NBC News, and CNNLOL, even went so far as to fabricate evidence.

With the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Hoax, the media were able to burn down the predominantly black, Democrat-run city of Ferguson, Missouri.

With the Freddie Gray Hoax, the media were able to burn down the predominantly black, Democrat-run city of Baltimore, Maryland.

Most recently, with the Jacob Blake Hoax, the media were able to burn down the Democrat-run city of Kenosha, Wisconsin.

And today, as I write this, the media are desperate to prove their influence by spreading audacious lies around Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man currently on trial for shooting three men, two of whom died. Video proves beyond any question Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. But the media are not only lying about him being a crazed vigilante — something akin to a mass shooter — they’re deliberately lying to turn this into a racial issue, even though the three men he shot were white.

In story after story, readers are told Rittenhouse was a white shooter at a[n Only] Black Lives Matter protest. And then, the media deliberately failed to mention that the men who were shot were white. The obvious goal is to pervert a non-racial event into not only something racial but an injustice if this racist white shooter is let off the hook.

Without any political cost from the media, wicked politicians, like Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), are deliberately fanning the riot flames with blatantly dishonest statements about how a Rittenhouse acquittal would be the equivalent of allowing “white supremacists” to “get away” with murdering black people.

The media blatantly lied about Rittenhouse illegally possessing a firearm. The firearm was legal.

The media have outright labeled Rittenhouse a murderer.

The media have spread deliberate lies about the Rittenhouse judge being a racist and even used a ringtone to launch a two-day freak out over the judge being a secret Trump supporter, as though being a Trump supporter is disqualifying.

You don’t do these things; you don’t intentionally spread what you know are lies unless you want to see Democrat-run cities burn to the ground in the event of an acquittal.

What’s so fascinating about all this is that the very same Democrats who now live under the constant threat of race riots ginned up by lies are the very same Democrats who watch CNN and MSNBC, who subscribe to the New York Times, and support the serial liars at PolitiFact.

These dumb Democrats are supporting the very people and media institutions that hurl the lies of Molotov cocktails into their homes and then use more lies to firehose their neighborhoods with gasoline.

The Democrats who live in these cities are literally empowering the very monsters seeking to destroy their communities.

Sad, but still fascinating to witness.

The good news is that this is all the fake media’s got anymore. All they can do to feel influential is scream “FIRE” in a crowded theater. My guess is that pretty soon, they won’t even be able to do that. (read more)

*

2021-11-17 c
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XVI

UPDATE:

11:05 a.m.: Jury sends notice to court saying they want to view some of the videos.  Defense concerned about the drone video. Also complaining about when received drone video.  Also, defense attorney Richards tells court that the manual for AMP imaging software apparently says methods used in this case are intended for investigative purposes only, not for forensic use in court.  When Judge Schroeder asks Binger if that’s true, Binger response is that information is not in evidence. (read more)

2021-11-17 b
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XV

The Disturbing Story of the Rittenhouse Case's Mysterious 'Jump Kick Man'

The enduring mystery of the Kyle Rittenhouse criminal trial, which went to a jury Tuesday, has been the identity of "Jump Kick Man." As Rittenhouse ran away from a crowd of people, he testified that one of the pursuers hit him in the head with his skateboard. When Rittenhouse fell to the ground, Jump Kick Man flew through the air and stomped on his head. Rittenhouse fired two shots at Jump Kick Man, but missed.

Almost immediately, the man who had struck Rittenhouse with his skateboard, Anthony Huber, hit him with the skateboard again, and Rittenhouse fired a single round, killing Huber. A third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, saw this and approached Rittenhouse with his hands up. However, when Rittenhouse looked down for a split second, Grosskreutz pulled out a handgun and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head. Rittenhouse fired a single shot, striking Grosskreutz in the arm.

Jump Kick Man, whose attack on Rittenhouse (and Rittenhouse's subsequent response) arguably led to both Huber's and Grosskreutz's actions (and Rittenhouse's response to them), has never been identified--until now.

"The Dan O'Donnell Show" can now report exclusively that Jump Kick Man is a 40-year-old Black male from Kenosha with an extensive criminal record who was at the time of the Rittenhouse shootings on probation following a conviction for domestic violence battery. He faced a maximum sentence of nine months in jail, but less than two months before he kicked Rittenhouse, he accepted a plea deal that netted him 12 months' probation. The following year, he violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to seven months in jail.

Had Jump Kick Man been sentenced to even two months in jail instead of probation, he would not have been in Kenosha the night of the shootings. His kick, which prompted Rittenhouse to fire two shots at him, may well have provoked Huber to strike Rittenhouse with his skateboard a second time, causing Rittenhouse to shoot and kill him. That in turn prompted Grosskreutz to advance on Rittenhouse and draw his handgun on him, which caused Rittenhouse to shoot him in the arm.

Jump Kick Man's actions likely set these events in motion, and thus had he not been on the streets of Kenosha that night, it is entirely possible that Huber and Grosskreutz would not have been shot.

"The Dan O'Donnell Show" is not naming Jump Kick Man, as he has not been criminally charged in connection with the Rittenhouse case. Sources indicate that he contacted prosecutors and offered to testify, but in exchange requested immunity from an ongoing drunk driving and domestic abuse case with which he was charged in June. Prosecutors declined his offer and chose not to call him as a witness in the Rittenhouse case.

According to online court records, Jump Kick Man has a criminal record that dates back more than two decades, with multiple felony convictions for car theft, ID theft, drug possession, and escaping custody. Given this and a recent prior conviction for misdemeanor battery (and a subsequent probation revocation), Jump Kick Man should have been sentenced to at least some jail time following his most recent conviction.

His earliest conviction listed in the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access online database is for felony escape, meaning that he had already been in custody or convicted of a crime and in the penal system. That offense is not listed in the database, but he was sentenced to two years in prison and five years of extended supervision on the escape charge.

Upon his release--and while he was on extended supervision--he was convicted of possession of THC and sentenced to five days in jail in 2003. After another THC possession conviction got him one year of probation in 2007, he violated the terms of that probation when he was arrested on multiple counts of felony identity theft in early 2008.

Amazingly, he reached a plea deal that allowed him to avoid prison time and was sentenced to just three years' probation. Less than four months later, he escaped arrest in a separate incident and was sentenced to a year in jail. Almost as soon as he was released, he was convicted of car theft and again sentenced to probation.

That arrest apparently violated the terms of his probation from the identity theft conviction. As a result, Jump Kick Man was sentenced to two years in prison and two years of extended supervision.

In 2013, he was convicted of both drug possession and obstructing an officer as a repeat offender and sentenced to six months in jail.

Three years later, though, he was charged as a repeat offender with domestic violence-related disorderly conduct but avoided jail time and got two years' probation. Unsurprisingly, in 2018 he violated the terms of that probation and was sentenced to 120 days in jail.

At this point, Jump Kick Man had been sentenced to probation in three different cases and violated the terms of probation every single time. Still, a judge last June sentenced him to probation yet again...and yet again he violated the terms of that probation earlier this year.

Had the judge used common sense and recognized that probation serves as no deterrent to Jump Kick Man, that judge might have imposed at least some jail time. For two straight decades, Jump Kick Man continued to commit crimes while on probation and it should have therefore come as no surprise that while he was on probation for domestic violence, he would be part of a mob that had descended on Kenosha.

He likely should have been in jail, though, and was not only because he received yet another break from the Kenosha County criminal justice system. In a very real sense, this break may have indirectly led to the death of Anthony Huber and shooting of Gaige Grosskreutz. (read more)

2021
-11-17 a
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XIV

Rittenhouse VERDICT WATCH Day 2: Defense Files For Mistrial With Prejudice

Defense files motion for mistrial with prejudice; State withheld high-definition version of “unicorn” drone video

In late-breaking news the night of November 16, 2021, the defense filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice on grounds that the State failed to provide the defense with the high-definition drone video in its possession, insteady merely providing the defense with a low-resolution version of that video, as well as on other grounds.

[...] The entire key to the prosecution’s theory of the case is the purported provocation of Rosenbaum by Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at another person. This video is the only evidence the prosecution has ever offered in support of this theory. The high-definition version which was used to support the provocation theory in closing argument was never provided to the defense, and particularly not prior the defense putting Rittenhouse on the witness stand to testify–thus the defense was unable to properly prepare their client to testify. Naturally the defense was also not properly able to prepare it’s own closing argument to counter the prosecution narrative of provocation as purportedly demonstrated in the high-definition version of this video.

[...]
there are also a number of reports overnight that the identity of ‘Jump Kick Guy’ is known to the prosecution, with one suggesting that they declined to bring him in as a witness as he required immunity in order to testify.

Is it reasonable to expect this to be raised in court this morning, and if found true added to the motion for mistrial with prejudice? (read more)

2021-11-16 e
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XIII
If you are afraid of guns or think that Kyle was too young to carry a rifle, consider this:


If it wasn’t for 17 year olds with guns, we’d still be British subjects.

— Josh Mandel (@JoshMandelOhio) November 16, 2021



2021-11-16 d
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XII

5:50 p.m.: Jury going home for the night, no verdict yet.
(read more)

2021-11-16 c
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XI

Rittenhouse Trial

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial has gone to the jury after both sides presented their closing arguments and the state presented its rebuttal. Wisconsin stacks the deck against the accused by not only allowing the state the final word but giving them a chance to address the closing argument of the accused. That means before the jury got the case, they had to sit through a long day of the state making unfounded claims about their case as well as the case of the defense team.

Putting that aside, the trial has not exactly riveted the country, but it has become a symbol of the problems facing America. For example, there were the howler monkeys of the new religion writhing in agony whenever the judge enforced the basic rules of criminal procedure. Immediately they labeled the judge a white supremacist fascist and issued a fatwa against him. The death threats came pouring in and he is now under police protection. Welcome to America.

Twitter sponsored people on their platform calling for volunteers to show up at the court and get the names and faces of the jurors. This is not an official Twitter position, but as a publisher, they chose to allow their members to post these calls. In a sane society they would be liable for the people they boost on their platform. In present day America corporations are immune from all consequences. As long as they are true believers, they can do as they please.

On the other side of this you have people slowly waking up to the reality of the situation, who are glued to the case. They hold out hope that the jury does the moral thing and clears Rittenhouse of all charges. They do not want to see an innocent man condemned for holding the wrong opinions, but mostly they do not want to see the ugly reality of this age piled onto the head of a baby-faced young man. This trial offends the decency of the remaining honest men in this society.

For those who have had their awakening long ago, this trial is a continuation of the trend that now defines society. On the one hand we have America descending into a great terror aimed at the white population. The new religion is all about vengeance against white people. Juxtaposed to this are the people who see it, trying to find some way to wake up the rest of the people. This trial is another example of the aware desperately trying to warn the world.

Of course, that brings up the confused audience in this tragic drama. Most white people are trying to avoid looking at this trial. The grotesque nature of it turns their stomach, as it should. The ugliness of the human condition is on display. There are the savage calls for mob vengeance and the cruelty of fanaticism. This trial is a human sacrifice carried out by a mob of fanatical lunatics. Most white people thought we had evolved beyond this sort of thing. Welcome to America.

It is a good reminder of something said by John Stuart Mill. “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”

This has been the story of the last five years. The overwhelming majority of people in America, regardless of race or national origin, just want to live quiet lives enjoying the benefits of their circumstances. They are Burkean conservatives in that they do not want to flip over the tables and begin anew. That understandable and justifiable desire for stability and normalcy easily gives way to passivity in the face of evil. The story of the last five years is a nation of good men doing nothing.

This trial is probably a pivot point. The good men looking away do so with the certainty that their fellow citizens on the jury will do the right thing. They still trust the system even though they see the systemic corruption. If the jury sends this young man to prison many more eyes will be opened to the reality of this age. Not all, as some people put all of their efforts to remaining blissfully unaware. Theirs is a life of willful ignorance and a selfish disregard for the suffering of others.

On the other hand, the just verdict will allow most people to extend their holiday from reality a bit longer. They will comfort themselves in the belief that the system still works, despite what they have seen. Like a high wire performer who miraculously survives a fall and returns to his act, these people will learn nothing. Thoreau was right about most men living quiet lives of desperation. It is just that most men desperately wish to live outside of the great currents of history.

For those who have made the journey to this side of the great divide and see things as they are, this trial is just another opportunity. If the jury does the right thing, then the issue is why this kid was persecuted by these ghouls. If he is found guilty then the issue is the grotesque injustice at the hands of a savage mob of fanatics. The dissident is an opportunist, using every event to press a partisan case. The Rittenhouse case is just one more story in a long struggle for Western civilization. (read more)

2021
-11-16 b
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL XI


Judge Schroeder says he will poll jurors now to determine if deliberations will continue tonight
— Jacek Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) November 16, 2021


*
Including doxxing threats from ‘anarchist groups’
— Jacek Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) November 16, 2021


*
More: Worried about media leaking their names, what will happen to their families, jobs, etc
— Jacek Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) November 16, 2021


*
Two jurors holding decision up, outright citing backlash, per US Marshal in Kenosha
— Jacek Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) November 16, 2021



2021
-11-16 a
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL X


The jury in the #Rittenhouse trial has asked for 11 additional copies only of pages 1-6 of the jury instructions. These pages lay out the self-defense privilege.

— Jiovanni Lieggi (@lieggiji) November 16, 2021

*

The final jury in the #Rittenhouse trial is made up of 7 women and 5 men, with one person of color.

— Jiovanni Lieggi (@lieggiji) November 16, 2021


2021
-11-15 i
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL IX

Rittenhouse Trial:  Defense Delivers Disappointingly Weak Closing Argument

Rittenhouse deserved a great deal more than Attorney Mark Richards delivered.

The closing statements are now done in the Rittenhouse trial, and the jury will now begin deliberations—although not until tomorrow morning.  That means, of course, that we’ll be launching or VERDICT WATCH blog post in the morning at Legal Insurrection, so keep your eyes there for breaking news on a verdict.

And with that, let’s dive into the unpleasant task of noting the poor closing argument presented by the defense in this case.

Defense Delivers Disappointingly Weak Closing Argument

This is an unpleasant task because on the legal merits Kyle Rittenhouse ought to be acquitted by a unanimous jury on every one of the five felony accounts against him, with the State having failed to prove provocation beyond a reasonable doubt and having failed to have disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that may still happen. I hope it does. He deserves those acquittals.

That said, I’m well aware that sometimes defendants who deserve acquittal end up getting convicted, regardless.  There might be many reasons that could occur.  One of those reasons is a weak legal defense, and particularly a weak defense in the critical closing argument, the last opportunity the defense team has to plead their narrative of innocence to the jury.

If the legal defense effort, particularly the closing argument, is as close to perfect as a skilled attorney can hope to deliver and the client gets convicted regardless—well, at least from my perspective as a lawyer, at least I know I did the best I could, and it didn’t go sideways because I could have done more.

When an effort far short of perfect is delivered, again particularly in closing argument, and the client deserving of acquittal gets convicted, then one is always left to wonder whether a better closing argument might have made the difference, whether if more had been done the client would be free today.

Kyle Rittenhouse deserved a better closing argument than he got today, and if he’s convicted on any of these charges I would find it hard to not attribute such an injustice to much of anything except today’s weak closing argument by his Attorney Mark Richards (well, excepting, of course, for the politically-motivated prosecution itself, but that’s precisely what the defense is supposed to stop).

The weaknesses in the defense closing argument really fall into two broad categories, with a bit of overlap.

One category of weakness includes aspects that are inherent to the closing itself, aspects that diminish the closing irrespective of anything the prosecution is arguing.  These are really own-goals, and there’s no good excuse for these at all.

The second category of weakness is more of a failure to anticipate and account for the perfectly foreseeable points the State was likely to make on rebuttal—the defense must anticipate these because they will have no opportunity to speak to the jury again after that rebuttal.

Given the lateness of the hour, I’m going to focus this content solely on this kind of high-level review of the defense closing argument, to get it out to all of you in a reasonably timely manner.

Then I’ll follow up in the morning with a more detailed breakdown of the State’s closing statement (by ADA Binger, and essentially what we expected), a more comprehensive look at the defense closing by Richards, and a detailed breakdown of the State’s rebuttal (by ADA Kraus and also pretty poor).  There I’ll include the relevant video clips of the closing arguments.

Poor Choice of Tone if Goal is Persuasion of Jurors to Defense Narrative

Perhaps the single biggest weakness I saw in the defense closing argument was apparent from the first moments of Attorney Mark Richard’s speaking to the jury, and which I suppose was predictable by his generally gruff manner—and why I would have preferred to have Attorney Core Chirafisi do the defense closing argument.

And that was the angry and personal tone Richards took to the prosecution.

Let me make clear, there’s no question to my mind that the prosecution, in this case, has earned every bit of that anger.  The State has played fast and loose with both the facts and law in this case, trying to gin up a conviction from crumbs left on the bakery floor, all with the goal of putting Kyle Rittenhouse into a cage for the rest of his life by legal means not soundly based on facts and law.

And that’s horrible and wrong. The prosecution and the defense attorneys are both lawyers who work within the criminal trial setting, but their roles are very different.  The inherent power of the State means that they are more tightly constrained than is the defense, or ought to be.

The mission of the defense is a win by any means necessary—it’s the burden of the State to overcome the wily defense and achieve a conviction beyond any reasonable doubt., to get that win for their client.

For the prosecution, the mission is—or is supposed to be—much different.  The prosecution’s mission is supposed to be justice—not merely winning by any means necessary.

So, I have no doubt that Richard’s anger and resentment towards the prosecution here is genuine and well-founded.

But that’s not the point of the closing argument.  Closing argument does not exist so that defense counsel can air out his frustrations with the game-playing of the prosecution. Closing argument exists so the defense can have that last final opportunity to compelling communicate their narrative of innocence to the jury, the last chance they will ever have to do that, to secure that acquittal for the client—even more important than usual when the client overwhelmingly is deserving of an acquittal as here.

I suggest that using the closing argument as a forum to bitch at the prosecution does not do much, at all, to help secure that acquittal for the client, especially not when a better choice of tone would likely have been far more effective.

Taking the tone of “those rioters, looters and arsonists were all scumbags, and this prosecution is just a suit-wearing version of the same chaos!!!!!!” may feel good, and may even be to some degree true—but does it help sell the narrative of innocence to a jury that is looking at all this through entirely different eyes than those of the lead defense counsel?

I’ll note here that the State has repeatedly referenced Kyle as a kind vigilante, out looking for trouble until he found it, expecting to be treated as hero, and “just tryna be famous,” per Kyle’s own TikTok profile.  To the extent that the defense is presenting Kyle as someone they believe should be perceived as a heroic defender and the people he shot or endangered as miscreants who had it coming only helps the prosecution paint their client in this negative light. (And it doesn’t matter that the defense portrayal of Kyle is true.)

Drive a Narrative of Innocence Consistent with, not Contrary to, the Jurors’ Sympathies

If this jury convicts on any of these charges—and they well might—it will be because the prosecution has been successful in fostering some degree of sympathy among the jurors for the people killed, maimed, and purportedly endangered at the hands of Kyle Rittenhouse.

To put it another way, unless that’s happened an acquittal is already secured, and the defense need not engage in the fire-and-brimstone display at all.  But we can’t know that, of course, so we must assume that some degree of sympathy for the “victims” has been successfully fostered by the prosecution.

If that’s so, you don’t make ground with those jurors in particular by shouting your outrage about those horrible people. Instead, you just come across as unsympathetic—which, of course, reflects on your client.

A better approach, in my humble opinion, is to approach the jury not from one’s own position as a righteously outraged defense attorney with a client facing a potentially cataclysmic conviction for no good reason, but rather from the position of those jurors themselves.

Acknowledge that the people who died were human beings, and you and your client wished they were still alive today.  Even with respect to the initial aggressor, Joseph Rosenbaum, whose attack on Kyle triggered all else that followed, everyone would prefer that he were alive today.  Everyone wishes that nobody died that night in Kenosha, and that’s particularly true of your client.

That said, it wasn’t your client’s choice that these tragic events occurred—it was the result of the choices of those others, choices that compelled your client to exercise his privilege under Wisconsin law to defend himself from violent, life-threatening attack.

Acknowledge that perhaps those people who attacked Kyle, especially at the second location, might have genuinely believed that they were acting to stop some kind of active shooter.  They were mistaken, of course, Kyle was as far from an active shooter as it was possible to be, for reasons you’ll detail in a moment.  Perhaps even Rosenbaum’s attack was triggered by personal demons that nobody but he could understand, but which he found impossible to resist.

Whatever the reasons for their attacks, no matter how well-intentioned or compelled by personal demons they might have been—none of that, not one bit of it, in any way diminishes the privilege of your client to defend himself from their attacks.

There’s nothing my client wishes more than that Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were still alive and with their loved ones, and that Gaige Grosskreutz was unmaimed.  That’s the world he would have chosen to exist today—if only those people, and others, had not violently stripped that option from him by their attacks, however motivated, that threatened him with apparent imminent death.

Failure to Step Methodically Through the Elements of Self-Defense

My next point may be more a reflection of my own temperament, and is perhaps just a personal or professional preference on my part—but I would have been far more detailed and specific in stepping through the elements of self-defense as applied to each of these felony charges.

For each count, I would have made clear in plain language exactly what circumstances would lead Kyle to believe he was facing an unlawful forcible attack (Innocence), that the harm feared from that attack was either already being inflicted or apparently immediately about to occur (Imminence), how the nature of the threat presented an apparent risk of death or serious bodily injury (Proportionality), and how all of this was not just genuinely believed but objective reasonable (Reasonableness).

Example: Failing to Address with Specificity the Issue of an “Unarmed” Rosenbaum

This would have been particularly useful in addressing the all-critical first attack by Joseph Rosenbaum.  We have seen how throughout the trial ADA Binger has been making much of the argument that some of the people attacking Kyle were “unarmed.”  Indeed, at one of the pre-trial hearings, Binger had actually argued that it could never be lawful for an armed man to shoot an attacker who was unarmed.

So the defense ought to have had every expectation that much would be made in closing about the “unarmed” nature of Rosenbaum’s attack on Rittenhouse, and it should have been made crystal clear to the jury how deceptive this framing was.

In particular, Rosenbaum was not merely fake-rushing Kyle, or poking Kyle with an index finger, or even shoving Kyle forcibly backward—Rosenbaum was fighting Kyle for control of his rifle, and in the context of the death threats Ryan Balch and Kyle himself had testified about.

The moment Rosenbaum is fighting for the control of the rifle, he is no longer “unarmed” in any meaningful sense of the term.  Instead, he’s in the process of arming himself. With a rifle. With Kyle’s rifle.

If Rosenbaum were picking up a dropped rifle from the ground under those circumstances nobody would doubt that he was arming himself for the purpose of using that rifle on Kyle.

By not merely picking up some other rifle, but fighting Kyle for his own rifle, Rosenbaum is actually creating a greater threat than that, because he’s simultaneously disarming Kyle while he’s arming himself.

No such argument was made by Richards during his close. And I expect I know why—because he approached this closing argument from his own perspective, as someone to whom this argument is obvious and intuitive, rather than from the perspective of jurors who had developed some sympathy for these “victims” and their families, and for whom this notion of “arming oneself with the other guy’s gun” might not be so obvious and intuitive.

By addressing this issue only vaguely or not at all, Richards left a gaping opening for Kraus to wobble through in his own State rebuttal argument, where he went on at length about Rosenbaum’s status as “unarmed.”  Kyle brought a gun to a bar fight, he could have punched Rosenbaum, or kicked him the testicles, or struck him with the rifle as an impact weapon—anything other than fire four rounds into him for the purported offense of merely chasing him.

Failure to Concretely Define Imminence to Jury

The failure to make the legal concept of imminence clear also left another gaping opening for Kraus to suggest to the jury that Kyle was not permitted to defend himself against an attack that was immediately about to occur, and avoids injury entirely.  Rather, Kraus suggested, sometimes we just have to take a beating before we’re privileged to defend ourselves, and Kyle didn’t do that.  Frankly, that’s just an outright misstatement of the law. In fact, a defender need not suffer so much as a scratch before being privileged to use even deadly force in self-defense.

In any case, the defense is unable to respond to any of this nonsense by ADA Kraus, because they don’t get to rebut the State rebuttal, so by necessity, such things must be addressed prior, to the defense closing argument.  And they were not.

My Preference: A Less Wandering, More Methodical Guide for the Jury

Personally, I would have preferred to have seen a much more methodical progression through each of the elements of self-defense for each of the criminal charges, so that the jurors had an easy, well-marked trail to a justification acquittal on each of them.

You don’t want the jury to spend hours in deliberations hacking through those 36 pages of jury instructions with a lay person’s understanding (and misunderstanding) of the legal concepts, especially when they were so confusingly communicated by Judge Schroeder, in the first place.

Instead, you want to show the jury the way, in a step-by-step fashion.  See, you start here, and this is how we (the defense) see the evidence apply to this legal condition, and that brings us right over here, where we think this happens, and then over here, and then here, and ACQUITTAL!  Now let’s do Count 2.

Reasonableness Assessed from Kyle’s Perspective, Age, Circumstances

Also, an absolutely critical facet of any claim of self-defense is that the perceptions, decisions, and actions be assessed from the perspective of the actual defendant, given their particular attributes, the surrounding circumstances, abilities & disabilities, training and experience, and so forth.

In this particular case, we have a 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse who found himself isolated and alone in horrifically chaotic circumstances, not of his own making and facing a series of apparently lethal attackers.

Did Kyle make the best of all possible decisions in each of these use-of-force encounters? Frankly, I think he probably did—but that’s not the point. Our concern is that a jury might not think so, that a juror might have thought that with hindsight there was a better option available.

We can see how the prosecution pounded home on this point when they kept coming back to the idea that the first round to strike Rosenbaum broke his pelvis and probably left him instantly unable to further threaten Kyle—yet Kyle shot him three more times, including the fatal shot.

Strictly speaking, with perfect hindsight, we can see that those successive three shots were probably not actually necessary.  Does that make them unlawful? After all, isn’t lawful self-defense conditioned on necessity?

Well, no, actually.  Lawful self-defense is conditioned upon apparent necessity.  And there was no way, in that brief 0.76 seconds in which Kyle fired his first and last shot into Rosenbaum, that Kyle could have known that his first-round had effectively knocked Rosenbaum to the ground.

During that 0.76 seconds, Rosenbaum continued to present as apparently diving and lunging for control of Kyle’s rifle, and thus continued to present as an apparent deadly force threat for each of those four rounds.

Four Shots is Fine, After All, Jacob Blake Took Seven

Binger touched on the question of whether all four of these rounds were genuinely necessary and therefore lawful, or whether that third or fourth shot, the “kill shot to the back,” was unnecessary and unlawful as the State argued.

Richard’s response wasn’t just not helpful, it might well have been harmful—and again because he approached the issue from his own perspective, rather than from the perspective of one a juror who had perhaps developed some sympathy for the “victims” in this case.

Instead of speaking to this issue on the basis that self-defense law provides for—the reasonable perceptions of Kyle of apparent circumstances, and in the context of his age, prior experiences (death threat), current chaotic circumstances, and so forth, Richards used an argument that likely angered one or more jurors.

Let me take a step back for a moment.  Recall that these Kenosha riots were over the police shooting of Jacob Blake, something the prosecution touched upon repeatedly. Well, the prosecution is not repeatedly mentioning the Jacob Blake catalyst of those nights of chaos because it’s harmful to the prosecution.

In fact, much of the world believes the false narrative that Jacob Blake was wrongfully shot seven times in the back by Kenosha police officers (later deemed justified), and that therefore there was certainly genuine legitimacy to the protests that followed, and perhaps a bit of “I don’t like it, but I understand where it is coming” from even for some of the less prominent property damage caused by actual rioters.

In other words, there are a lot of people who genuinely, if mistakenly, believe that the shooting of Blake was, as they might put it, a profound social injustice.

With this background in mind, and assuming that there are prospectively several people like that on the jury, how did Richards decide to contextualize Kyle’s firing four rounds into Rosenbaum.

Well, he told the jury, he’s seen cases right there in Kenosha where someone shot another person seven times, and that was deemed to be fine.

Now, he didn’t say the name Jacob Blake—but I’m pretty sure everybody in Kenosha knows the name of the guy who was shot seven in what was later deemed a justified shooting.

It should go without saying that anybody who believes that the shooting of Jacob Blake in the back was an obvious social injustice is going to feel any more favorable to Kyle having shot Rosenbaum four times, including in the back, in an analogy made by his own defense attorney.

A Gun is a Gun, a Bullet is a Bullet

Another dropped ball was in the context of the “AR versus handgun” issue raised by the prosecution numerous times throughout the trial.  Binger suggested to the jury that, hey, all Grosskreutz had was a pistol, and in contrast, Kyle had this giant powerful AR-15 rifle with a 30 round magazine loaded with full metal jacket bullets. That can’t be fair!

Richards’ only response to this was a dismissive “hey, guns are guns, bullets are bullets.”  And from his own perspective as a criminal defense attorney, that’s pretty much 100% right. From a legal perspective, it’s all deadly force, both pistol and rifle are readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury under the circumstances in place, and so there’s really no legal distinction between them.

But that’s not how a jury is going to look at it. A pistol and a rifle, in fact, are different, with different capabilities, and there was testimony to this at trial  A typical police body armor can stop pistol rounds, but not AR rounds.  Pistols are routinely carried for personal protection in public, and ARs only rarely so.  Pistols have a relatively short range, but an AR can shoot out to 550 yards.

In many obvious ways, the Glock pistol of Grosskreutz and the AR-15 of Kyle are substantively different. And simply dismissively saying “guns are guns, bullets are bullets” doesn’t adequately address this.

Instead, Richards should have conceded that it’s true that in many respects the pistol and rifle here are very different—but that they were not different in any way that applied in these particular circumstances This was not a case where the two men were 550 yards apart, for example, so that the rifle was effective but the pistol harmless.  Under these circumstances either weapon was readily able to inflict death or serious bodily injury to another, and therefore there was no meaningful distinction between them for the purposes of this trial. (read more)

2021-11-15 h
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL VIII

DEFENSE: Kyle Rittenhouse "has as much right to go there as anybody else in the city of Kenosha, and be unmolested by the likes of Joseph Rosenbaum…" pic.twitter.com/UABZUGFDsG

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 15, 2021

*

Defense: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is a political case.” pic.twitter.com/32BXWQeAHo

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 15, 2021


2021-11-15 g
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL VII

The Real Reason the Left Hates Kyle Rittenhouse

[...] So why is it the left hates Rittenhouse so much?   Set aside all of the wacky hyperbole of white supremacy and whatnot, why do they want to convict him of murder, despite the case being extremely clear about the fact that it was self-defense?  I can tell you exactly why.  It wasn’t the fact that Rittenhouse was white.  It wasn’t the fact that he was there, presumably in opposition to the riots.

It was the type of gun, Rittenhouse was carrying, and the fact that it put on a clinic of answers to the question the left always wants to ask:

Why does anyone need an AR-15?

In a few short minutes, Rittenhouse dispatched three threats without killing anyone else around him.  He was a 17-year-old kid, using what they would like to label as an indiscriminate weapon of war, which, by their very understanding of the firearm, should have seen Rittenhouse shooting everywhere and hitting nothing except innocent bystanders who happened to find themselves in the line of fire.  But that wasn’t the case.  The majority of Rittenhouse’s shots hit their intended targets.  He wasn’t being thrown all over the place by the kick of the gun and he was calm and precise using the weapon.  There weren’t coke-can-sized holes in people and mass casualties.  What they thought would have left a trail of decimation was actually much, much less than that.

But beyond the imagery, there was the meaning.  What does someone need an AR-15 for?  This exact situation.  When the world and society melt down around you, as it did in this sleepy little Wisconsin burg, you may need that type of weapon to protect yourself and/or your family.  Certainly, the choice of firearm will be your own, but the use of an AR-15 and other types of tactical/sport rifles in these situations proves to be a valid option.

That’s what the left absolutely hates about this.  They wanted carnage.  They wanted to be able to point at this and say, this is exactly why no one ever needs an AR-15.  They didn’t get that though.  They wanted a talking point.  They wanted a Sandy Hook or a Pulse nightclub.  They expected a chain saw.  What we saw was a scalpel.  And not the scalpel in the hands of some skilled surgeon.  He was a 17-year-old boy, and the gun wasn’t even his.  That… That right there is why they hate Kyle. They hate Kyle, because he showed the world, exactly why someone might need an AR-15. (read more)

2021
-11-15 f
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL VI

YouTube Has Shut Down All Independent Livestreams of Rittenhouse Show Trial.
What Are They & Their Deep State Patrons Afraid Of?

*

BREAKING: All independent streams of the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial are being taken down by Youtube over “Policy Violations”@CBSNews‘ stream is still running however. pic.twitter.com/UhNwrLZbCU

— Deus Flex Machina- flexyoursuccess.com (@ReturnOfTheFleX) November 15, 2021


*

This is pretty damned nervy.

Don’t give me your “copyright” baloney. @RekietaMedia @JackPosobiec pic.twitter.com/R7GFfum9uV

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) November 15, 2021

*

We’re BACK UP. @TeamYouTube dropped us by FORTY THOUSAND viewers over a BS copyright claim because they are literally paid for by the Media.https://t.co/OYctyjpsA3

THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ISSUE HERE, Youtube is just shutting down independent creators. https://t.co/rKfoLJijd6

— Rekieta Media (@RekietaMedia) November 15, 2021


2021-11-15 e
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL V

The real villains in the Rittenhouse trial

After the defense rested in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the lawyers on both sides met with the judge to go over possible jury instructions and the introduction of lesser charges.  A video was shown of a mob of rioters with axes and what appeared to be baseball bats destroying the cars at a local auto dealership.  The prosecution was arguing that Rittenhouse had lost his right of self-defense because he had a clear path to run away.  The defense countered by pointing out that the supposed clear path went through the out-of-control mob portrayed on the video.
 
This moment was emblematic of the prosecution's entire case.  In the state's opinion, the presence of armed citizens trying to prevent the burning and destruction of property in and of itself constituted a provocation of the rioters sufficient for them to justify their attacks on Rittenhouse and negate his right of self-defense.

As crazy as this sounds, much of the media and most of the Democrat party agree with the prosecutors.  The real villains in this case are the public authorities who allowed rioters to wreak havoc unopposed for three nights in Kenosha in response to the [justified] shooting of [knife-wielding] Jacob Blake, a police action that was ultimately deemed justifiable.  While watching the video of the destruction, one has to wonder: why weren't police and firemen there protecting Kenosha?

This pattern of abdicating authority to violent activists has been repeated in cities around the country, including Seattle, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Baltimore, Chicago, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, and especially Portland, to name just a few.  Out of a fear of creating an incident where rioters incur injuries, police response is limited to lining up across a street and slowly moving forward while the rioters are permitted to bombard them with bricks and Molotov cocktails.

Woke politicians have been enabling chaos through such actions as no bail rules; release of violent felons due to COVID-19; reducing property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors; giving free rein to homeless people to defecate on the street, openly inject drugs, and intimidate passersby; raising bail for violent rioters; and handing the justice system to radical prosecutors who care more about the criminals than the victims.
 
In Washington, D.C., a violent mob outside the White House created a situation deemed so dangerous that President Trump was forced by the Secret Service to be sheltered in the basement, and a historic church across Lafayette Square was partially burned.  The next day, President Trump made a point of a show of force against mob violence by simply walking through the park to the site of the church.  To emphasize the force of his actions, he had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, and the secretary of defense, Mark Esper, accompany him.

The next day, Mark Esper called a press conference to apologize for his presence on the walk, and Mark Milley has similarly condemned the president's action.  This was a clear act of insubordination.  If they had wanted to do this in a legitimate fashion, they should have resigned in protest.  But what is more important is that they essentially said that using the military to protect the White House constituted an unwarranted interference by the military in domestic affairs.

While one can only speculate as to their motives, in the case of General Milley, there is plenty of reason to believe he didn't want to be associated with suppressing a violent mob that was angry about the [fentanyl overdose] death of George Floyd.  For Milley and Esper, showing woke bona fides was more important than defending the United States.  You have to wonder how our allies in Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine feel about the reliability and power of the American military when its leadership is more concerned with not offending a woke Twitter mob than displaying military strength.

The governor of Wisconsin allowed mayhem to go on in Kenosha for two nights before citizens attempted to deter the continued destruction of their city on the third night of violence.  Finally, after Rittenhouse shot in desperation to defend himself against a violent mob, the governor acted to end the chaos.  This has been a tragedy for Huber, Grosskreutz, and Rosenbaum, as well as Rittenhouse, but in some way, they are all victims.  The true architects of this tragedy were George Soros; Nancy Pelosi; Chesa Boudin; Governor Evers in Wisconsin; Governor Walz in Minnesota; Governor Kate Brown in Oregon; and the mayors of Chicago, Portland, D.C., Minneapolis, New York, and Seattle, among others, who for reasons of either cowardice or political opportunism enabled increasing out-of-control rioting until it ended in tragedy.

The wrong person is on trial here.  An eighteen-year-old kid is being prosecuted for trying to make up for the total abdication of responsibility by those in authority who were too cowardly to do their job. (read more)

2021-11-15 d
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL IV

Billionaire Bill Ackman shows that 'the truth shall make you free'

Since August 2020, everything that Bill Ackman, a billionaire Democrat, knew about Kyle Rittenhouse came through the mainstream media's reports.  Those reports painted Rittenhouse as a White supremacist who grabbed a gun and went to Kenosha to kill.  While he didn't get to kill Blacks, said the media, he succeeded in killing two Black allies.  The leniency the media demanded in 2020 for defendants did not extend to young Kyle.  Ackman, however, decided to watch the trial, and, to his shocked dismay, learned that everything the media said was wrong.  His tweets on the subject are instructive.

In an era of in-your-face billionaires, 
Bill Ackman is a low-key guy.  He founded Pershing Square Capital Management, a hedge fund that manages assets worth over $13 billion.  He's a New Yorker and Ivy League–educated all the way, having received his B.A. and MBA at Harvard.  He's proudly Jewish and is a long-time Democrat party–supporter, having endorsed Michael Bloomberg's short-lived run for president and donated to Richard Blumenthal, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, the DNC, and the DSCC.

Given Ackman's Ivy League background, long history supporting the Democrat party, and reliance solely on the mainstream media, his tweets about the effect the Rittenhouse trial had on him are incredibly powerful.  For him, it was mind-boggling to see the chasm between media reports and the facts ultimately exposed at trial, so much so that he came away believing in Kyle's innocence:


I wish Ackman could be brought to understand how important guns are to preserving individual liberty, but otherwise, you could not ask for a fairer, more open-minded statement about the evidence at the trial and the only conclusion that makes sense based upon that evidence.

For the media, it was inconceivable that a Democrat party stalwart was looking at the facts and deviating from the accepted narrative:


The tweets in response were savage, including accusations that

  • a sophisticated, mature businessman doesn't know what an EMT is,
  • nobody of goodwill would bring an AR-15 (which, to the left, is much worse than the loaded pistol Gaige Grosskreutz aimed at Kyle's head),
  • Kyle's crossing state lines was itself almost criminal (state lines have suddenly become important, even as the left erases our sovereign boundary on the south),
  • No 17-year-old should ever be allowed out with a "semiautomatic high caliber weapon,"
  • There was something inherently suspect and wrong about Kyle's daring to volunteer to protect a once-peaceful community that rioters were burning to the ground.
What's fascinating is that there are no replies saying, "Wow!  If the trial changed your mind, maybe I should check out the facts for myself instead of relying on the media."  Leftists don't want to have facts interfere with the narrative.  The narrative sustains them in their hatred for America and their desire to overthrow it.  And of course, there's that sense of moral superiority that permeates everything that the Democrats — who have abandoned traditional morality — assert is good and true.

Still, Ackman's experience supports a theory that I've held ever since I made my own journey from mindless Democrat party voter to stalwart conservative: being told the establishment is lying is meaningless; instead, people must have a visceral sense that they are on the receiving end of dishonesty.

For Ackman, that awareness came from watching testimony.  For me, it was NPR's increasingly open hostility to Israel; Hurricane Katrina proving that, when seconds count, the police are days away; and 9/11.

I don't see Ackman abandoning his allegiance to the Democrat party anytime soon.  Breaking from that party is a slow, painful process because it's sold to us as a faith that provides redemption and salvation.  You're a good person if you're a Democrat, and who doesn't want that?

However, to the extent that Ackman supports Israel and believes in the truth, I hope he is on his way to being red-pilled.  A guy who is intellectually honest is a powerful ally.  It would be great, therefore, if he could see his way to abandoning the left and coming over to constitutional conservatism, including supporting the Second Amendment, which is the only thing that constrains the government when it comes to the Bill of Rights. (read more)


2021-11-15 c
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL III

Could a skateboard be a lethal weapon?
The Rittenhouse prosecutor doesn't think so.


2021-11-15 b
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL II

Rittenhouse Trial: Big Wins for Defense on Jury Instructions, State Leads with Provocation

Worth remembering ADA Binger mentioned provocation zero times in opening statement

The Rittenhouse trial has paused for lunch, so I’m taking this opportunity to provide a quick update.

The morning began without the jury in the courtroom, with a meeting to finalize the instructions to be given to the jury.

The defense came away with three big wins as a result of these discussions, and one that did not go their way.

One win was the dismissal of the gun possession charge—finally!  My first analysis of this gun possession charge that concluded it ought to be dismissed as a matter of law, and never be considered by a jury, was posted way back on September 7, 2020, more than 14 months ago.  It was nice to see Judge Schroeder finally see the wisdom of my position.  So, Count 6, the gun possession charge, has been discarded.

A second win, with respect to the State’s argument of provocation, the State will not be permitted to claim as fact that Kyle pointed his rifle at the Ziminskis. This is important for the defense, because the purported provocation of pointing the rifle at the Ziminskis, which if believed would strip Kyle of self-defense completely, requires an unlawful act on his part that provoked the Rosenbaum attack.

The State wants to claim that unlawful act was Kyle pointing the gun at the Ziminskis—but there’s no actual evidence of this.  There’s no photo or testimony that Kyle pointed his rifle at the Ziminskis.  Even the “enhanced” drone video left for the prosecution by the evidence fairy does not have the Ziminskis in frame when Kyle is supposedly pointing his rifle.

So, the State will only be permitted to argue that Kyle pointed his rifle in some general direction, that different video shows the Ziminskis in that general area, and therefore the jury should infer that Kyle was pointing his rifle at the Ziminskis.

If the jury disbelieves any part of that, there was no unlawful act that provoked the Rosenbaum charge, and therefore no provocation that strips Kyle of self-defense.

A third win, with respect to Count 2, the reckless endangerment of McGinnis, the judge agreed to the suggestion by defense attorney Chirafisi that he would instruct the jury that if Kyle’s use of force with respect to Rosenbaum was lawful self-defense, then it was not conduct that was reckless with respect to McGinnis—so, if shooting Rosenbaum was lawful self-defense, there also was no reckless endangerment of McGinnis. Self-defense on Count 1 would also clear away Count 2.

One point that did not go the way of the defense was their request for a jury instruction that the jury ought not convict Kyle solely on the drone video footage.  The judge declined that instruction, saying it’s up to the jury to weigh the evidence.

These discussions were followed by the actual instruction of the jury in the courtroom, and this was among the most confusing and disjointed instructions of a jury I’ve ever seen. At one point, in fact, the judge sent the jury out of the courtroom, as he recognized just what a mess the process had become.

Here the defense actually acquired a fourth big win on the jury instructions.

The issue had been that the instructions as provided in standardized form might have misled the jury into believing that even if they found the defendant not guilty of a primary criminal charge on the grounds of self-defense, that they then should nevertheless go on to consider if he’s guilty of one of the lesser included charges.

This is not how it works. If the defendant is clear of the primary charge on the basis of self-defense, his conduct was legally justified, and cannot be the basis for a conviction on a lesser included charge.

Ultimately, Judge Schroeder decided that he would essentially just tell the jury that if they believed the defendant’s conduct was self-defense, they were done—that was a not guilty verdict on that charge, and they need not consider either the primary charge nor any lesser included charges in that count.

That’s what the jury SHOULD have been instructed to do-consider self-defense first.  If they do that, and find self-defense, they’ve made their deliberations a heck of a lot more efficient, because they’ll never have to consider the corresponding criminal charge of its lesser includeds at all.

Once the jury was instructed, ADA Binger began his opening statement, and as we all expected the State is leading with the only real argument they have—that Kyle provoked Rosenbaum by pointing his rifle towards the Ziminskis, then again when he was being chased into the cars where he would finally shoot Rosenbaum, and that Kyle could have kept running and thus did not exhaust every possible means of escape, and regain his privilege of self-defense.

Accordingly, Binger argues, Kyle simply has no self-defense privilege to claim at all, as a provoker who lost but did not regain self-defense.

Predictably enough there’s also a lot of the innuendo and emotive talking points that Binger likes so much. Kyle was an outsider to the community. Kyle lied all night about being an EMT. Kyle brought an AR-15. Kyle was looking to tell other people what to do. Kyle knew he was putting himself into a hostile environment. This is what happens when we let 17-year-olds walk around the streets with ARs.

With respect to the Rosenbaum shooting in particular, Binger argued not only that it was all Kyle’s fault because of his provocation, but that Kyle should have known Rosenbaum was helpless after the first shot broke his pelvis, and there was no need to track the body to the ground and shoot Rosenbaum in the back.

Binger also stated, wrongly, that a person who brings a gun with him can’t claim self-defense—suggesting that the bringing of the gun itself was a provocation.

Somewhat surprisingly the defense did not object here, but they had objected to several prior statements by Binger that were very marginal to say the least, and each time the judge had told them to just address it in their own closing argument, so perhaps the defense figured that’s the response they’d get to an objection here, as well.

Binger was only part way through his Rosenbaum narrative when the court recessed for lunch, which is were we are now, until 12:45PM CT.  Presumably he picks up where he left off then. (read more)

2021-11-15 a
RITTENHOUSE SHOW TRIAL I

The judge has dismissed the weapons charge against Kyle Rittenhouse.

This is a huge victory for Rittenhouse and his defense team.

— David Hookstead (@dhookstead) November 15, 2021

*

(AP) – Judge at Kyle Rittenhouse trial dismisses charge of possession of dangerous weapon.

— Sarah Barnacle (@BarnacleWBZ) November 15, 2021

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL, http://www.usaapay.com/comm.html

______________________


2021 ARCHIVE

January 1 - 6

January 7 - 13

January 14 - 20

January 21 - 24

January 25 - 28

January 29 - 31

February 1 - 4

February 5 - 10

February 11 - 21

February 22 - 24

February 25 - 28
March 1 - 9

March 10 - 17

March 18 - 23

March 24 - 31
April 1 - 8

April 9 - 14

April 15 - 18

April 19 - 24

April 25 - 30

May 1 - 5

May 6 - 10

May 11 - 15

May 16 - 22

May 23 - 26

May 27 - 29

May 30 - 31
 
June 1 - 5

June 6 - 8

June 9 - 12

June 13 - 19

June 20 - 24

June 25 - 30
July 1 - 6

July 7 - 10

July 11 - 17

July 18 - 23

July 24 - 28

July 29 - 31
August 1 - 5

August 6 - 8

August 9 - 14

August 15 - 18

August 19 - 23

August 24 - 28

August 29 - 31
September 1 - 4

September 5 - 9

September 10 - 16

September 17 - 21

September 22 - 27

September 28 - 30

October 1 - 5

October 6 - 9

October 10 - 14

October 15 - 20

October 21 - 27

October 28 - 31

November 1 - 6

November 7 - 10

November 11 - 14

December


2020 ARCHIVE

January
February March
April 1 - 15

April 16- 30

May 1 - 15

May 16- 31
 
June 1 - 15

June 16- 30
July 1 - 15

July 16- 31
Aug 1 - 15

Aug 16 - 31
September 1 - 15

September 16 - 30
October 1 - 15

October 16 - 23

Ocober 24 - 31
November 1 - 8

November 9 - 15

November 16 - 21

November 22 - 30
December 1 - 7

December 8 - 12

December 13 - 16

December 17 - 20

December 21 - 27

December 28 - 31

-0-
...
 News and facts for those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio version of reality.


- Unlike all the legacy media, our editorial offices are not in Langley, Virginia.


- You won't catch us fiddling while Western Civilization burns.


-
Close the windows so you don't hear the mockingbird outside, grab a beer, and see what the hell is going on as we witness the controlled demolition of our society.


- The truth usually comes from one source. It comes quietly, with no heralds. Untruths come from multiple sources, in unison, and incessantly.


- The loudest partisans belong to the smallest parties. The media exaggerate their size and influence.


THE ARCHIVE PAGE
.
No Thanks
If you let them redefine words, they will control language.
If you let them control language, they will control thoughts.
If you let them control thoughts, they will control you. They will own you.

© 2020 - 2021 - thenotimes.com - All Rights Reserved