POPULAR TOPICSSupreme Court | Politics | Biden Scandals | Election 2024 | Opinion | Media Bias |Essays from Mike | Tributes |

Latest News

November 17, 2021

As of Wednesday morning, the jury has yet to reach a verdict, and it might not have to, under two possible scenarios:

Jack Posobiec of Human Events tweeted that an unnamed US Marshal told him two jurors are holding up the verdict out of fear of threats by radicals against themselves and their families. If that’s true, the judge might have to dismiss them, and since alternate jurors have already been dismissed, declare a mistrial. But Jennifer Van Laar at explains why she’s skeptical of this story:

The other scenario: Rittenhouse’s attorneys filed a new, late request for the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice, meaning no retrial. They already requested a mistrial based on the prosecution improperly infringing on Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent and introducing evidence that had been ruled inadmissible. The new filing adds an accusation that the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense by turning over a compressed copy of the FBI surveillance video and not revealing that they had a clearer, higher resolution version until after that part of the trial was over.

Meanwhile, both pro- and anti-Rittenhouse protesters are gathered outside the Courthouse, and the city is bracing for potential street violence. Some anti-Rittenhouse protesters are claiming that an acquittal means that white supremacists will be free to kill black people, which seems like an odd conclusion to draw from one white guy shooting three other white guys in self-defense. But when you get your news from CNN and MSNBC, clear thinking is not your strong suit.

I already told you how the “fact-checking” site Politifact got Wisconsin law wrong in declaring it "false" that Rittenhouse had a legal right to carry a gun. After being called on it by conservative media sources and having the judge throw out an illegal weapons possession charge, the site acknowledged that the law is "unclear." And then they stood by their original ruling of "false" and refused to retract it. Maybe their next “fact-check” could be a deep dive into what the word “unclear” means.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

No Comments