Rittenhouse: not guilty on all charges

Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz, who was 26 at the time. Rittenhouse testified that he had fired in self-defense.

54 thoughts on “Rittenhouse: not guilty on all charges

  1. Michael McChesney wrote:
    “But if the police and if necessary the national guard can’t protect a community they are in effect inviting in vigilantes. Just to be clear, I am not condoning vigilantes. But they are a foreseeable result when people feel the government is not protecting them”

    I agree with this, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that individuals need to take the law into their own hands to deal with the Trump cult, especially those defying subpoenas, and with white collar criminals. The law has shown many times that it is biased in favor of the genuine elite to the point where it seems it can not be repaired, and will not deal with the elites in the former Trump Administration and with white collar criminals like polluting corporations, starting with, for instance, the Koch Brothers corporations and with Rupert Murdoch owned businesses.

    1. Oh, heavens, Adam Tondowsky, McM’s remarks apply only to the uncontrollable violence unleashed by the BLM movement! People on the right are just exercising their various rights, like the right to travel to a disturbance miles away from your home with the biggest gun you can get and then feel threatened. Nobody should be punished for that.

      I believe that the Supreme Court will soon hand out a bulletin of some sort saying that any shooting of any BLM marcher is an act of self defense, just like whatever it was they did that made the Texas anti-abortion law peachy keen. Oh, maybe if a state passes a law putting a bounty on BLM marchers! Apparently that makes things consitituional.

  2. Wow, somebody actually whipped you up into thinking the fate of the nation rested on the Rittenhouse trial? You are a case study on how easy it can be for demagogues to work some people up into a killing rage.

    Michael McChesney here apparently does not think that is a thing. Thanks for helping me persuade him!

  3. no one is talking about the other side of this, those convicted criminals went to kenosha, caused damage, started fires, made trouble, carried weapons there. They were the trouble makers looking to start things. was that promoted in the Media? why not? Sweep that under the rug. use the “Victims” to represent the cause and use them to promote what ever issue that’s going on, put blame on other things. The Media refuses to mention those people who got shot were the real perpetrators, but no one cares to mention that.

  4. I somehow got my named placed several years ago on a right wing politician fundraising email list (David Dewhurst was the first.) I don’t think it’s exclusively on the right, but these email lists get sold around.

    So, I just received this from Wendy Rittenhouse:

    Kyle was just ACQUITTED and is now officially FREE!

    This was a victory for the truth, for justice, and for every American’s God-given and unalienable right of self-defense.

    We are so overcome with emotion, and as hard as that was, we are thankful.

    We are thankful for the millions of Americans who stood with Kyle from the start.

    We are thankful for the many others who watched the trial with an open mind, realized that they had been lied to for a year and a half, and spoke out.

    And we are thankful to the jury which put aside bias, considered the facts, and came to the right decision.

    Now, we will try to return to something that resembles a normal life, however that requires one more major push to settle our case-related debts and pay off what we hope will be our final legal bills.

    So please, take all that positive energy I know you’re feeling and make an urgent donation to help us close this very ugly chapter in our lives.

    Any funds left over will be transferred into Kyle’s scholarship fund so that he’ll be able to graduate from college debt-free.

    You’ll be hearing from us again, but for now, and from the bottom of our hearts, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

    With love,

    Wendy Rittenhouse

  5. Also, let’s just get this clear since this thread is full of blithering idiots who lack the most basic understanding of self defense law.

    If you get into a fight that you willingly engage in, then get scared when your opponent defends themselves and you then shoot them and kill them, that’s not self defense. That’s murder. Maybe 2nd degree, except in this case the kid came from far away with intent. That makes it intentional murder.

    If that was self defense, thousands would die daily in every city. Every argument, bad business deal, marriage would end in a fight started by the side wishing to end it, who would then kill their opponent. “Oh, they fought back and I was scared so I shot them.”

    Trayvon Martin started this bullshit. Guy starts fight with someone he wanted to kill. He comes out on the bad side, so he kills the guy. It’s considered self defense by a community who is just fine with people like the accused killing people like the victim.

    Get ready for people like Rittenhouse “defending themselves” in similar communities all over America against people they don’t like in fights they start. We’ve got two precedents now. No reason not to, right?

    Of course all law involving the concept of self defense going back centuries stands against this concept and requires the attack one is defending oneself from not be started by oneself, but apparently we’re ditching that. First cops, now citizens.

    Mount your purge masks.

    1. I’m not convinced of your argument.

      The Wisconsin statute reads: “A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.”

      The Wisconsin statute cited above says that even if Rittenhouse illegally provoked the attackers, he still has the right to use lethal force in certain circumstances. Note that the Wisconsin statute also means that it is not legally relevant whether Rittenhouse was right or wrong about his needing to use deadly force. It only matters whether he reasonably believed it to be true. That means the entire legal case against him hinges on proving Rittenhouse’s belief was not even “reasonable.” That is a very difficult case to make to a jury, and it hinges on a definition of the term “reasonable.”

      Wisconsin has a difficult standard for the prosecution to meet the “burden of proof” to overcome a self-defense claim. Rittenhouse being mistaken in his belief is not relevant. Even if every juror believed that Rittenhouse illegally provoked the attacks, and that Rittenhouse was mistaken about his belief that deadly force was necessary, they could still find him “not guilty” if they had to concede that his belief, while mistaken, was reasonable.

      The judge said as much in his instructions: “The state must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. The law of self-defense allows the defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another if the defendant believed that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the defendant’s person; and the defendant believed that the amount of force that the defendant used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference; and the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable.” (Mistaken beliefs may be reasonable.)

  6. They left it open to lower charges.

    The fix was in the second this judge got assigned. Can’t call them victims, but can call them rioters? Racist jokes from the bench? His phone “accidentally” plays a Trump campaign song?

    May as well have worn A Not Guilty t-shirt.

    1. From my observation, he pretty much assured that the kid would go free, either on the verdict or on appeal. Of course there can be no appeal by the prosecution after a not guilty verdict, but if there had been a finding of guilt, the judge’s offbeat behavior left plenty of wiggle room for the defense to appeal.

      1. Well, there could be a retrial, but the chances are very slim. I think the judge banning the video of him talking about killing people a couple days before he killed people was a wrong decision. It clearly goes to mental state. If it is found that the judge barred that evidence in a prejudiced manner (and there is a good case for judicial prejudice in this case but it would take the very rare feat of judges holding one of their own accountable), then the whole thing can be vacated by a higher court and a retrial could ensue. He crossed state lines, so there can also be some federal charges that can be coming his way. Also, I hope he loses a HUGE civil suit from the families of the people he killed.

        1. Even if the judge was determined to have been illegally biased in favor of the defense, he could not be retried. The only way he could be retried by Wisconsin is if it was determined that the judge or the jury were bribed or threatened by Rittenhouse or someone in league with Rittenhouse. As for federal charges, there are no federal crimes he could be charged with. Having crossed state lines prior to the shooting did not make it a potentiel federal crime. He couldn’t be charged with violating the civil rights of the people he shot because he was not a police officer acting under color of law and despite all the charges of racism everyone he shot was white.

  7. White, black; shit like this happens. OJ put his foot on Nicole’s back, pulled her head up by the hair, and slit her throat from ear to ear, while their children were mere feet away in the house. He then stabbed Ron Goldman over 40 times. He walked out of court a free man because he had a jury of staggering idiots who foolishly bought into a con artist lawyer’s assertions that the case was all about race, when it had nothing to do with race.

    Rittenhouse committed his crimes while a deranged, racist President was in office, who refused to condemn his actions. His jury was mostly white; his judge made racist jokes in court. No surprise he walked. People can get away with anything if it happens at a certain time in history and things roll their way. Everything went his way in this case. Stupidity is the standard now. A mindless racist Trump zombie takes a semi-auto to a BLM protest, is threatened by a skateboard, kills some people, and is found not guilty. That’s pure 100% industrial strength stupidity.

  8. On a side note, if Rittenhouse was black he would’ve been shot by the police as he was offering to defend the businesses from looters. Another example of white privilege I suppose.

    1. I agree. If Rittenhouse had done pretty much the same things he did, but had done them on behalf of the BLM protestors – ie, go from Antioch to Kenosha with a powerful weapon, putting himself in harms way in order to defend them from the right wing vigilantes – and had killed two people under essentially the same conditions as he did, he would either have been killed at the scene or convicted of murder. The Right would have never stopped howling for his blood, and the reaction of everyone would be “Self defense? Don’t be stupid. That’s not how self defense works.”

      1. This was exactly how self defense works. The common law right of self defense is older than the United States.

        There are conservatives that have tried to make Rittenhouse to be some kind of hero. I think that’s wrong. But the verdict was correct. It really wasn’t even close. My analysis has nothing to do with my being a conservative. Criminal defendants have the right to a jury of their peers and are entitled to all the rights our Constitution and laws provide, including the right to self defense.

        A lot of people are claiming that Rittenhouse was only acquitted because he was white. I don’t think that is true at all. But I am almost certain that if everything else was the same but Rittenhouse was black, he would not have been acquitted. That’s because he would have never been prosecuted. If the video evidence clearly showed a 17-year-old black kid shooting 3 people while being chased by a hostile crowd of white guys, there would be no prosecution. If Ahmaud Arbery had shot and killed those racist assholes when they chased him down and pointed guns at him, and there was video evidence confirming that was what happened, he would not have been prosecuted. Nor would there have been right wing protestors calling for his prosecution.

        You may think it should have been illegal for a 17-year-old kid to be at that protest armed with an AR-15. But you can only prosecute people for violating laws that are on the books. You can’t prosecute a person for breaking a law you only wish existed. Rittenhouse was incredibly foolish. But under the law he had a right to use deadly force if he reasonably feared he was in danger of being killed or receiving serious bodily injury.

        1. Right. Going 20 miles to inject yourself into a known turbulent situation and taking along a powerful weapon (powerful enough to let you defend yourself against people up to 400 yards away, anyway) is how self defense has always worked. Well, hey, the jury seems to have agreed with you, so who am I to argue?

          Your whole third paragraph shows that you are living a cloud-cuckoo-land of conservative happy talk, in my opinion, but there too, there is no way to prove my point.

          Standing up for the legal (though hopefully not moral) right of Rittenhouse to put himself in harms way and then kill some a couple of people as a result is something I am glad I don’t feel like doing.

          I suppose you are not glad to either. No decent person is glad about this whole mess. Only the lunatic right, that applauds every new descent into violence. And for lunatics, their numbers are frighteninly large. I think you need to be more worried about the threat they pose to America, but once again, that’s just me

          1. In my opinion, based on the evidence presented at trial, Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been prosecuted. I am not alone in believing that the reason he was prosecuted was because of the calls from many on the left to prosecute the “racist white supremacist.” If there was clear video evidence that a 17-year-old black kid was being threatened and then pursued by a hostile crowd, the public outcry from the left would be to not prosecute. Would the lunatic right have then called for prosecution? I don’t see why they would. White or black, if the kid had been trying to protect a business from rioters, I don’t see why they wouldn’t consider him as much of a hero as they did Rittenhouse. Unless, you really believe all those right wingers are racist white supremacists, why wouldn’t they consider this hypothetical black kid a hero?

            Rittenhouse should not have been there. He shouldn’t have had an AR-15. The person who asked him to help protect the business should not have left him alone. But the authorities in Kenosha should never have allowed the protests to get so out of hand that people felt they had to protect the community themselves. Jen Psaki can talk about how we can’t allow vigilantes. But if the police and if necessary the national guard can’t protect a community they are in effect inviting in vigilantes. Just to be clear, I am not condoning vigilantes. But they are a foreseeable result when people feel the government is not protecting them.

          2. Do you think it was possible that Rittenhouse was tried because he killed two people who might not have died if he hadn’t gone to Kenosha, and it was in the public interest to determine if a crime had been committed or not?

            Apparently you know more about the law than I do. I think that often a thing called a “grand jury” is used to determine whether someone should be tried or not. A quick Google search for Kyle Rittenhouse and Grand Jury did not turn up anything. If that proceedure is not used, then I guess the only way for the public to know whether the killing of two members of the public was legal or not was to have a trial. Your opinion is, apparently, not controlling in such cases.

            BTW, I think that your statement that “the authorities in Kenosha…allowed the protests to get so out of hand that people felt they had to protect the community themselves” is what is called a fact not in evidence. I.e., it has not been proved.

            What has been proved, I think, is that there are a frightening number of people like Kyle who are just itching to grab their guns and start “defending” everything in sight when the brown people get uppity. The Rittenhouse verdict says that that is an OK to thing to do.

            I am sad if you are OK with it too. Personally, the only people I am that afraid of are the people like Kyle, or those who delude, frighten, and enrage people like him into wanting to kill the “other”.

            Oh, BTW, to answer your question about a black kid who did the same thing on behalf of the BLM marchers: The right would have called for his trial only as an alternative to his lynching. They would never have stopped. And yes, most of the lunatic right are racists. Dear god, at this late date, are you really that ignorant about who most Trump supporters are? I guess you have to be, if you want to go on being a conservative. What other choice have you got?

          3. The former chief judge of New York’s highest court, Sol Wachtler, once famously said a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Wachtler was once an esteemed alum of my law school. But then as my criminal law professor put it “he lost his fucking mind.” He was himself indicted and went to prison because he had terrorized his former mistress in an attempt to woo her back. But his legal woes didn’t make his ham sandwich any less true.

            You are right Rittenhouse was tried because he shot people. But before the state puts on a criminal trial. it is the job of the prosecutor to 1- determine if they believe a crime was committed and 2 – Examine the evidence to see if they have enough to convict. It was clear from the case they put on that there was not enough evidence to convict because the evidence supported self defense.

            If you read my many comments on this thread, I think I have been clear that I don’t think Rittenhouse should have been there. But there was no law against him being there and the evidence supported self defense. Therefore, the jury was right to acquit.

            If there are people out there that think this verdict gives them the right to go out and shoot people, those people are idiots. The “message” that should be taken from this verdict is that Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty. That is the only message that should be taken from it.

            There are a lot of Republican voters I am not very fond of lately. While I am sure there were racist Trump voters, I don’t think most of them were racists. At least not racist by the traditional definition of the world. A number of people on the left say anyone that wishes a colorblind society is a white supremacist. By that definition I am one. But I have no animosity towards people of color. I used to teach in the South Bronx because I wanted to help kids improve their lives. To be clear, I am not saying our society is colorblind. But I want to live in a country where race is irrelevant,

          4. One other point. Even if you took it as a given that the Rittenhouse acquittal would be taken by some idiots as a license to shoot people, that would not be a reason to convict him. All that a jury should consider is the evidence presented at trial and the judge’s instructions on the law. They should not consider whatever message a verdict will send to society at large or to a deranged minority. All that should matter is the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

          5. You’re right. This is a point that all of the liberal talking heads just ignore. They talk about the horrible message conveyed by the verdict, while ignoring the fact that it seems to be the correct verdict under the Wisconsin law. The statutes seem pretty clear. Exactly what did the liberals want the jury to do? As you noted, the jury is not allowed to consider who may riot after their verdict, or what signals they may send to others. Their job is to determine whether a defendant has broken the law, irrespective of whether they dislike the law itself. Rewriting legislation is not the jury’s job. The people who have been talking about respecting the “rule of law” for the past five years aren’t so keen on the process when they disagree with the results.

          6. My original point was that if Rittenhouse was black and did the exact same thing, which was to travel there with a big gun and defend the businesses from the protestors/looters, he would’ve been shot by the police as he approached them.

            He would’ve never lived to be put on trial for anything. Although he never would’ve killed anyone either because he wouldn’t have gotten that far.

    2. Even if you believe that Rittenhouse would not have been treated fairly if he were black, that is no reason for Rittenhouse to be convicted unfairly. If some people in our society are unfairly treated, the proper response is to begin treating them fairly, NOT to begin treating more people unfairly.

      1. McM, I never said I felt the Rittenhouse verdict was legally incorrect. UncleScoopy agrees it follows the letter of the law, and who am I to argue with him?

        I am surprised that the defintion of self defense can be stretched so far, but given what you say about BLM protestors, which is that sometimes the police and even the National Guard are helpless against them, then I guess your thinking making sense.

        After all, we have to keep American cities from going up in flames from coast to coast the way Trump said they already were when he accepted the GOP nomination in 2016.

        I am sorry the right lives in a constant state of fear about everything except the coronavirus, if for no other reason than that it makes them so trigger happy. Which is the real lesson of the whole Rittenhouse tragedy, and which no “conservative” seems to mention.

        Oh, and I am not really worried about white people being treated unfairly. There are already plenty of people worrying about that already, and exerting every effort to make sure it does not happen. Tucker Carlson, to name but one.

      2. Again, I think your point is 100% correct.

        Of course, all the other guys are correct as well. You are all talking around one another. You are talking about whether he is legally guilty, and they are talking about whether he did a bad thing, or whether society is unfair.

        Rittenhouse did do a bad thing. The case did set a dangerous precedent. Society is unfair to people of color. The Wisconsin statute does allow too much latitude in its definition of self-defense. We should not allow 17-year-old kids to brandish loaded assault rifles in public, or even to own them. Life often sucks.

        All of that is true. But none of that has any bearing on whether the jury made the correct decision.

  9. Rittenhouse won’t have time for defamation suits.
    He’ll be facing civil suits for wrongful death for years to come.
    As he should.

    He had no reason to be there. He created the situation and caused the outcomes. He’s in for a punishing ride in civil court.

    1. He may face civil suits, but they may be hard for the plaintiff’s to win even with a preponderance of the evidence standard. Rosenbaum was pure unadulterated scum. He did 10 years in prison for sodomizing an 11-year-old. That past conduct would likely come in if his family filed a wrongful death suit because it will be argued that Rosenbaum was the aggressor.

      I don’t see how Grosskreutz gets past admitting he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot.

      Huber’s family probably has the strongest case, but he was hitting Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. Self defense, albeit with the lesser standard, works in civil cases as well.

  10. Let me say first of all that Kyle Rittenhouse was in no way a hero. It would probably be unfair to call him an idiot, but it was incredibly stupid of him to have been there.

    But being stupid does not mean you don’t have a right to self defense. The standard is two-fold. Did he actually fear death or serious bodily injury? Was that fear reasonable under the circumstances. In order to convict, the jury would have to find BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the answer to at least one of those questions was no.

    I didn’t watch the trial from gavel to gavel but from what I saw the video evidence did not show Rittenhouse initiate the first confrontation. Rosenbaum had allegedly threatened Rittenhouses life earlier in the evening. Rittenhouse tried to withdraw but was pursued. There was testimony that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse’s gun, but I am not sure of that was shown in a video. I don’t see how you could find beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person wouldn’t fear for their life.

    Perhaps Huber was just trying to make a citizen’s arrest. If he had been charged with assault for repeatedly striking Rittenhouse with his skateboard, that might be a valid defense. But it is Rittenhouse’s state of mind that’s important here. It’s reasonable to infer that a reasonable person would be frightened after defending himself once and would be even more fearful when he was pursued by a hostile crowd. Is there at least a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse feared death or serious bodily harm from the man hitting him with a skateboard while a hostile crowd moved in?

    Grosskreutz admitted Rittenhouse didn’t fire until he pointed a gun at him. That’s not even close.

    Honestly, the evidence seemed so one sided, I seriously wondered if the prosecution wasn’t deliberately trying to provoke a mistrial. The prosecution is NEVER permitted to comment on a defendant exercising their 5th Amendment right to remain silent. That alone could have led to any convictions being overturned. I thought maybe the prosecutors wanted to deflect public anger away from themselves and toward the judge.

    I have no idea what kind of person Rittenhouse is. But I haven’t heard any evidence that would lead me to believe he was a racist or a white supremacist. I have a feeling he will be hiring a civil attorney that will file quite a few defamation suits. I’m not sure he’ll win because he will probably be considered a public figure requiring him to prove that the defendants knew the defamatory statements were false or that they acted with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Then again, he might win. I wonder if he will sue the president for calling him a white supremacist.

    1. I’ve seen a clip of him talking about wanting to get out his AR-15 and take it to a demonstration. I don’t know if you could actually say white supremacist off that but moronic punk is self-evident.

      1. From what I’ve read, Rittenhouse is a highly troubled individual with a massive hero complex. Given the self defense, I don’t know if jail would have been the right place for him, but I think he has obvious mental health issues and any penalty that focused on rehabilitation would have placed him in inpatient psychological counselling.

        I don’t even know that he is a white supremacist by any means, but that he felt embraced by those white supremacists and appreciated them for validating his hero complex.

        Hopefully he has been chastened by some recognition that, far from being a hero, that he placed himself in a situation where he was in completely over his head, and had neither the training nor the skill set to cope, and the result of this was the killing of two people. As has been observed, for all the guns and all the extremists on either side that night, the only person who killed anybody there was Kyle Rittenhouse. (I had thought he was the only person who even fired a gun, but apparently there was at least one other gun shot.)

        With psychological counselling and actual training, the best outcome of this I think would be for Rittenhouse to become either an EMT or a paramedic or some other kind of first responder and to fade into obscurity.

        1. You are so well educated that you also know psychiatry AND can read minds. You never cease to amaze.

          1. Adam, except I’m not and that’s what makes the nonstop insults from you and your intellectual posse amusing.

          2. Well, I don’t want to make this about you, but you are a complete phony and you’ve provided plenty of evidence of that by changing your story about your background multiple times.

        2. I see an over-armed under-brained Mommy’s boy who got in over his head, panicked, and fucked up. Maybe mental but probably more just painfully stupid and in with the out crowd. Blubbered pathetically on command in Court. And of course all this has resulted in several of the less-enlightened luminaries in the House appearing to fight over who can retain his valuable services.
          “Only in America, land of opportunity”. (Man, I hated Jay and the Americans).

        3. Crazy or not, stupid or not, if he’s man enough to wave an automatic around, he’s man enough to go to prison for the near-inevitable result of his actions.

          1. Admittedly, while I didn’t watch the whole trial, if there had been video of Rittenhouse waving his rifle around I am pretty sure I would have seen it. As far as I could tell he never pointed his gun at anyone prior to using it in what the jury found to be self defense. Rittenhouse was old enough to be tried as an adult and to have gone to prison if he had been convicted. But he wasn’t convicted because he didn’t break the law. Should there be a law against 17-year-olds carrying AR-15s around during public protests? I think there should be. But you can only be prosecuted for breaking laws in effect at the time you did whatever it is that you think should have been illegal.

            I don’t know Rittenhouse. But it seems to me that he is a kid that just wanted to help. He had trained as an EMT and wanted to become a nurse. He was asked to help. Did he get some kind of rush out of being there carry a rifle? I think that’s likely. But there is no reason to believe he went there looking to hurt anyone. The video I saw seemed to show he provided first aid to at least one person. I am happy he was acquitted because I don’t believe he deserved to spend the rest of his life in prison.

    2. Next step for conservatives: The right of pre-emptive self defense. I’m sure Kavanaugh and the Mormon lady are up for it.

      1. Who is the Mormon lady? Sonya Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett are Catholic and Elena Kagan is Jewish.

  11. Sounds like you’d like to see your Ex. 2 nudged along a bit.
    Not to mention installing a govt. of obedient non-clever sheep.
    So you clowns have given up on waiting for the resurrection of the reinstating Kennedys, huh?

  12. Hate to see this blubbering militia wannabe get off but it always seemed to me murder was a little tough. Would manslaughter have worked? I have to admit I probably have minimal understanding of the distinction between the two. Mr. Mike?
    Seems to increase the potential for Spartacists vs. Brownshirts type stuff.
    And every time I read about that incident I’m wondering where in the hell was the grown-up telling him “Beat it kid?”

  13. Here is what is going to happen. When the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives after the 2022 election, they will name Donald Trump as the Speaker. The Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a member of that body. Trump will then instruct the Republicans to vote to censure every Democrat, starting with Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi, thus stripping all of them of committee assignments and giving Republicans 100% of the members of every committee. We all look forward to seeing Pelosi and AOC stand in the well as the President/Speaker reads the charges against them, including treason.

    The nomination of President Trump as Speaker will have the additional advantage of making him third in line for the Presidency, just in case …

    Example 1: If the courts were to declare the 2020 presidential election invalid, Biden and Harris would be removed from office and the Speaker of the House would assume the presidency until a new election can be held.

    Example 2: We live in troubled times. If an unforseen violent catastrophe should befall the President and Vice-President, the Speaker of the House becomes President.

    1. Can you explain to me what the end goal of this takeover is? Say you’re 100% right and everything works out the way you say and you get exactly what you want. What happens then? What does this gain you?

    2. I wonder what is worse: That there are people who really believe this stuff, or that there are people who think this coming true would be a good thing.

      How did we get here, where the lunatic fringe is calling the shots on the right? Where the lunatic fringe IS the right? I blame 30-40 years of right wing propaganda by people like Limbaugh, but still. This is an unbelievable place for the US to be from the perspective of my youth.

      1. America was always like this. The internet just makes idiocy travel at light speed. America was the country who acquitted Emmett Till’s murderers and that crime was far more egregious than Rittenhouse’s.

        Back in the 50s you could have racist social conservative wingnuts in both parties. If either party wanted something passed they’ll have to appeal this minority. Now they’ll almost entirely vote GOP after the CRA and VRA.

      2. I can’t wait to see the mental gymnastics that will be done by the right when the Ahmaud Arbery murderers are set free.

        1. I think at least the shooter will be convicted, and I wouldn’t be surprised if all three go to jail. If they jury follows the law, they’ll have to acknowledge that the other two are guilty accomplices.

          1. I agree that you ought to be right, Adam Tondowsky, and yet I am afraid that fwald is.

            Don’t worry, fwald, the right has plenty of highly paid smart guys and just plain fanatics who never stop spewing out hate, fear, and lies. They are very convincing to large numbers of people who are eager to be convinced.

            Those people tend to see gunplay as the ideal way to solve problems, right wrongs, and work out their frustrations. If they start shooting because they are upset about a guilty verdict in the Arbery case, it will be the fault of the left. Somehow. I myself don’t know how, but the right will explain it, just you wait and see.

Comments are closed.